digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Hi-Res Color Pictures from the 1930s and 40s

loc.gov — In the spirit of a previous digg'd post of London in 1949, here are some pics from the Library of Congress of America in the 30s and 40s. Gives you nostalgia about a period way before most (dare I say, ALL?) of us were born...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheBigBrother, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43It's weird because when I try to visualize past events (the 30s and 40s in this case), I would just think of black and white images.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Unless you lived it! This is probably GREAT for our grandmothers and grandfathers!
    • michaelconnor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20It is amazing how much difference a little color can make. Few things have given me so much a sense of connection with my grandparents' generation.
    • surfit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Those photo weirdly make me think of Australia rather than the USA.
    • yonis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If you bring any of these photos into Photoshop and correct the levels, color balance, and saturation, it really breathes a lot more life into the photo. Try it! :-)
    • ronerx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Very cool to see those old pictures in color. But it's a good chance that even the children in those pictures are now dead. Oh! Now I've made myself sad....
    • sych0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9i thought these were hi-res :(
    • jimoase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The person who commented we are probably dead is not speaking for me. I am here and have told the same stories over and over again to prove it.

      Jim
    • Yupp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1If anyone you know wants to see what the world looked like "pre-Starbucks", this is an excellent resource.
    • RawSewage, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0They're not dead. The year 3000 exists now, and theyre looking at pictures of you thinking you're dead. ALL TIMES EXIST simultaneously and eternally. You will always be alive looking at those pictures.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5MAN those were some ugly people!
    • Schda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry to post so high and off-topic to this conversation thread, but if you want the hi-res versions check out: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html It is a bit more of a manual search but has some archival quality resolutions.
    • crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look at the sky:

      http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0053.jpg

      So blue and clean...
  • JED9, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47color wasnt invented yet! the world was black and white until like 50 years ago right?
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -28/+11Not at all. There are color films from WW2 (actual color, not colorized), so *still* images in color would predate that by quite a few years.
    • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44On the contrary. Colour film has existed since the early 1900s, but since the world didn't turn colour until the 50s, what we have is colour photographs of black and white.
    • daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20And most painters were insane and painted with multiple shades of gray so when everything turned color in the '50s their paintings unintentionally turned color as well.
    • HobbesDoo, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5Geez, do a little research before saying stupid things like "color wasn't invented yet". Color photography has been under development since the late 1800's.

      http://www.photo.net/history/timeline
    • Topslakr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I believe JED9 didn't mean color photos.. I think he meant color in general. As in the world was black and white... twas sarcasm...
    • FriscoTony, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@HobbesDoo

      [quote]
      Geez, do a little research before saying stupid things like "color wasn't invented yet".
      [/quote]

      Geez, do a little thinking before posting a comment. Did you catch the part where he said the *world* was black and white? See, it's a joke.
    • jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Lol, this little post has to be a dichotomy of people with educations and those with out.
    • spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7For those totally lost on the conversation, this thread of comments refers to a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in which the young Calvin asks his dad why older photographs weren't in color. The above remarks were his dads response, since his dad didn't know the real reason.
    • fauxpas338, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15What I don't get is that the guy who doesn't seem to get the sarcasm actually has a picture of Hobbes in his profile... and named himself after Hobbes... yet didn't recognize the Calvin and Hobbes reference.
    • malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think the point behind the colour photographs of these times relates more to the way we the viewer percieve and relate to the content contained in the images.

      I know for me personally I find it somewhat difficult to picture the past (even 100 years ago) and what life would have been like, black and white photographs seem to make life the images of the past more depressing or older, colour makes them seem more real, well at least for me, I am able to relate to the image much more easily.
    • XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Why is zybch being dugg down??? He was just saying something, not even an opinion. Jeez.
  • Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Excellent. Fark needs something new for its front page.
    • breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1You're about 6 degades too late.
  • neggbird, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25People today who live like people in those pictures are frowned upon. They would be considered rednecks or hicks. :/
    • nethenm, on 04/01/2008, -10/+11Jesus christ, he was just stating the truth. If you can't take the heat then get the ***** out of the oven.
    • breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@sirspocksalot
      I missed the part where he said he looked at them that way.
    • aks123, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7People are animals too. And animals should be treated as well as people.
    • flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Seeing those pictures has confirmed that good looking people were not invented until the 70s.
    • JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'd say that someone living life as it was seventy years into any societies past would be considered less than desirable by the rest of it. And, to be honest, I'll even go so far as to say I do look down upon a lot of what most of the people shown probably believed in and did. I'd respect anyone today who lived and acted in the manner portrayed here. And I'd respect them for those things they possessed, foremost their humanity and consciousness. But I'm not going to pretend that I wouldn't look down on the religious zealotry, racism, and if we're talking about a modern day encounter, the neo-luditism which such a state would imply.
  • DigitalWorld, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Some of these pictures remind me of some of the Final Fantasy Concept Art, especially when I think of any of the airships and Cid and such.
  • Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0005.jpg

    1c oranges and 'Model smoking tobacco'!
    • kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah and now oranges are over a dollar EACH. Of course standard of living now is a little different but still. That's 100% inflation in just 65 years.

