Two23 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 <p>An exhibit at a regional WW2 museum. Shot with a Leica IIIc vintage 1942, Leica 5cm Elmar vintage 1932, HP5. This is the kind of scene that I just don't think a digital camera would give the same impact.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Excellent image, Kent! I regret not buying a IIIc offered to me for $300 in 1978, by a grad school professor of mine. But that was a lot of money in those days. <br> I also visited a WW II re-enactment in recent years, and made a B&W photo of German soldiers at their encampment. I did add just a touch of toning. Do you think it's film or digital? Does it matter? For me, it definitely communicates the "forties". </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Going by the edge to edge sharpness, I'm guessing this was made with a modern lens. You did catch a nice scene. We have few if any WW2 re-enactments here, but Civil War re-enactments are fairly popular. I shoot those with a 4x5 and Petzval lenses made either 1850s or early 1860s. Below photo is of General Custer at Ft. Sisseton, SD. Photo taken with an 1845 Ross Petzval on Efke 25 4x5.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_marvin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Am I the only one who finds the first photograph offensive in the extreme?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <B>Robert,</b> It is a photograph of an offensive action. It is part of history, a part that should not be forgotten. That said, let us not turn this thread into a political debate. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_marvin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>I agree that it should not be forgotten. I think I can understand military re-inactors and have no problems with the Wehrmacht ones I see every year at a military encampment near the house I rent in southern Vermont, but I can't understand anyone choosing to impersonate an SS war criminal preparing victims for murder.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane1664879013 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Robert, those are mannequins in the first photo, not actors.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>The first posted image reminds me of the vigilance we must continually keep in the cause of human rights throughout the world. I think the museum exhibit teaches a valuable lesson, and the posting of such an image can make us effectively uncomfortable. It should!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_marvin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>SORRY–I was so shocked by the image that I missed the explanation that it was an "exhibit at a regional WW2 museum". That, to me is VERY different from a re-inactment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelaMolnar Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>For the last picture, General Custer; I wonder, how many Indian, man, women and children he killed. You wanted to feel uncomfortable, read, The Conquest of the New World AMERICAN HOLOCAUST By; David E. Stennard. Or. A People's History of the United States By; Howard Zinn.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chauncey_walden Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Back on subject, Kent, great results from your vintage Leica and lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chauncey_walden Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Kent, on your Custer shot, is your Petzval a little short for 4x5?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_foreman1 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>I ilked the photos for all their historical worth. The 4x5 Petzval looked very realistic for the era too. Lomo has been selling a Petzval that I would never consider for obvious reasons. One thing I will say is the center sharpness is good for it'S day but if this look is considered quid pro quo.. most of the published photos of the Civil War era are overall sharper and in many cases superior. What were Brady OSullivan Gardner et al using? Was Petzval considered cutting edge?<br> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>My Ross Petzval is a 5 inch FL, and designed for quarter plate. Back in their time period the practice was to crop away everything that wasn't sharp. About the center half to two thirds of a Petzval image is fairly sharp, and that drops off quickly. For larger formats, such as whole plate, the lenses had to be quite large. During the Civil War there were only two kinds of lenses: Petzval (four elements) and achromatic doublet (two elements.) The Petzval was by far the preferred portrait lens partly because it was quite fast (f3.5) and this required many fewer seconds for subjects to sit still (wet plate ISO = 0.5.) The achromatic doublet was f11 to f22 and very slow. It did give much more DoF, of course. Starting in the 1850s f-stops were devised to stop the lenses down. Initially these were washers--metal disks with a hole in the center. You focused, unscrewed the lens, inserted a disk, and then screwed the lens back together to take your shot. About 1860 a guy named Waterhouse invented a system where a slot was cut into the top center of the lens, and metal tabs with a hole were inserted into the lens. My Ross Petzval predates both. I do have about six other lenses 1850-1865 that have either washer stops or Waterhouse stops. The Petzval was the first choice for portraits from 1840 to ~1900. In 1865 the rapid rectilinear lens (four elements, f8) was invented and it replaced the achromatic doublet.</p> <p>As for the WW2 mannequins, the museum owner who was giving my dad a personal tour said these were custom made with faces replicated from photos seen in the defining book on the subject: "Auschwitz: The Story of a Transport"*. He said the facial expressions on commercially available dummies were much to bland or happy. This museum is a stickler for accuracy. They have a D-Day Omaha Beach exhibit, and the sand was shipped in from Omaha Beach.</p> <p>Kent in SD<br /> *This is an astonishing book, the sort you will not be able<br /> to put down. The images will haunt you for weeks. I would <br /> say it's a collection of the most emotionally impacting <br /> photos ever made. Available for online viewing:<br /> http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/index.asp?WT.mc_id=200960&WT.cg_n=g.en<br /> --->Do not look through the photos before going to bed.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 <p>Thanks for posting the photos. Howard Zinn was a college professor of mine. I got to see him at the 92nd Street Y in NY shortly before he died. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 <p>My favorite is the General Custer photo. It looks very authentic. The camera, the photo and the actor are all just great. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 <p>While the museum display of the Holocaust train was presumably created with the best of intentions, I think this depiction of an atrocity is a deeply inappropriate image to illustrate a thread called 'Vintage Scene, Vintage Camera'.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 <p> I think that Art is like that. It is supposed to bring out some emotion in the viewer. This particular thread has brought out some emotions also. My response to the photo was that the scene was lifelike and that the picture was taken with a period correct camera which I thought was very cool. I do not support putting the scene in a backroom closet and closing the door. <br> I like all the photos actually. On the flip side I went to a Civil War re-enactment once and it was boring to me and I doubt I would go to another one. I took a few photos with my medium format camera and some supervisor type guy singled me out for a lecture on photo rules because my camera was bigger then the other cameras. I had broken no rules and was even asking the actors for permission for a snap. Some of them surprisingly said "no" and I honored that response..I listened to the lecture politely and moved on to what I was already doing. The only thing I learned was the guy I was talking to was a fool. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now