digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Stunning High Res Photo of San Francisco After 1906 Earthquke.

upload.wikimedia.org — High resolution picture of the aftermath of the tragic 1906 earthquake.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DrMatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+171That's wild. Before the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges were built! You can also see square grid pattern of streets the architects used. Trivia: The reason SF has streets going straight up hills (making driving a manual car a bit difficult), is that the city planner didn't see the topographical map of the city, so he/she just laid out a standard grid pattern for the city streets.
    • InSeverance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+55One of the most amazing photos ever taken.

      Obviously not contextually, a terrible disaster - but it captures the magnitude of the disaster very well, especially looking down the main road/avenue in the middle of the picture.
    • Cobainy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+72You are correct sir, which is also how the steepest street in existence came to be

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Street,_Dunedin
    • EndersGame, on 10/11/2007, -46/+13I can't really make out that much damage, but this is one amazing picture. Its cool to see what San Francisco looked like back then, I am trying to find current places of interest in the old photo. It would be even cooler to have a side by side comparison or something.
    • KanedaMGM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+43Endersgame-
      You can't see much damage?? Over half the city is rubble. As for a point of reference the center of the image is Market street.
    • 4UIDigg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Yes, the building ruins can be seen if zoomed in, especially around the Market St area.
    • scottylist, on 10/11/2007, -51/+201906 and "High-Res" is an OxyMoron.
    • CoreBurn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+38Make sure your viewing the image full size and not letting your browser rescale it for you.
    • stukdog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33Here is a nice flickr set of some photos taken right after the earthquake. For a while, cameras were not allowed on the peninsula, but this photographer got in and took some great shots.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/stucki/sets/72057594120244683/
    • mdhauke, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17damn, I wish I could go back in time and buy some of those open patches of real estate!
    • Haphazardness, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Spectacular!
    • LovingDigg, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8Dude! I'm so gonna set this as my wallpaper on my 7000 x 2748 LCD screen.... crap....
      ***Note to self.. invent a 7000 x 2748 LCD screen**
    • Ngai, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4amazing...this is a relic...

    • SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2Oh, please. You people are SHEEP for buying what the MSM says about this.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg
      That's Hiroshima. Look familiar?
    • GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+38@scottylist, "1906 and "High-Res" is an OxyMoron."

      As someone who only shoots digital, currently with a Nikon D80, film is a better investment. You can get a 8 x 10" large format camera, and every time a new scanner comes out, your "megapixels" will also be bumped up, on all the photos you've ever taken (and kept the negatives of). That's the beauty of it. There is just so much detail captured on large format cameras, modern cameras simply have no comparison. A 35mm camera shoots at ~20 megapixels, depending on the scanner you use. Large format cameras will start to look muddy at a personal estimate of ~400 megapixels, and we're no where near that with either scanners or digital (hand held) cameras.

      Keep in mind, the most megapixels you'll find on a "prosumer" dSLR is about 16.0, and that's a the very high end.

      There's just no comparison between the two. Today's CCD and CMOS sensors are a maximum of about 16 x 24 mm, larger for specialty uses. How can you believe a 16 x 24 mm device is higher quality than a 800 x 1000 mm device?

      Film > Digital, in terms of quality / resolution / sharpness. Digital's only redeeming factor is ease-of-use. Scanning a 35mm negative from a $100 film camera on a $4900 scanner will give better results than a digital image from a $5000 digital camera.

