Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Rare WWII Kodachrome pictures

  1. #1
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,613

    Rare WWII Kodachrome pictures

    As the story mentions color film was just coming onto the scene during WWII. Most everything was in B&W. Well the British commissioned some photographers to shoot Kodak's Kodachrome which is positive slide film and not a negative film. If stored correctly the colors and saturation of the image won't degrade. I know I have many hundreds of Kodachrome slides from 1970-2009 and the 1970 slides look the same as the 2009 slides. Whether you are into photography or not, like me, these 14 shots shown here are just spectacular from my point of view. No photoshop just the colors and scene as seen by the camera. Exposures were very good especially since Kodachrome has a latitude of not much more than 1/2 stop either way. I just wish they noted what cameras were used since that era was pretty much Kodak for consumer and German for high end.

    https://www.cnn.com/style/article/iw...phy/index.html

    Hint: Click on the picture of the Dutch street scene in the middle of the text. It will open up displaying larger views of the pictures than the click through at the top of the page. Use the arrow to go back and forth. Detail is fantastic. I'm jazzed!!!

  2. #2
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Detail is fantastic. I'm jazzed!!!
    Agree

    Spotter

    Dutch street

    P-51D Mustang (Note the 6 notches for kills)

    Ike and his band of merry men

    Tankies

    Monty and the King

    I just wish they noted what cameras were used since that era was pretty much Kodak for consumer and German for high end.
    Any idea what size film ?

    Look at the amount of background blur on the AAk gun. Maybe 5-10ft behind her. and the one with monty

    The capture area is BIG on this camera. This is why the quality is so good.

  3. #3
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    How Kodak had to lease the family jewels to survive bankruptcy

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com...-sale/5621211/

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/in...tent-portfolio

    Came out to half a bilion's worth against the nearly $5 billion expected
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Oct 18, at 20:04.

  4. #4
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Agree

    Spotter

    Dutch street

    P-51D Mustang (Note the 6 notches for kills)

    Ike and his band of merry men

    Tankies

    Monty and the King


    Any idea what size film ?

    Look at the amount of background blur on the AAk gun. Maybe 5-10ft behind her. and the one with monty

    The capture area is BIG on this camera. This is why the quality is so good.
    Most commonly used sizes were 35mm and 120. Since it was Kodachrome it had to be 35mm because that was the only size Kodak made it in back then. Their other commonly Kodak sizes were 620, 116, and 818 which everyone outside the U.S. ignored. No Kodachrome in them. This Kodachrome was also the ASA speed of 25 so it was slow. It they wanted to avoid camera shake then a 125 shutter would be typical. Remember shooting film using the Sunny 16 rule you use the film speed as your shutter speed and if a bright sunny day the an aperture of 16. So f16@1/25 second or f8@1/125 second. Overcast would cause the use of a wider aperture with a decreasing depth of field. Not to mention whether a normal lens was used or a telephoto which compresses the depth.

    Mobility would require a 35mm camera. Using 120 would have required a bulkier and slower to use TLR or Folder camera. You could use those for a purposely set up photo if you wanted but not for any action, on the move, and ease of carrying. I have almost 300 cameras and the most compact and quick to use are the SLRs. There were no SLRs to use at that time so it would be a rangefinder and the most typical one would be Leica followed by Contax. Robert Capa used a Contax when he shot the D-Day landing and then had most of his pictures damaged by a technician who dried the film at too high of a temperature and melted the emulsions.

    Quality is good not because of the size but because of the camera, German lenses being great, and the extremely fine grain structure of Kodachrome 25.

    https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...-film-profile/

  5. #5
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    This Kodachrome was also the ASA speed of 25 so it was slow
    Would need lots of light with that ASA. Though grain size would be minuscule so excellent photos indeed with enough light.

    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Remember shooting film using the Sunny 16 rule you use the film speed as your shutter speed and if a bright sunny day the an aperture of 16. So f16@1/25 second or f8@1/125 second. Overcast would cause the use of a wider aperture with a decreasing depth of field. Not to mention whether a normal lens was used or a telephoto which compresses the depth.
    1/25 is pretty slow

    Avoiding camera shake means 1/focal length. 25mm is wide angle. I think minimum 35 or 50mm on those lenses. So no slower than 1/50 to avoid shake.

