Russia in color a century ago
archive.boston.com
archive.boston.com
It is funny how after looking at so many black and white pics of the past one starts to imagine that the past took place in black and white.
What struck me most about the photos was the formality of the clothing. People used to dress nicer. I remember seeing an old Yankee Stadium crowd shot and almost everyone was wearing a tie. It makes for nicer imagery, but I'm not sure I would want to return to that.
(Cheaper fabric and increased automation in clothing factories -- the deployment of sewing machines and then sergers is where the change really got going -- drove down prices; the £2 mass-produced suit in the UK in the 1920s meant that any working man could afford a new suit, so the suit became a working garment and the display of wealth moved on to new fields. And that's why we have ultra-cheap, badly-made clothing, fast-changing fashion, and a casual attitude to what we wear.)
(( A good suit is something special. But you can keep the neckties ... ))
Rich people used to dress nicer. Poor people used to wear dirty worn-out clothes day in and day out.
Today, people dress nicer for important and/or rare pictures (weddings, official portraits, etc) than for point and shoot pictures at the park.
If you look closely you can even see this effect on astronomical photos. Look at the edges of the shadows on this photo from the Mars Phoenix Mission: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images/gallery/md_5669.jpg
The Monastery of St. Nilus on Stolbny Island: Just incredible:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Prokudin-...
Like Justin Timberlake in #32.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky
His process used a camera that took a series of three monochrome pictures in sequence, each through a different-coloured filter. By projecting all three monochrome pictures using correctly coloured light, it was possible to reconstruct the original colour scene. Any stray movement within the camera's field of view showed up in the prints as multiple "ghosted" images, since the red, green and blue images were taken of the subject at slightly different times.
From a technical point of view, one of many interesting things there is the discussion of how the separately-made color frames were stitched into RGB images (he made separate R, G, and B exposures with a few seconds between them, so in many cases his models changed position, etc.): http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/prok/process.html
(While merging similar images with the same color response is a fairly well-studied problem, merging different channels is an interesting challenge. Consider, for example, trying to algorithmically merge separate R, G, and B exposures of an Italian flag flapping in the breeze. It’s slightly, although not very much, like interpolating the Bayer array in a consumer camera.)
Another interesting bit of metadata here is the rights, from http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/237_prok.html :
There are no known restrictions on the use of these images. The issue of copyright was not addressed during the purchase of the collection from Prokudin-Gorskii's heirs in France in 1948. French law is unclear as to whether the heirs own any rights. However, they have expressed concern about "commercial use," and, as a courtesy to them, the Library is supplying interested researchers with the following contact information: [address given].
P.s.: the LOC’s photo and print collections in general are outstanding. They make extremely high-res scans of things like Matthew Brady’s Civil War portraits, political cartoons from the Russo-Japanese War, Hiroshige’s ukiyo-e prints, and Dorothea Lange’s dust bowl photos available for free over HTTP.
They (unlike many of these) actually do feel like they were taken a long time ago, but they're excellent pictures and well-worth looking at if this kind of thing interests you.
Also, digital cameras have no shutter lag, at least not noticeable. The problem is autofocus, that’s what takes time.
Pretty much all non-DSLR cameras use contrast detection for focusing. The lens quickly shifts from the closest possible focus distance to infinity and the camera looks for contrast changes on the picture. If the contrast is high the camera knows that the picture is sharp. (This leads to dismal failures whenever you want to take a photo of something with inherently low contrast like a white wall.) DSLRs use optical phase detectors which give direct distance readings, the lens is then shifted to the correct setting. (As you can imagine, this method is faster than contrast detection.)
This process just takes time. That didn’t happen to you with older cameras because they don’t have autofocus. All you have to do is remember to focus long before you plan on taking the picture, that was the case when you could only manually focus and that is still the case today. Half-press the shutter button and be happy.
Oh but they do. From ~0.07 seconds on professional dslr bodies to as high as 0.13-0.2 second on entry level dslrs.
(and yes, it does matter in practice)
You will notice that most Russian men in there are wearing spiffy shiny uniforms. Russians loved their uniforms in the late Tsarist period. You can even see why during the revolution the Tsar's supporters were called the Whites. Notice how the top bosses in the railroads pics always wear shiny white uniforms.