      This comment was way too long, but I hope it helped.
    • Misogyny, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Gawtmilk,

      I wouldn't call film a better "investment" unless you're talking from a strictly "bits of data to work with later" viewpoint. I shoot with a D200 which runs just under 10MP and with a decent lens and good technique (both when shooting and in post) you can produce quality prints in the 16x24 inch range. If I did serious studio work, I'd probably still use digital and go with one of Kodak's 30MP digibacks that work with 6cm Hassys and Mamiyas. If that still wasn't enough there are scan-backs for 4x5 and 8x10 inch view cameras that go into the 100s of MPs but these are for still shots only. I can't imagine shooting film on a 8x10 inch view camera, developing it, having it drum scanned, and sent back on a CD, for a total cost of what I would guess is about 20-50 bucks a pop not to mention the week long turnaround time if you're out in the sticks. My last system was a Leica M6, shooting Fuji Velvia and scanning on a Nikon LS-2000 film scanner. I don't know about you, but at 2400x3600 pix of res I could see film grain, and this was with an ISO 40 film. I still do shoot film occasionally, but then I also use hand built tube amps for my guitar and turntable so what can I say...

      P.S. 8x10 inch format would be about 200x250mm not 800x1000mm.
    • trashcat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1@gawtmilk
      Well said.

      @mysogyny
      I didn't even read your reply - you and many other people here need to learn how to write, especially regarding paragraphing.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4misogny, somedigger5

      The whole point of Digital is ridiculously short turnarounds. Even my old E-500 can shoot in studio mode, where you just plug the camera in to a computer with a USB cable and images are saved directly on the PC's hard disks. THAT is the advantage of digital.

      However, it's not what the point of my post is. The point of my post is, any photographer knows that large format cameras are THE way to go for image quality. Sure, you can use $50,000 Hasselblads that are the size of a small vehicle, but even then the quality maxes out at around ~110 megapixels. Scanners are getting better and better, and you're going to be able to scan the magnificent detail of a large format negative for years and years. Scanners will always be higher quality than tiny CMOS or CCD sensors, that's a given.

      Digital has many disadvantages, but they're all about image quality. I cannot think of a single thing I like more about film cameras that doesn't relate to the visual appeal...highlights aren't burned out, shadows retain detail, much better for crops and enlargements due to the sharpness...you can go on ebay, get a used 8 x 10" camera and lens for under $400, and the quality will be superb. Better than a Hasselblad. The reason people use Hasselblads is because it's just so much easier -- no processing, immedeate review, quick turnarounds, etc.

      "the quality might not be as good but its a fraction of the price"

      No. Quality-to-price, film's got digital beat. Scan any 35mm Velvia negative, and it'll look as good as a similar Nikon D200 shot. However, step up to medium and large formats, and film goes way beyond Digital in terms of quality. The only difference is that film cameras sell for about $200 retail, whilst dSLRs sell for about $1000 retail.

      I repeat. The *only* thing that's good about digital photography is the ease of use and the quick turnarounds. You can get an image to your editor within seconds, if you've got a satelite transmitter for when you're on the road or at a sports game, doing photojournalism.

      And finally, x-rays no longer damage film. Both the x-ray machines and the film have been changed to prevent this. I shoot digital 99.9% of the time, but I know some hardcore film guys who've shot thousands of dollars of 35mm, medium and large format film. None of them have ever lost anything, except for the occasional light leak. Even in the case of image security, film wins. I've had two different 4GB CF's that have been ruined by fault card readers, or have been corrupted half way through a shoot. ***** happens. On the other hand, you cannot just accidentally drop a roll of film and lose every image on it. They're sturdy little cases...
    • Misogyny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"No. Quality-to-price, film's got digital beat. Scan any 35mm Velvia negative, and it'll look as good as a similar Nikon D200 shot. However, step up to medium and large formats, and film goes way beyond Digital in terms of quality. The only difference is that film cameras sell for about $200 retail, whilst dSLRs sell for about $1000 retail."

      You seem to keep forgetting the ongoing cost of the film and processing, which for any professional photographer is much higher than the initial cost of the equipment. You also discount the cost of a film scanner (thousands) and or the per shot cost of a drum scan. Over time that significantly changes your value ratio.



      "I repeat. The *only* thing that's good about digital photography is the ease of use and the quick turnarounds. You can get an image to your editor within seconds, if you've got a satelite transmitter for when you're on the road or at a sports game, doing photojournalism."