    Using a longer lens means a still faster shutter speed.

    There isn't a whole lot of DOF to be had at F8 and still less at F16. I suppose a telephoto could have been used in the spotter photo.

    This is why i was thinking the sensor must be be big to get that blur with the spotter and indoors with monty was taken with a flash

    The only photo i saw some blur was the one with Ike, if you see the person on the far right, he moved slightly.

    Mobility would require a 35mm camera. Using 120 would have required a bulkier and slower to use TLR or Folder camera. You could use those for a purposely set up photo if you wanted but not for any action, on the move, and ease of carrying. I have almost 300 cameras and the most compact and quick to use are the SLRs. There were no SLRs to use at that time so it would be a rangefinder and the most typical one would be Leica followed by Contax. Robert Capa used a Contax when he shot the D-Day landing and then had most of his pictures damaged by a technician who dried the film at too high of a temperature and melted the emulsions.
    Wow!

    Quality is good not because of the size but because of the camera, German lenses being great, and the extremely fine grain structure of Kodachrome 25.

    https://www.casualphotophile.com/201...-film-profile/
    Good stuff from nearly 80 yrs ago : )
    Last edited by Double Edge; 14 Oct 18, at 02:18.

  6. #6
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Would need lots of light with that ASA. Though grain size would be minuscule so excellent photos indeed with enough light.


    1/25 is pretty slow

    Avoiding camera shake means 1/focal length. 25mm is wide angle. I think minimum 35 or 50mm on those lenses. So no slower than 1/50 to avoid shake.

    Using a longer lens means a still faster shutter speed.

    There isn't a whole lot of DOF to be had at F8 and still less at F16. I suppose a telephoto could have been used in the spotter photo.

    This is why i was thinking the sensor must be be big to get that blur with the spotter and indoors with monty was taken with a flash

    The only photo i saw some blur was the one with Ike, if you see the person on the far right, he moved slightly.
    Ok, a few things.

    The most obvious being DOF. As the aperture gets smaller the depth of field gets deeper. An f/1.4 is wide open while an f/16 is small. Here is an example sitting right in front of me. I am working on an Exakta Varex which has one of the small teeth on a gear slightly damaged and holding up my film advance. The lens is a Carl Zeiss Tessar f/2.8/50mm. Note that lenses faster than f/2.8 back in the early '40s were practically non-existent. A 28mm or 35mm would likely be f/3.5 which is slower and you would need a slower speed to compensate.

    Right, so when focused at 13 feet an f/2.8 gives me from 11-16 feet in focus. An f/16 gives me from 6.5-infinity in focus. So depending on the photographer and the situation I could choose an aperture that had both the woman spotter and guns in sharp focus. However, the photographer's prime subject is the spotter and all else is a distraction so he would open the aperture and throw the background out of focus.

    Sensor? That is a digital camera term whereas the bigger the sensor the more sensitive it can be when it comes to detail. So no application here as there weren't even light meters on these cameras. You used Sunny 16 to judge your exposure. That is a lost skill when using a digital camera.

    You are right that a longer focal length needs a faster speed to avoid shake especially when you sees some of my 400mm lenses. Yet I can beat that to some extent by bracing myself.

  7. #7
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    You can tell i'm in the digital age. I mean film area. And 35mm is full sensor size. That's big enough. Coupled with a low ASA. Good lenses. and the quality shows.

    I've wanted to digitise some of our older photos. Negatives are there but scanning them in a normal scanner in my all in one brother is not going to work. Scanning the photos isn't going to be as good as getting it off the negatives.

    I was looking at film scanners and they are altogether something else. Dunno if i want to spend on one just to get this job done.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21 Aug 12,, 04:28
  2. A Rare Visitor.
    By glyn in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 29 Dec 07,, 09:14
  3. WWII Germany Vs WWII Russia
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 23:33
  4. WWII Germany Vs WWII U.S.A.
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 23:29

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •