The best pictures you've seen.

[ExAm]

Bumpin dis

[Reaper Man]

This is a color photograph. Taken in 1915.

Meh, color photography has been around since the 1860's. Also, that photo was taken in 1912.

Wow! That's awesome. It would suck back then though, because with those cameras, you had to sit there for a good 5 mins until it captured it, then you would spend another 15 mins getting it to come out right

No, that was back in the days of nonsilver processes.

Yup. Notice the water's all blurred because of the exposure time.

The exposure time required was obviously more than is nowadays, but, judging from the amount of blurriness of the water, I'd give that shot 10-30 seconds; a minute tops. One cannot sit perfectly still for much longer. If he did, he probably would need a brace, as they did in older times.

Also, I reckon that the film sensitivity wasn't the issue with the exposure time, it was the tiny aperture required to get a large depth of field with a large format camera, which that photo was quite likely taken with.

Here's the first permanent color photograph, taken in 1861


Anyway, speaking of old photography/photographers, here's one of the iconic photos, taken by Henri Cartier Bresson, one of my photographic heroes.

[Rob Oplawar]

That reminds me of a book I found at a garage sale some years back:




The book's dust jacket:



It's full of articles and illustrations such as this. Lots of really unique spacecraft. It's one of my favorite books on my bookshelves.

(published in 1978)

[rossmum]

I knew colour photos had been around for a long time, but I didn't know it was that long. Guessing that either cost of film or the development process were the reason it didn't really get big until the 50s and 60s?

[Pooky]

Wow.

Don't argue with Dane about art, Snaf about guns, or apparently Reaper about photography.

[Reaper Man]

I knew colour photos had been around for a long time, but I didn't know it was that long. Guessing that either cost of film or the development process were the reason it didn't really get big until the 50s and 60s?

That and the ethos that only real art photographers shot in black and white . Color photographs were considered to be suited only to advertising and the amateur snapshot.

Oh, and color film was (initially) much lower sensitivity than black and white.

[rossmum]

That and the ethos that only real art photographers shot in black and white . Color photographs were considered to be suited only to advertising and the amateur snapshot.

Oh, and color film was (initially) much lower sensitivity than black and white.

Yeah, the practicality and expense thing explains why true colour WWII footage or photos are rare. I see a lot of recoloured stuff passed off as original, but can usually tell having either seen the actual B&W clip, knowing some of the colours are off (if you see Germans in pure grey, it's a dead giveaway - Feldgrau is basically a desaturated green, almost turquoise), or if the colour depth just seems wrong. The real stuff tends to be rather desaturated and leans towards the blue side of things, from what I've seen.

[ExAm]

Click it fo' da full sizzle

[rossmum]

This is an edited Il-2 screen:



Is there anything the Il-2 community doesn't own at? Christ...

[Alwin Roth]

Google image search "a dreamy world" they have some neat pictures.
sorry for the size, it wont let me shrink it.