From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: LOC trucking photo
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:03:55 -0500
Message-ID: <2to2q31okqaf1tkspd9jasco90ftu41kd7@4ax.com>

Not terribly RV-related but interesting nonetheless.

There are several (former) truck drivers on this group, including me, so I thought
that this Library of Congress photo would be of interest.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2179185544&size=o

That's fascinating to me.  The dock itself doesn't look all that much different from
many docks today but the trailers....

I'm loving these old Kodachrome slides with their high color fidelity.  In this one,
for instance, it reminds me that they DID use rust-red paint on almost everything
back then.  And look at the gold leaf lettering on the trailer fronts.  Even finding
someone today who knows how to do that is a chore.

While we're at it, here's another one.  A skyline shot of Chicago showing the rail
yard and the PBR neon spectacular in the background.  For folks like me who are into
signs and neon, that one is legendary.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2178421673&size=o

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: LOC trucking photo
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:30:28 -0500
Message-ID: <lv35q3pu4vaame36tl1df7kus69kp1ik2d@4ax.com>

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:00:51 -0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:

>In article <0j14q3pe0etb5sm49lh8fgn10ru2qab1a9@4ax.com>,
> <hchickpea@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:03:55 -0500, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm loving these old Kodachrome slides with their high color fidelity.
>>>In this one, for instance, it reminds me that they DID use rust-red
>>>paint on almost everything back then.
>>
>>Nit pick point- the film is positive sheet film.  You can tell by the
>>notches in it, which are used to guide photographers having to handle
>>it in the absolute darkness required for loading it into holders and
>>developing it.  Interesting photos, though.
>
>You're _both_ right.
>
>Those are _unmounted_  4"x5" Kodachrome cut-sheet film positives for
>large-format slides.

No it's not.  First off, Kodachrome isn't a "positive film", it's a slide
transparency film.  Second, the image in question is a scan of a mounted lantern
slide.  I'm quite familiar with the beast, as I have the literally thousands of
slides that make up my dad's post-war professional work.  If you download the full
res image here http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/fsac/1a34000/1a34600/1a34619u.tif
(134mb TIF) you can clearly see the black tape around the edges used to assemble the
sandwich of slide film and glass sheets.

For all the slides that I've looked at in detail in this collection, they are either
lantern slides or glass plates (black and white mostly).

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: LOC trucking photo
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:53:47 -0500
Message-ID: <04i7q3lrp6tl4map5uvulumotr45tcn92p@4ax.com>

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:06:33 -0600, "S. Barker" <ichasetrains@coldmail.com> wrote:

>I'll just jump in here long enough to tell you that Kodachrome is not and
>was not a 'positive' or 'direct positive' film.  You are wrong on that part.
>Kodachrome was reversed by a very complicated process of exposing it to
>three different color of light during the process.  This is why YOU nor I
>ever processed kodachrome at home.  It couldn't be done.  John was and is
>very accurate on everything he said about Kodachrome film.  It was and
>remains the finest film ever available.
>

Hard headed ignorant cuss, isn't he?  You'd think he'd quit after being wrong the
first time.

I continue to use, as I have since grammar school when dad started me on my
photographic career, my Speed Graphic press camera and my Kodak Medalist II, perhaps
the finest camera of that era.  I would discuss my homemade 8X10 view camera but that
would be rubbing salt in a wound.

I wonder when, if ever, there will be anything digital or analog that rivals
Kodachrome for its color fidelity and longevity.  If only it had more latitude.
That's my only complaint.  If you look at some of the other photos in the LOC
collection, especially factory shots, you'll see the subject lit perfectly while
everything else falls to black.  Lesser films and digital would pull that detail out
of the mud.  Of course, lesser films would be cyan messes now and digital, who knows?
Probably off in that big graveyard somewhere.

I shoot mostly digital now but I keep my feet in the analog world because I miss the
time when taking a photograph was an EVENT.  You knew that when you pulled the
trigger, several dollars were being spent and that you probably wouldn't have an
opportunity for a repeat and so you took the greatest of care in the setup and
framing and exposure.

Not criticizing digital, of course.  Blazing away on "motor drive" and usually
getting an outstanding shot out of the mix is certainly a valid method and one I use
when appropriate.  I'm just reminiscing.