    • boo5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8100%? lol, $.01 to $1 is a bit more than 100%. But we got the point :).
    • Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6check out this inflation calculator:

      http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

      that 5 cent bottle of pepsi in 1942 should be 63 cents in 2005...
    • korteenea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Does that inflation calculator take into account the inflation in consumer gullibility?
    • mintshows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"that 5 cent bottle of pepsi in 1942 should be 63 cents in 2005..."

      Which is about right, considering that those bottles were either 8 or 16 oz bottles, and your average 12oz can still costs between $0.50 - $0.60 cents.
  • eurocrisp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10These are very excellent... Many indirect thanks to the individual responsible for digitally scanning these positives. With very minimal Photoshop work they can be made to look as if they were taken this morning on modern equipment, which really opens up a sort of window into the past, as much as that sounds cliche...
  • kennyGS13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5very interesting to see colour pics of this era
  • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sometimes I forget that things actually had color back then.
  • coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Weirdest thing about this is thinking about how the future will visualize us. We have so many ways to record data that full color pictures of this era will be incredibly prolific. That is unless some massive solar flare knocks out all of our data and electricity.

    In that case we'll just have a bunch of artsy pictures and maybe some old people pictures...since they're really the only people still using film. Man the future will think we're weird.
    • jimoase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How will the future see us? Those pictures fortunately survived time as a version of print. Our photos today are more and more in digital form and the format and media is changing every 3...8 years. I have a DVD like disk made by Phillips that is the size of a dinner plate and nothing around today to read it. I have several 8" floppies with sector marks and nothing to read them. Today the fight is over which format of DVD. In a few years our pictures will be captive on hard drives, CDs and DVDs that no system can access.

      How will the world view us in the future?

      Jim
  • elastikos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They look brilliant. Glad they were posted up.
  • hriwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Great pictures, but they aren't HiRez files.
    • FatherG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Considering these were taken in the 30s and 40s hriwo they /are/ fairly high resolution.
      /LOVED/ the shot the rosie the riveter caught in the reflection of the airframe.
      Dugg. The greatest generation indeed.
    • Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5These are about as high of resolution color photos you'll ever see from that time period. Heck, most of the photos taken back when I was born in 1963 were still black and white. These are some very nice photos from that time period. And also a nice depiction as to how far along we have come as far as a way of life, especially for black people. You'll notice in the photos that the black people were not in any of the pictures with whites, except for the one military photo. I for one am thankful we do not live like this any longer.
    • randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Rosco and FatherG

      There's no such thing as "resolution" for a photograph... you can blow up a single negative to incredible preportions and still maintain perfect clarity. What hriwo meant was that they were scanned in at a low resolution, which is pretty true. I would prefer to see the images up close myself, especially the watering hole ones. A low-res scanned image just can't to it justice.
    • breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@randomc0de

      Ever hear of grain? It's important. Its also pretty dominant in the old style of color photos, as it actually used a starch based color mask.
    • tainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure they've got resolution. It's not pixel resolution, but grain resolution. All the term 'resolution' even refers to is the distance between to objects at which you can actually *tell* that they're two distict objects instead of just one. In this case, most likely, dyed grains of potato starch. See Autochrome.
  • itsmrchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2anyone have the link to the article mentioned of London circa 1949 ? ?
  • festivalman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Amazing photos. What's funny is to see all the commercialism on building facades that existed back then. It's great to see that it's not just a construct of modern society; we've been doing it for 50+ years.
    • tainc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh yeah, definitely. *points at Times Square*
  • AuLKenny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting exhibit, would like to see some more photos of urban centers and development from that time though.
  • gregharmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This guy worked at a carbon black plant:
    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0055.jpg

    Wow. He looks like something back from the dead.

    And these guys are part of an M4 tank crew:
    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0056.jpg

    Check out that incredible body armor. Ouch!
  • DarkWolf0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pretty amazing pictures, I digg!
  • qster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wonderful pictures, they have a lot of life in them.
  • logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looking at those is just very offsetting. I live near chiacgo and I've seen thousands of pictures of old chicago all in black and white. The 5 ones in color are the most striking ones I've ever seen. The only one that beats it is driving east on lake shore drive at midnight crossing the chicago river. The lights rival las vegas from that POV.
  • Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The strange thing looking at photos like this, as though they are brand new to us, is that all the people in the photos are probably long dead or in the eighties or nineties by now! Too bad many of those folks aren't online to see these. But I really appreciate this color window into a previously seen as black and white existence...
  • Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4These photos were taken from an online exhibition from the Library of Congress. Here's a direct link to those and hundreds more like it online: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
  • ZennZero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Napleon Dynamite's grandmother?

