art_thomas1

<p>".......few numbers of African American subjects in that Shorpy Kodachrome collection...... Now that's racial bias."</p> <p>Oh, really?</p> <p>I’ve seen the whole FSA Kodachrome collection along with many of their B&Ws. Did Shorpy pick and choose for their sample? In the collection as done by the FSA, people of all ethnic backgrounds were represented. Who was left out? The Wall Street Millionaires were, but then, was it prejudice or that they weren’t representative of the FSA overview assignment? Two other groups that were not represented much were Japanese and Germans. Was it racial bias against them or maybe the fact that the USA was at odds with them in WWII. Who wanted to parachute into Tokyo and/or Berlin to take their photos, not me!</p> <p><br /> Back in my card playing days the deck had all sorts of cards in it. Today, it seems as they are all “race cards”.</p>

<p>According to former Photonet member A. T. Burke the 90mm, F:3.5 Tele-Xenar was not the usual “true” Xenar 4 element 3 group lens, but the modified 4 element, 4 group design. The Retina fit Tele-Xenar 135mm F:4 lens had and even more modified 5 element, 4 group lens.</p>

<p>Racial bias?<br /> <br /> All so-called "white people" do not look alike, nor do they have the same skin tones. Different ethnic communities here in the United States consider non-African people of various skin tones, i.e. Mediterranean, middle eastern, to be included in their definition of "white people." This also varies from the same ethnic community in different geographical locations within the U.S. My wife, who looked to be the whiteist of "white people", with blond hair and blue eyes, was raised by a couple in the U.S. who were then called "colored people," referring to what are generally called "black people" today. The gentleman toned very close to black and had non-reflective, more like flat black, skin. The lady was more a light chocolate brown, but to the dark side of caramel and seemed more glossy. Taking a picture of them with any film, or the early digital cameras, was a lighting problem. It seemed like a quarter stop either way could make one of them look unrealistic. Also, either the paper or the dyes in the paper would sometimes require a non-realistic tone to keep from an unflattering portrayal of their skin color.</p> <p>Olan Mills was an equal opportunity, lower cost, mass market, and very popular photo studio in the film days. A lot of their business depended upon people who lived locally near their offices. In the days of ethnic-centered communities, somehow using the same film their photographers and developing/printing technicians were able to turn out very nice looking portraits which were pleasing to the customers in their branch office's particular ethnic community.</p> <p>I'm of mixed race, but easily "pass" for white. Most people say I have a ruddy Irish tone to my skin. But then, knowing I have an Irish/Anglican last name, would they make some presumptions in their psychological perceptual screen? My brother (deceased) had what many people would describe as typical American Indian skin, eye, and hair coloring. Thinking about it, he looked more like what I would consider a Western/Plains Indian look, rather than the Cherokee of our descent. As we were growing up, nobody considered him anything but white. Could this be because they saw the family as being white, and therefore didn't notice the prominent American Indian features, which included nose, forehead and cheekbones as well as coloration?</p> <p>My best friend from junior high school on, is a mixture of middle-Italian and Sicilian-Italian. About twenty years ago, knowing I was turning more to my photography hobby in retirement, he brought me the negative and a print of him and his grown siblings having dinner with their parents. He asked if I could do something to make a better print, because to him, it looked like a nice African-American family out to dinner. It's not that he was afraid of being mistaken as an African-American, it just made his family look, in his eyes, peculiar, not what they really looked like. The problem was obvious. The "professional" photographer had taken a picture using flash in a dim restaurant, nicely bouncing it off a very odd colored "signature" tablecloth, producing a peculiar tint to the light that reflected off their skin and onto the film. He was so put off by it, he insisted on buying the negative so I was able to scan and photoshop out the result of the reflected light to where they looked a little more normal. Was the professional photographer, whose income depended upon photographing a wide ethnic variety of wealthy patrons in a locale of high-priced yacht clubs and restaurants, trying to racially give them the finger? I think it was just a lack of skill, marketing prowess, and the fact the person who took the picture did not do the developing/printing in their mobile step van. How did the guy in the step van know what they looked like? I think the photographer, showing them the result while she waited to get paid, just didn't notice the difference in a darkened restaurant with an old-fashioned incandescent bulb flashlight on the picture. It's human.</p> <p>In the late '90s, between the various film manufacturing companies, there were films marketed specifically for some non-lily-white or non-pinkish-white races or groups of people. There was a little family-run camera store where I saw, on their shelves, a space that had three different baby films (?). One row of boxes had what appeared to be a Caucasian-looking baby on the box. Another row of boxes had what appeared to be an Asian-looking baby. The third row of boxes had what appeared to be an African-looking baby. I wondered if the film in the boxes was any different.</p> <p>American Kodak made some of the first commercial digital sensors. But currently, most of them are made and designed in Asian areas. Are they making the sensors most flattering to Asian-toned skin? And, if so, what exactly is Asian-toned skin? And what tone and color combination within the various Asian groups are they specifically targeting?</p> <p>Come on now, folks. I think certainly with the last of the film emulsions and the current digital sensors, with filtering or photoshop, we should just do the best we can with what we have.</p> <p>That's life.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Did you try the meter? I use a III (small) c. It works well enough got color reversal film. </p>

<p>You will notice the picture is on a slant. He had no tripod so he held it up to a tree to steady it in his old hands. The tree did not use a plumb bob to set its growing path. </p>

<p>One of the nicer traditions of Security Pacific National Bank’s corporate culture (Circa 1970) as it applied to bank officers was the holiday switch. Jews and Christians were on their honor to know of the other religion’s holidays, feast days and anything that might make work hours difficult or awkward. All Officers had to be sure that they offered, before being asked to work their opposite’s shift; take care of their customers and or recordings, etc., so they could properly take part in the respective religious events. Even nicer, this was not done under protest but with genuine respect, open willingness, friendship and duty. </p>

<p>Photonet member A. T. Burke has a shot from a Yashica Mat with the same lens. The school bus is 185 meters away from the camera. The lens does quite well.</p> <p>Tap on the below link. Then tap on the three dots on the lower right hand portion of the black border. Then tap on all sizes to see the shot at 4000 REAL PPI here: </p> <p>

<p>I have never been able to obtain a Tourist II with light tight bellows. May I ask where/how you got yours? </p>

<p>Have you seen this for the 124G? </p> <p><a href="http://www.criscam.com/mercury_battery_adapters.php">http://www.criscam.com/mercury_battery_adapters.php</a></p>

<p>I reversed the motorcycle view for side by side. It has good depth of field. Did you use F:16? </p>

<p>Thank you, Sir. </p> <p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>"Stuff it, if you don't want an inkjet print go somewhere else." </p> <p>1. And they will.</p> <p>2. Methinks thou dost protest too much. </p>

<p>The Canon 5D has about 61 lp/mm of available resolution. Most decent lenses that are non-L glass can resolve that moderate amount. It's true that a lens that resolves 61 lp/mm on film or a sensor used with a lens of 61 lp/mm will give a lesser result on the image. Still, going for extremely high resolution glass is not going to do much for your pictures because the sensor is going to be the weakest link. </p>

<p><a name="00d50z"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6468358">Mac Hordam</a> , on Jan 21, 2015; 06:33 a.m wrote:</p> <p>"Seem to" sounds a bit nebulous, in fact it <em>seems to </em>suggest that the high-end clients may not know too much about the different types of print but have possibly been told/persuaded that C type prints are the way to go and anything else may be inferior. These things happen in the persuasive world of establishing bona fides as purveyors of fine-art works."</p> <p>I respond:</p> <p>Seems to me that the financially successful photographer would not insist that his customers see the world according to his rules/viewpoints/values. Providing exactly what they want and knowing that the check will clear might be a better goal?</p>

<p>Thanks, I look forward to it. </p>

<p>Thank you, I missed that.</p>

<p>Thanks roe the feedback.</p>

<p>I see an article on Dynachrome was in this issue. I tried to buy a copy of the magazine on sleezebay, but there are none in the for-sale or sold sections. Maybe you have a rare edition? </p> <p>Would you be kind enough to post the Dynachrome article? There is not much out there on Dynachrome anymore. Information is hard to find. </p> <p>I liked your "First Issue" from a week or so past. I bought one from a used magazine vendor.</p>

<p>Has KEH changed hands or management recently? My e-mail has gotten an advertising blitz that seems out of their traditional character. I notice their “store” items for the on line auction place do not list their traditionally conservative rating. The “look and feel” of their site and advertising is quite different. </p> <p>So, does anybody know if it is just the same old dependable folks in charge or are they now just a brand run by newcomers? </p>

<p>"I’ve never heard of Kodachrome 200"</p> <p>I miss typed. I meant to type Kodachrome 120 in ASA 200 speed. I used the 35mm 200 ASA version to take indoor Stereo Realist pictures in the Rio Casino Las Vegas. I needed F: to go some distance when photographing their parade without having a flash the power of a searchlight. I also tried some in Key West on a bright day. For some reason the grain looked larger in the sunlight than flash light??? I do not know the reason. Still in both situations, the grain was like a much older 200 speed film. </p> <p>Now as to the question I was trying to ask.. Has anybody seen evidence of Kodachrome 200 in 120 size, please? </p>

<p>To Ellis Verner-</p> <p>I’ve never heard of Kodachrome 200 sold commercially in ASA 200 speed. Could you possibly share your source of information with? </p> <p>To Ron Andrews- </p> <p>You have a vast knowledge of Kodachrome. Have you heard of Kodachrome being sold as ASA 200 Pro, please? </p>

<p>Referenced is a sample of The Darkroom scans at their best resolution. They deliver in .jpg. I think .Tif would have been better. Then when Flickr posts, the file goes through the jpeg process again. The scan you get from The Darkroom is better than what you see on Flickr by a little bit. </p> <p> </p> <p>I quote the poster: </p> <p>The Scanner is a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer: </p> <p>This scanner is rated at 4600 PPI and in fact has that many sensors in the array. However, due to software or the lens (I suspect the lens) there is only about 3000 PPI worth of information in the scan in .jpg form. Some of the flatbed scanners have the same problem with lenses and are infamous for not resolving the potential of the sensor count. Most under $2000.00 flatbed scanners only give 40% to 60% of their rating. I would have thought Noritsu would do a better job. I’ve found that in order to scan over 4000 true PPI which the Nikons would approach (except for the out-of-production Minolta 5400 II), one has to get a true drum scan and with a talented operator to boot. </p> <p>Moderator: Yes, I have the permission from A. T. Burke to quote and reference his work.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Have you thought of checking the scanned material with a 60-100 power good quality microscope? It could be the scanner. </p>

<p>Thank you, Sir. </p>

<p>1955 Cadillac and a nice old car. </p>