The Cellar
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Image of the Day (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   April 12, 2007: Bathing girl revue 1922 (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13868)

footfootfoot 04-12-2007 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 333267)
Someone told me once that this had to do with camera technology of the time--you had to hold perfectly still for up to a minute for the film to fully expose. If you tried to hold your smile that long and faltered, your face would be blurry(-ier).

On the other hand, there are apparently still places today where not-smiling is the custom. When we were looking at houses for sale recently, we went through one home that had family photos (the posed kind you take in a studio) covering every single wall, dozens and dozens of them, and not a single smile among any of them. It was really creepy.
In the 20's and in that kind of sunlight (note the squinting) the exposure would have been quick enough to allow smiling. I think the sun made for the grimmaces. Earlier film called for exposures of more than two minutes, thus the petrified faces.

no idea about the creepy ones tho. undead?

Cloud 04-12-2007 04:20 PM
I think big cans have always been cool . . . fashion trends notwithstanding

DanaC 04-12-2007 05:35 PM
What a smashing picture. No. 7 from the right on the back row looks a little like my gran.

HungLikeJesus 04-12-2007 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 333237)
I thought it might be her Cellar tattoo.

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.
I've seen another old picture of a big group like that. I was told that they actually had to pan the camera (maybe that's where the name comes from: pan-o-rama), and in this picture the man who was at the left end of the group initially ran behind everyone and was at the right end when the camera got there, so he appears at both ends of the photo. (Either that or he had a twin brother wearing the same clothes and my father was kidding me.)

Opinions?

footfootfoot 04-12-2007 06:08 PM
probably didn't pan the camera, but used a special camera like a noblex where the lens rotates as the film moves past the open shutter or a slit shutter passes across the film. I'll dig up some links later. I've got the inch here.

footfootfoot 04-12-2007 06:12 PM
for starters

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ex_150ux.shtml

HungLikeJesus 04-12-2007 06:18 PM
I got lucky and found this link: http://www.panoramicphoto.com/ which explains:
The panoramic camera is a unique invention in that it has the capability of "panning" both camera and film resulting in an image that can display up to a full 360 degree view.

The most popular camera, at that time, was the Circuit camera, a large, box-like machine that was mounted on a sturdy tripod and featured a clock-like mechanism that would transport the film in one direction while the camera panned in the opposite direction - exposing the film (quite slowly) as it traveled past the lens.
I noticed that some of the pictures from that site had the same two vertical lines - I first thought that bathing photo had been folded.

HungLikeJesus 04-12-2007 08:09 PM
Maybe one of the older people on this site can explain what they mean by "film"?

DanaC 04-12-2007 08:21 PM
A piece of dark paper on which a small imp paints something really fast

HungLikeJesus 04-12-2007 08:46 PM
Sorry DanaC, I obviously didn't mean you. I said "one of the older people."

Maybe they're all napping.

DanaC 04-12-2007 08:49 PM
*grins* I like you! I like you a lot!

richlevy 04-12-2007 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant (Post 333200)
Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row (from right): 2, 4, -8 and front row (from left): 7, 16, 17, 28.
Are you sure you don't mean 8th from the left, the one dressed like little red riding hood? I agree about number 8 in the back. If you cropped her out of the rest of the image and just looked at her picture, you couldn't date it. Some styles really are timeless.

What is with all of the ropes or chains on the woman at the bottom left with the dog? That's an outfit you might see today - at a bondage convention.

SteveDallas 04-12-2007 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 333243)
She had big cans before big cans were cool.
Wait, there was a time when big cans weren't cool? When was this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 333243)
The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.
Absolutely--my paternal grandfather, who died in 1950, was remembered by many in the family as very funny and jovial. But you wouldn't know it to look at his photos; he's scowling like mad.

footfootfoot 04-12-2007 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus (Post 333351)
Maybe one of the older people on this site can explain what they mean by "film"?
Film is what you use when you need real resolving power and pixels are just too chunky.

Here's a website of a guy I met during a "mammoth camera" workshop I took several years ago. Nice guy, a lot of info, he's in the right place at the right time.

http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/index.html

Sheldonrs 04-12-2007 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus (Post 333370)
Sorry DanaC, I obviously didn't mean you. I said "one of the older people."

Maybe they're all napping.
Not napping. We just couldn't hear you with your nose all the way up DanaC's rectum. :lol:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 AM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.