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0022.jpg
  • evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I love looking at color pictures from 60+ years ago. It really makes you feel your mortality to think that most of the non-children in these pictures are dead now. I love seeing what life was like back then--how much different yet how similar everything is/was.

    Strangely, one of the photographers creditted inthat collection has the exact same name as my grandfather: Arthur Siegel.
  • Thrashtastic27, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love the picture of Chicago, absolutely fantastic. Makes me wish they had a few of Philadelphia :-
  • Mexrocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4wow, these photos are so... I dont know how to describe it, color really adds something to these pictures and I'm listening to Explosions In The Sky and it just adds a whole new feel to it....
  • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I don't get it, if there were no color camera back then, how do they get these photos?
    • InContrast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Time machine.
    • logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2there were color cameras but they were hard to get and expensive. The media didn't use them because well color movies didn't come around till afte rthe war and color printing was also expensive and not worth it for the newspapers.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0031.jpg

    Wow a white person picking peaches, I thought they were too good for that.
  • RawSewage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Technicolor. You take 3 black and white exposures at once, each through a different color filter. RBG.
    • tainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Except Technicolor was (and is) a specific company that dealt (deals) with reel film, not still image film. These were most likely done by autochrome.
    • RawSewage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, I realized that after I posted
  • RawSewage, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1By the way, theyre not dead, you idiots. Theyre just as alive as you are. All times exist simultaneously and eternally.
  • Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I love stuff like this. Thanks.
  • hazard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6In the spirit of a previous digg'd post, here is the same post 240 days later! Does anyone check to see previously posted sites? Dupetastic post!

    http://www.digg.com/tech_news/America_in_COLOR_1939-1943_-_Real_Color_Pictures_
  • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Y'all come back now, ya hear?
  • optikalblitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it's really incredible.. it makes this time period seem like much more than just words or grainy indescernable photographs in a history text book. just awesome.
  • lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1this is pretty cool stuff.
  • DoTheFandango, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0063.jpg
    I didn't know Hitler worked on the US railroads.
  • monological, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great pictures, thank you. I think the people that took the pictures probably walked ten miles in the snow uphill both directions to snap such good photos (snap in the ten minute exposure sense). All worth a look
  • draggy73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's also some very nice , very old color pictures from the Russian empire as far back as 1905!

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

    The pictures are breathtaking
  • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So has anyone been through "PIE TOWN" NM ?
  • dexOtaku, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Um. Since when is 1Mp high-resolution? These make great 5*3s at 1600*1200
  • lsdeath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Gotta love the "Buy War Bonds" poster in the school
  • rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Man, the '40s had some ugly ones.

    Yeah, I'm an *****.
    • Grandpa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Our time has its ugly ones as well, you just don't see their pictures posted on the Internet - if you know what I mean ;)
  • Grandpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is really cool. It really helps to imagine yourself actually being there, instead of just thinking of that time and those people as being just a part of history.

    I also can't help but imagine what it would be like to see photos like this of people before there even was photography, such as in the Middle Ages or Ancient Rome - now that would be trippy.
  • ronabop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love how many americans in the pictures are fat, sedentary, paper-pushing morons, thus proving that we havn't failed our fore fathers by choosing self-indulgent luxury over the common good.
    • Lowtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2amen bratha, I sit here with my pc and self-indulging on technology, fat as ever. We don't know what an honest days work is. As we bitch about our hand outs, higher wages and people south of the boarder picking our gardens, cheaning our houses because our kids are too cool for that! kind of sad really, these pic put it in perspective.
  • caspy7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These are great pictures. I love pictures that look like they could tell a story or at least the beginning of one.
    The picture of the boy and girl on the sixth row, for instance, has me captured. They look like play partners, perhaps neighbors. Judging from the looks of her legs and feet I'll bet she liked to explore - barefoot. Tough feet those. Think that plane flew?

    The children on the second row make me smile. You can see the girl's mother made their dresses for them (from the same material).

    The single black boy in the middle of the page is probably in his mid sixties today. I'd be rather interested in having a conversation with him.
  • bigvics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe there was a link on BOINGBOING about a year ago that featured these pictures along with many many more on another website, too bad I cant remember it.
  • lochness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2

    "If you bring any of these photos into Photoshop and correct the levels, color balance, and saturation, it really breathes a lot more life into the photo. Try it! :-)"

    Absolutely. Really worth doing. I just tried a couple and WOW. Really brings them back to life.

    Great find...
  • V3ROCITY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Apparently muaddib420 has no idea what the phrase "Hi-res" means. All of the photos I viewed were 640x480 or less. Oh wait, maybe that's hi-res if you're working on a 386. No Digg.
  • Mike325, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I sent this picture to my father and it triggered a long forgotten memory of my grandparents taking him to London in 1950. He was amazed back then by Piccadilly Circus.

    Massive Diggs for this find.
  • theMcPatriot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Very much not Hi-Rez. Marked innaccurate.

    Nice find though, otherwise.
  • m3rcenary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Where da ho's at
    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0036.jpg

    I wonder if those were quality "broads" back then :p
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.