BTW, speaking of the LOC collection, consider this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2179212776/sizes/o/

This is a night-time lit-up shot of that PBR spectacular that I posted earlier.  Now
take a close look at the minute hand on the clock.  Blurred.  For 5 minutes.  That
was a 5 minute exposure.  Given Kodachrome's famous lack of latitude and reciprocity
failure, this guy had to be one damned fine photographer to nail the exposure
perfectly.  Wow!

BTW, it's a trip to download the original TIFF scan of either of these (click on the
link below the photo, scroll down and click the "persistent link".  Then click the
photo to go to the high res page.)  100mb in the first instance.

It's a trip to look at the details in the photo.  It makes you really appreciate what
those old camera lenses and Kodachrome can do.  I can see people walking on the
bridge in the background.  I can see people in the windows of the buildings behind
the sign.  I can see some broken windows that have been boarded up in one of the
skyscrapers.  I can see the hairs on the head of the railroad guy.  I can see the
individual rivets on the cars and the light bulbs on the PBR sign.  Remarkable.



John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: LOC trucking photo
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:44:55 -0500
Message-ID: <p3b4q31i5gl6l4rh4g8nuhtjjb55abmg0m@4ax.com>

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:02:48 -0500, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:03:55 -0500, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm loving these old Kodachrome slides with their high color fidelity.  In this one,
>>for instance, it reminds me that they DID use rust-red paint on almost everything
>>back then.
>
>Nit pick point- the film is positive sheet film.  You can tell by the
>notches in it, which are used to guide photographers having to handle
>it in the absolute darkness required for loading it into holders and
>developing it.  Interesting photos, though.

Actually, you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.  To everyone else,
pardon my harsh tone but this kind of crap is what discourages people from
contributing anything of substance.  I'm fed up to my gills with this kind of
chickehshit on Usenet, particularly in this group.

Your first clue would have been to go back to the root page for the photograph.  The
url is at the bottom of the page I referenced.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2179185544/

You'll note where it says "Format:  Transparencies--Color" and "1942 Dec.".  That's
all you really needed to know.

But!  You were too lazy to look because you were in a hurry to nitpick and you
thought you knew something about notch codes.  You don't.  Kodak was anything but
consistent with their use of notch codes.  Worse, they reused them for different
types of film over the years.  ONLY if you knew the year of manufacture could you be
fairly certain of knowing what a particular notch code meant.  All you really know
without more information is that the notch code helps orient the film in the holder
and locate the emulsion side.

For the time period in question, 1942, that notch code represented Film code 6137,
Kodachrome Daylight.  If you'd bothered to do something as trivial as googling before
you posted, you'd have found this document.

http://library.louisville.edu/library/ekstrom/special/AcetateNegativeSurvey.pdf

This is probably the most comprehensive documents regarding notch codes on the net.
Every other place I looked points back to it.  You'll notice that in Appendix B, it
lists literally hundreds of emulsions that used and reused about 100 notch codes.
Even the authors of this list don't consider it comprehensive.  BTW, the code for the
slide in question is #14C.  I didn't particularly need that document, as I have my
father's 1945 Kodak Photography Handbook but the PDF is easier to reference here.

When we get right down to it, nothing more was needed other than the Library of
Congress's notation about it being a 1942 transparency.  That narrows it down to
Kodachrome.  The LOC, after all, does know what it's doing in this area, certainly
more than some dip hiding behind a nym.

Oh, and for anyone keeping track, Wikipedia blew it again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notch_code

I wonder if the Wikipedians ever heard of Google?

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
Subject: Re: LOC trucking photo
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:57:03 -0500
Message-ID: <bcj7q31nvfj23gaf0s7oa1biujogggqedj@4ax.com>

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:08:10 GMT, "Nate" <nsaptaemcscpnanm@nsvpbaemll.net> wrote:


>You can sign up and edit it yourself if they don't.  That's what makes wiki
>neat, and dangerous.

And get in a pissing contest with the wikipedian cabal?  Not a chance.  Besided, I
don't want my name associated with something of that quality.  I did leave an
anonymous comment with a pointer to the correct information.  It will be interesting
to see what happens.

John