      It's not the *only* thing for the exact reason I mentioned above. Virtually zero cost of consumables. That is a HUGE consideration and it's odd you ignore it.

      @ trashcat

      Sorry. I'll endeavor to bring my writing skill up to a more acceptable level.
  • Kadeem, on 10/11/2007, -5/+104Amazing how a camera from 1906 captured so much detail
    • Aeaus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37Ultra High Resolution cameras are nothing new, but they're limited to a lower process due to their size, and that they don't work well as digital (sensor resolutions aren't high enough). That said, this is one damn incredible shot.
    • aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+30kadeem-
      Judging by the cracks in the picture, I'd guess that this picture was taken with emulsion on a glass plate, probably still wet. The frame was probably 16-22 inches wide, so that would make it 6-8 inches tall. That gives us between 96 and 176 square inches of photographic medium. With that kind of real estate, you're not going to be limited in resolution by your film, but by your lens. Check eBay for turn-of-the-century large format lenses. They don't cost a lot just because they're collector's items.
    • benijuana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25with or without the earthquake devastation, its amazing to see how the area looked 100 years ago.

      and imagine the rent back then...
    • thepaulm, on 10/11/2007, -16/+4Traffic must have really sucked the next day after both the bridges fell down. Glad they got that taken care of.
    • lornox5, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2following aldenhg--
      Certainly. High res my ass; between a good emulsion and a tight aperture in the optics, we could be designing digital systems to rescan this image at higher resolutions and contrast fidelity for decades still.
    • BreadLine, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I agree that is some powerful stuff. Imagine if the latest cameras today would capture a similar scene.
  • scatfly, on 10/11/2007, -10/+38how did they get 2000 ft up?
  • withoutashovel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15nothing looks wrong.. *clicks on picture*.. oh, i take that back. that truly is amazing detail
  • tuckerleary, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4thats absolute amazing.
  • Vexxer91, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2I was going to post this but I saw it through reddit about 8 hours ago and thought people might notice >.
  • chicken101, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Holy *****.

    DIgg!
  • Firemeboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10You can see a lot of tents set up. I wonder if that was for folks without homes, or folks trying to clean things up. Great pic.
  • CRG000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20The most famous KAP photo ever (KAP is Kite Aerial Photography)
    • boituma, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Oh thanks! For a while I didn't know where they had taken this from, and my best guess was Yerba Buena island.
  • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1I wanna know more about how they took that picture in 1906.
  • lavitus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Is there a modern equivalent? It would make a nice side by side comparison to 100 years ago.
  • ijustam, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Finally, a desktop wallpaper that I don't have to stretch to match my resolution!
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+47You have a 7000x2748 monitor?
    • ijustam, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4I wish! 2880x900 and finding a decent wallpaper that will fit to ultra-widescreen is a pain in the ass; Gnome doesn't support dual-wallpapers ;(
    • patch6, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6try merging two wallpapers in a graphics program
  • mre5765, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11It is interesting how many high rise buildings did *not* collapse.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Holy *****. You weren't kidding about it being high resolution..
  • firedrillduckie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20That's an amazing picture.

    I'm not gonna lie, it was worth my browser crashing.
  • AMSRay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Near the bottom of the photo there are two ferries docked. These were used to evacuate the citizens during the fire. I believe one of these is on display in San Diego at the museum in the harbor.
  • datagod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Google Earth in 1906 relied heavily on "Captive Airships" for their photos.

    That either means blimps or aliens ships...not sure yet...
    • rald84, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1i wasn't aware google was around a century ago ...
    • aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8And the not getting the joke award goes to rald84! Congratulations! You get a lifetime's supply of get a clue!
  • WayneOfSpades, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35Buried as century old news.

    /sarcasm

    Otherwise, that is one impressive shot.
  • djphatjive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Sometimes is amazes me how they did stuff back then. I would have never guessed a kite.
  • swavalier711, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2looks apocalypse-related.

