Vintage Films from the early '40s still made today

I'm similarly perplexed Kelly. I forget whether or not it was available in roll film, but I know

for certain that it was around in '47 in sheet film. Of course, it isn't the same as what they

have today. I think for some reason it was only rated at 200 then, and that is after the war,

when speeds of films supposedly dropped because there was some short of silver rationing

for the military. I also know that Kodachrome was restricted to military usage during the war

as well. I'd probably be content with B&W since I'm sure teh price of a roll of Kodachrome

would have been astronomical in '41. The navy was not using 35mm for anything other than

movies, ID pictures, and Kodachrome (due to cost) as of '47, so I'm sure things were similar

before the start.

I think your cause is noble and I think it's very cool. You should definitely do it. Doing as much as possible with period materials is an interesting angle. I look forward to seeing the results.

The "bleeding-heart liberal" comment was a little much, though. I don't know why it gets thrown around as an insult so much, especially between the Rio Grande and the 49th parallel. In Canada, the Liberals are a centrist party; the Democrats are right of centre. In any event, if I am a bleeding-heart liberal I wear the badge proudly. War is horrible and should be avoided whenever possible.

Anyway, sorry for the rant - I abhor when that phrase is tossed as an insult. I think your photographic ideas here are extremely cool and if I lived physically closer, I'd risk coming to show you that liberals are good! Really, can a guy who has as much cool camera stuff as I have be bad? :)

I think there are a lot of connotations and denotations associated with words like "conservative" and "liberal". Obviously, north of the border, liberal means something very very different than conservative. I don't think anyone is really all one or all the other. To me, "bleeding-heart liberals" are those that blindly support any change, bad or good. A photographic equivalent of this would be someone that blindly embraced earlier digital cameras solely because they were "new" and "different". I think blind devotion to change, along with a blind devotion to "justice" no matter how badly that that change interferes with the status quo, is a bad thing. For instance, a lot of liberals here accuse me of being an anti-semite for condemning the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. They forget that years ago Britain, the US, and other western countries basically came to Palestine and told those who had been living there for 1000 years, that they had to get out and give to land to the new state of Israel. No wonder the entire Arab world wants Israel gone (although I don't approve of their terrorism either)! Now, with that in mind, I do not have a problem with gay unions, civil rights, affirmative action, or even nationalized healthcare and environmental reform, but if any of those things are done in such a way to upset our society, displace businesses, cause more money to leave the country, then they have to be done slowly enough so as to minimize damage. I guess I am a conservative with some liberal leanings in terms of environment and societal causes.

Regards,

~Karl

Dan... With all due respect, get off your damn high horse and cut the people that are trying to honor WWII vets some slack. Heaven knows there are precious few people that seem to remember our history anymore.

Probably about time to drop off your camera gear at a scrap metal drive, and give up the wasteful hobby of photography.

Belated comments (that no one will probably ever read!):

<blockquote><hr><i>

It never ceases to amaze that with all the real time tragedy going on in the world today anyone would wish to re-enact an outrage that occurred more than a half century ago! It would have been ridiculous to re-enact the battle of Gettysburg while WW2 was demanding all our nation's resources, and equally so to re-enact WW2 events while WW3 is in its beginnings. Rather we should focus all resources attempting to solve current problems that can and may destroy civilization as we know it - - - Get real!

</i><hr></blockquote>

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."<br>

--George Santayana

<blockquote><hr><i>

I think for some reason it was only rated at 200 then, and that is after the war, when speeds of films supposedly dropped because there was some short of silver rationing for the military.

</i><hr></blockquote>

Nope. B&W film speeds were basically doubled across the board, it was in either '59 or '60 (I forget which year, it's been a while). No changes were made to the emulsions. The powers that be decided that there was enough of a "safety factor" (in terms of sufficient exposure) due to more accurate equipment and so forth, to allow the use of one stop less exposure. To this day, many folks continue to use the old speeds, which is to say they give one stop "overexposure" (set the meter to half of the "official" film speed), and perhaps 10 to 20 percent less development. This gives richer images with much smoother gradation, resulting in pictures that will sometimes look like they were shot on a larger format than actually used.

<blockquote><hr><i>

Britain, the US, and other western countries basically came to Palestine and told those who had been living there for 1000 years, that they had to get out and give to land to the new state of Israel. No wonder the entire Arab world wants Israel gone

</i><hr></blockquote>

A bit of a highly-charged overly-simplified and less than accurate explanation (and one that has more than a few echoes of cold-war agitprop as its origin).

<p>

It's apparently easy to forget who it was that lived there for SEVERAL thousand years prior to the folks you reference above. I mean, c'mon, think about it -- <i>Bethlehem</I> is a "Palestinian" town? (And that's just one of several examples.)

<p>

Then too, it's apparently easy to forget that the Jews <I>bought</I> land from the Arabs, who chose to <I>sell</I> it. And, as to the generally proferred trump card, the "refugees", it's also apparently easy to forget that the REASON they <i>became</i> "refugees" was because the surrounding Arab nations <I>told</I> them to skedaddle, so that they could attack the Jews (and, as with "The Mufti", promising them the land (that many of them had recently SOLD to the Jews) once the victory was at hand -- contingent of course on them booking out of Dodge).

<p>

<i>Since</I> that point, the "refugees" have made a handy propaganda-pawn for those who have an agenda that boils down to "Jews in the sea." The "two-nation solution", funny thing -- the area <I>began</I> with a "two-nation solution" -- the two nations were called "Israel" and "Jordan". But, now, it's no longer sufficient for half (the far smaller "half") to belong to the Jews. They now have to give up half of their <I>remaining</I> "half" too. Keep it up, and, well, it's simple math, isn't it.

<p>

Much of the grief in that region can be directly traced to two key players in the WWII and post-WWII timeframe -- the Germans (the Nazis were real tight with "The Mufti of Jerusalem", promising him lots of goodies if he'd help with "the final solution") -- and, the Soviets, who, in standard Marxist/Leninist doctrine, saw the middle-east as an ideal cauldron for "continuous revolution" (and a means to keep causing lots of grief for "the west").

<p>

But, I digress (as well as veer off-topic). The mere fact that I needed to give the above concise explanations (for stuff that <I>should</I> be taught in the schools) is vindication of Santayana's axiom.