Interesting set of STM-era photos


VINCE PUGLIESE
 


Benjamin Hom
 

Vince Pugliese wrote:
Came across this set via, of all things, BoingBoing:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/07/26/captured-america-in-color-from-1939-1943/

Nothing new here - these are more photos from the Library of Congress' FSA/OWI collection, which have been discussed in depth for years here at STMFC:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html

I'm truly amazed how many times this collection gets "rediscovered" at Shorpy and other venues. Ted Cullotta still has 2006 calendars of these photos for sale:
http://www.speedwitch.com/Books.htm

Ben Hom


al_brown03
 

A few days ago we discussed colors in a Jack Delano freight-yard photo, as they might be applied to STMFC modelling. This group of photos also has some Delano pictures of non-railroad subjects; what do y'all think of the colors in those? (I wish I could ask my late dad, who remembered that time.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:



Vince Pugliese wrote:
Came across this set via, of all things, BoingBoing:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/07/26/captured-america-in-color-from-1939-1943/

Nothing new here - these are more photos from the Library of Congress' FSA/OWI collection, which have been discussed in depth for years here at STMFC:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html

I'm truly amazed how many times this collection gets "rediscovered" at Shorpy and other venues. Ted Cullotta still has 2006 calendars of these photos for sale:
http://www.speedwitch.com/Books.htm

Ben Hom


Aley, Jeff A
 

And BTW, they may be easier to browse at Flickr (vs the LOC site). It appears that the LOC themselves actually uploaded them there.

Regards,

-Jeff




From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of benjaminfrank_hom
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:29 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Interesting set of STM-era photos




Vince Pugliese wrote:
Came across this set via, of all things, BoingBoing:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/07/26/captured-america-in-color-from-1939-1943/

Nothing new here - these are more photos from the Library of Congress' FSA/OWI collection, which have been discussed in depth for years here at STMFC:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html

I'm truly amazed how many times this collection gets "rediscovered" at Shorpy and other venues. Ted Cullotta still has 2006 calendars of these photos for sale:
http://www.speedwitch.com/Books.htm

Ben Hom


Tim O'Connor
 

Colors have definitely changed over the years. I remember this was
explained quite clearly in a Calvin & Hobbes Sunday edition...
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-father-on-black-and-white-pictures.gif

Tim O'Connor

At 8/5/2010 11:47 AM Thursday, you wrote:
A few days ago we discussed colors in a Jack Delano freight-yard photo, as they might be applied to STMFC modelling. This group of photos also has some Delano pictures of non-railroad subjects; what do y'all think of the colors in those? (I wish I could ask my late dad, who remembered that time.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Stokes John
 

Thanks for the chuckle, I haven't seen that one for eons.

My own personal opinion and recollection is that the colors of the buildings in these photos is accurate for the time period. They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination. As has been documented in several books on the period, after the early part of the century, especially into the 30's and 40's, many houses and buildings were painted simple white, and of course, oxide or barn red was also common.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA



To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: timboconnor@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:45:15 -0400
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Interesting set of STM-era photos







Colors have definitely changed over the years. I remember this was
explained quite clearly in a Calvin & Hobbes Sunday edition...
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-father-on-black-and-white-pictures.gif

Tim O'Connor


Benjamin Hom
 

John Stokes wrote:
"They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination."

Wow. You really don't know much about the FSA/OWI Collection. Here's a link to some background regarding the collection; addtional links on the page give further context to this remarkable collection of photos.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsac/background.html


Ben Hom


Stokes John
 

Wow, well excuse me, Sir! I guess I forgot that this group is restricted to only the self important and self acknowledged "experts." Won't post again anytime soon, other more important and friendlier groups to participate in.

It would help if you would educate the great unwashed out here, what did I miss in my comments? Here is the info from the link you so kindly posted for me. I believe I was correct in my assumption that these photos were original color photos and not hand painted black & white photos. Was it the use of the term "film" that got your dander up? Sorry, should have said "slides" or "transparencies." Same point, however.

"The 644 color photographs produced by the FSA are less well known and far less extensive than the unit's black-and-white photographs. Most of the color images are 35mm Kodachrome slides; a few are color transparencies in sizes up to 4x5-inches. The FSA color photographs depict life in the United States, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with a focus on rural areas and farm labor.

"The 965 color photographs from the OWI are color transparencies in sizes up to 4x5-inches. The photographs depicted life and culture in the U.S., with a focus on factories and women employees, railroads, aviation training, and other aspects of World War II mobilization."

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA


To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: b.hom@att.net
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:22:11 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Interesting set of STM-era photos








John Stokes wrote:
"They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination."

Wow. You really don't know much about the FSA/OWI Collection. Here's a link to some background regarding the collection; addtional links on the page give further context to this remarkable collection of photos.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsac/background.html

Ben Hom


al_brown03
 

I asked the question because the other day, someone felt Delano's freight-yard pictures generally look dark, i.e. darker than the actual objects would be. This suggests that to use these pictures as references for modelling, we'd need to lighten the colors. Freight-car colors vary in the first place and change with weathering, and most industrial areas are less grimy now than years ago; so I thought I'd check the perception mentioned above, against Delano's colors of non-railroad objects, via the memories of those who were there. (I wasn't.) Mr Stokes's recollection is exactly the type of memory I was hoping for, and I thank him. I'm not an expert on photography or the OWI collection so can't address those matters.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

P.S. Larry Jackman would agree with Calvin's father, and told the list so. :-)

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, John Stokes <ggstokes@...> wrote:


Wow, well excuse me, Sir! I guess I forgot that this group is restricted to only the self important and self acknowledged "experts." Won't post again anytime soon, other more important and friendlier groups to participate in.

It would help if you would educate the great unwashed out here, what did I miss in my comments? Here is the info from the link you so kindly posted for me. I believe I was correct in my assumption that these photos were original color photos and not hand painted black & white photos. Was it the use of the term "film" that got your dander up? Sorry, should have said "slides" or "transparencies." Same point, however.

"The 644 color photographs produced by the FSA are less well known and far less extensive than the unit's black-and-white photographs. Most of the color images are 35mm Kodachrome slides; a few are color transparencies in sizes up to 4x5-inches. The FSA color photographs depict life in the United States, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with a focus on rural areas and farm labor.

"The 965 color photographs from the OWI are color transparencies in sizes up to 4x5-inches. The photographs depicted life and culture in the U.S., with a focus on factories and women employees, railroads, aviation training, and other aspects of World War II mobilization."

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA


To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
From: b.hom@...
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:22:11 +0000
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Interesting set of STM-era photos








John Stokes wrote:
"They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination."

Wow. You really don't know much about the FSA/OWI Collection. Here's a link to some background regarding the collection; addtional links on the page give further context to this remarkable collection of photos.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsac/background.html

Ben Hom







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Al Brown wrote:
A few days ago we discussed colors in a Jack Delano freight-yard photo, as they might be applied to STMFC modelling. This group of photos also has some Delano pictures of non-railroad subjects; what do y'all think of the colors in those? (I wish I could ask my late dad, who remembered that time.)
Reminds me of the theory that before 1935 or so, the world actually was NOT in color, but in B&W. That's what all the evidence shows, anyway.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

John Stokes wrote:
Wow, well excuse me, Sir! I guess I forgot that this group is restricted to only the self important and self acknowledged "experts." Won't post again anytime soon, other more important and friendlier groups to participate in.
Better cut down on the caffeine, John. Ben is as constructive and helpful a member of this list as there is. And if you don't realize he IS an expert, you need to get out more.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Colors have definitely changed over the years. I remember this was
explained quite clearly in a Calvin & Hobbes Sunday edition...
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-father-on-black-and-white-pictures.gif
Extremely good hit, Tim. I'd forgotten that one. Reminds me that I do miss Calvin & Hobbes (and Larson !).

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Benjamin Hom
 

John Stokes wrote:
"It would help if you would educate the great unwashed out here, what did I miss in my comments? Here is the info from the link you so kindly posted for me. I believe I was correct in my assumption that these photos were original color photos and not hand painted black & white photos. Was it the use of the term "film" that got your dander up? Sorry, should have said "slides" or "transparencies." Same point, however."

Sir, words have meaning. You posted:
"They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination."

In an academic discussion, the word "apparently" is a weasel word that translates as "I'm uncertain about my facts." As I stated before, this collection has been discussed at length on this list, and the giveaway that this collection was photographed on transparencies was the discussion regarding Kodachrome over the past few days. Additionally, the background on this collection is well documented on the Library of Congress website. Don't get angry with me over constructive criticism.

John also wrote:
"Wow, well excuse me, Sir! I guess I forgot that this group is restricted to only the self important and self acknowledged 'experts.'"

Sir, I will happily match my body of work against yours any day of the week.


Ben Hom


mike brock <brockm@...>
 

Rob Simpson writes:


And now for some really early color railroad photos. Not North American, but interesting the same.
True enough. They were interesting. For that matter, so is the Suez Canal and it...and the photos Rob addressed are not North American frt cars and, therefore, are nitely out of scope.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Schuyler Larrabee
 

Al Brown wrote:
A few days ago we discussed colors in a Jack Delano freight-yard
photo, as they might be applied to STMFC modelling. This group of
photos also has some Delano pictures of non-railroad subjects; what
do y'all think of the colors in those? (I wish I could ask my late
dad, who remembered that time.)
Reminds me of the theory that before 1935 or so, the world
actually was NOT in color, but in B&W. That's what all the evidence
shows, anyway.

Tony Thompson



Where is Larry Jackman now that we need him? IIRC, he had a job painting
trains into color from B&W in the late 30s.

SGL





=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15600)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======


Dean Payne
 

Ben,
You wrote: "Wow. You really don't know much about..." in response to his use of the word "apparently"?? Geez... what's wrong with writing
"Here's a link to some background regarding the collection; addtional links on the page give further context to this remarkable collection of photos." without the dismissive prelude?? It would have served the purpose.

You replied:
"In an academic discussion, the word "apparently" is a weasel word..."

In casual conversation, the word "apparently" is used more... casually! I hadn't realized this list qualified as an "academic discussion". And... "weasel word"?? Gentlemen, please! Play nice! In past discussions, anybody who made an assertion that wasn't 100% accurate was directed to check his facts before posting (a good idea), so the message seems to be to NOT post if you aren't an expert in the particular subject (perhaps that's why a note of uncertainty crept into his wording?) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think we need to allow somewhat more leeway in allowing people to feel free to post without fear of getting called on the carpet... Of course, they'd expect corrections or additions to their info. Correct info and cordial conversation can coexist.

It has been suggested that posters develop thicker skin, when someone tells them they don't know what they're talking about. I'd suggest that the veteran contributors on this list develop "thicker ears": you can expect that a new poster will ask a question that has been asked before. Feel free to ignore it without comment! No harm done... Likewise, a correction can be made without implying that the poster should leave the discussion to the experts.

You then went on to say:
"Sir, I will happily match my body of work against yours any day of the week."

Uh... Nobody questioned your expertise! I can't speak for all (weasel words!), but I have a deep respect for your work (and that of other veteran contributors as well). However, I don't think that expertise gives anybody the right to a lapse in decorum. I've seen this behavior before from others on the list, and it's disturbing. If our most expert members can't be civil... What kind of message does that send?

Dean Payne

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:



John Stokes wrote:
"It would help if you would educate the great unwashed out here, what did I miss in my comments? Here is the info from the link you so kindly posted for me. I believe I was correct in my assumption that these photos were original color photos and not hand painted black & white photos. Was it the use of the term "film" that got your dander up? Sorry, should have said "slides" or "transparencies." Same point, however."

Sir, words have meaning. You posted:
"They were apparently actual color photos from early color film, not the hand painted photos that we also see from time to time where the color might be a figment of the colorist's imagination."

In an academic discussion, the word "apparently" is a weasel word that translates as "I'm uncertain about my facts." As I stated before, this collection has been discussed at length on this list, and the giveaway that this collection was photographed on transparencies was the discussion regarding Kodachrome over the past few days. Additionally, the background on this collection is well documented on the Library of Congress website. Don't get angry with me over constructive criticism.

John also wrote:
"Wow, well excuse me, Sir! I guess I forgot that this group is restricted to only the self important and self acknowledged 'experts.'"

Sir, I will happily match my body of work against yours any day of the week.


Ben Hom