    Like one of those graphic design pictures of cities that are completely devastated and ruled by machines and stuff.
  • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -2/+3I wish the high res photographer had taken a picture of the time machine he used to get there as well.
  • GlobalChanges, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Wait! Is that a Starbucks down there?! And what are those two guys doing on the roof?!
  • NRX22, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Wow, that's crazy.
  • macabeedorman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0http://static.flickr.com/46/126685619_cff92542b5.jpg
  • rabidjade, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Dugg, great photo and amazing for it's time.
    • Tanyanika, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Amazing in our time too: I notice in the link cometador posted, a professional photographer's modern day recreation didn't seem to pull it off half so well.
  • Gold257, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Just Awesome... Incredible res, Great angle... Now if it hadn't been taken just after a horrible tragedy, everything would be dandy.
  • Hawk2007, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4God, I can't believe Bush let that happen. He's such an idiot!!!
  • darkhero, on 10/11/2007, -48/+2It would be cool if it happened again. Hopefully it will kill all the fags there and leave the other people along.
  • IslandPirate, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0I wonder how much the local inhabitants relied on FEMA to "help" them recover... or blamed the Teddy because the federal gov't didn't pick up the bill for the rest of thier lives. (sarcasm)
  • kernokerno, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4is "Stunning" the new "Awesome", "Amazing"?
  • cometador, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5On recreating George Lawrence’s kite aerial photograph one hundred years later:
    http://www.drachen.org/special_events_earthquake.html
  • qwerty1263, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1A man truly of great ingenuity.
  • reboare, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The kites are a type called French Military. Larger ones supported one daring soul during WWI for troop movement. I used to own a 4 foot version and it is the only damn kite that gave me a nice twine burn on my hands!! Yeowch!

    As an aside, studying the journals of the people who went through this quake is fascinating.

    http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/ew.html
  • reboare, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2man flying under this type of kite:

    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze26db3/images/perkinsystem.jpg
  • RickBreslin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Tragic, but the photo is super.
  • vudicarus, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I wonder if the gays, lesbians, aclu, people for the american way were responsible for this disaster as well.
  • darny, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6sorry for the lame comment, but this is awesome. this deserves more than a digg.

    digg me down if you gotta.
  • egoviri, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8am I the only one who really wants to go play SimCity now?
  • stakepie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0uyuy7
  • bigern75, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3http://www.ronkleinphotos.com/success.html
    Old and new!
  • bryanc1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I wanna see a before (currently this pic) and after...Now, shot.
  • dorkino, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Did this remind anyone else of Sim City?
  • trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Maybe it's just me but in the photo it didn't look that tragic. Just looked like a gloomy black and white shot, the gloom probably conceived by my mind because i knew what I was looking at. Shown to someone who had no idea what they were looking at I'm not sure they would have guessed "Earthquake"
    • kevincannon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you zoom in fully, you can quite clearly see the destruction.
  • tybris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Reminds me of that other city down south that is still rotting away, what's it's name again?
  • intilli4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4WOW, Amazing how a community can pull together and create and even more powerful city.
  • Ahmad992, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0There is another more devastating quake that will hit San Francisco this year, 100 years after the 1906 quake because of transgression. Check the prophecy here: http://www.usn2161.net/
    • andrewtayloruk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Surely 100 years after 1906 is 2006? Or do prophet calendars have a leap-year or something?
  • ivanomak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Very powerful photo. Makes you think what the city will look like if another one hit of that magnitude. There is a reason why I'm living in San Jose.
  • ghm101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Emergency response in 1905 for San Francisco was so much more effective than that for New Orleans with Katrina.

  • xlar54, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Totally useless comment...but San Francisco is one of the coolest cities I have ever seen. The city is just amazing. If you ever get a chance to go, dont hesitate. Dont bother bringing a camera. There are no pictures you could take that would do it justice.
  • ZeRux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If I ever end up living in San Franscisco, I think I'll live on a boat!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 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.