File talk:PalmercarpenterA.jpg

FYI


The direction of the sunlight suggests that it is around noon. Shutter speed accounts for the dimness. serioushat 10:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fake?
Is it me, or does picture look fake? I don't know, something about it strikes me as odd. It looks photoshopped actually. The person is too "bright" and the background is blurred and doesn't seem natural. This comment will not get a response in a long while, but if anyone comes across this picture and this discussion page, what do you think? 141.149.27.59 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the picture looks really weird to me.--66.75.48.94 (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Staged photography, actor, fake scenery, etc.. 76.185.244.98 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this photo is really getting on my nerves (for the reasons that others have already stated; the "fakeness" and all). Can somebody please change this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.176.179 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They didn't have color back in 1942 did they? 71.134.240.11 (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe that they did. --76.171.201.67 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they didn't. That's why Gone With the Wind was filmed in black and white.  (YES.  I'm reliably informed that Kodachrome was available as a still and movie film beginning in 1936.) Cactus Wren (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but that worker is kind of attractive. NitekMobilian (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's staged. The lighting on the foreground does not match the background. As an encyclopedia, I don't think staged photos would be the best way to visually document a real-world activity such as carpentry, though the image serves as a good example of old-fashioned color photography. Instead of using it as a sample of carpentry in its description on the main page, I think it should be described as a sample of color photography. Masquatto (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a picture per se, but i type of color film that they used back in 1940's and 50's. All the color pictures from that time look just like that. They are called Kodachrome slides.

I'm sorry but I don't believe for a second that this picture was taken in 1942. Does anyone have a way of verifying this claim? If not, we need to remove that piece of info. In fact, I'm surprised this became a featured image in the first place -- it looks like a still from a diet coke ad! (dan2502) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan2502 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the Library of Congress says it was, which is generally enough for us. The picture looks "staged" by today's standards, but that's because we now like naturalistic photography. This is a change in fashion - in the 1940s and 1950s, people preferred stagey, posed photographs of this type. That's what won awards at the time. This photograph might be studio-bound or it might be heavily processed and edited (1942 wasn't the Dark Ages, editing and recompositing of photographs was just as common then as it is now and of almost as high a standard). As an example of 1940s colour photography, this image exactly what we would want. As a photograph to illustrate carpentry, it is also very good - certainly better than a plank of wood or a mobile phone snap of someone sawing. This meets Wikipedia criteria on every front. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 10:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As pointed out below, it is in fact a colourized B&W photograph. So, the Commons caption at least is wrong. This is in no way a representation of early colour photography. So what do we do with it now? Cocytus Antenora (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo is bogus because of (amongst many) the T-factor problem.
This snap was not made in 1942 or it is a hugely computer-retouched version of an inferior-looking 1942 original. This sharpness and richness of colour did not exist in 1942, due to lackings in chemistry and optics development.

For one thing to consider, T-coatings were not available until end of WWII. This reflexion-reducing thin-film technology was a well-kept nazi military secret invented only in 1937. A German U-boot of Prien used such an enhanced light transmission periscope in 1939 to sink the British battleship "Royal Oak" in almost complete darkness of the late dusk.

A photo made without multi-coated lenses can never appear as sharp and tonally rich as this one. Therefore the workman snap is either fuly post-WWII or it is a hugely retouched post-WWII version of an inferior quality original. QED 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. If it's from 1942 it was most likely shot with either Kodachrome or Ektachrome. Maybe, just maybe, it was an early sample of Kodacolor. Despite the fact that Kodacolor is still used today, color film quality back then was poor and could not match black & white film in terms of sharpness. And even if the Kodacolor films were famous for their toning, they certainly didn't produce shots like these (See ww2incolor.com for color WWII photos, then reconsider this image). Another problem is the complete lack of grain. Though post-processing was present in early photography, this could only have been accomplished through digital post-processing. Even if it's an original, because of the post-processing it does not illustrate color photography in the early 1940's. Cocytus Antenora (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This photo is clearly staged. Take a look at the background. The top right is darker than the bottom right, indicating that the sun is setting behind the subject. However, the subject is fully lighted from the front. What I'm betting is that the original shot was a black and white photo on a staged set. The black and white stock is the only way to get that kind of sharpness on the subject in 1942. Then, afterwards, someone digitally added color, a la "The Wizard of Oz" to create the strange combination we see here. So not only do we have a staged photo, we have a staged photo with subsequent color added to boot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.46.21 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you check the LoC original at http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a35000/1a35200/1a35241v.jpg you can see that this (wiki) version has had, at the very least, brightness and contrast edited. (A bit to much in my opinion). However, even the original looks like a staged photo. Nosferatux (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The LOC original also shows it is "Kodak Safety" film (look at the top border), and the notch code shows that it is Technical Pan film (see http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f3/f3.jhtml) -- a very fine-grain black-and-white film. In other words, this was colorized. Laphroaigman (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * GJ on finding that out! Cocytus Antenora (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wonder, then, why it is that the Library of Congress lists it as "digital file from original transparency" and "MEDIUM:  1 transparency : color", and says of the collection from which this image is drawn, "The original images are color transparencies ranging in size from 35 mm. to 4x5 inches." Cactus Wren (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not tinted
Let's just clear this up now. This image is almost certainly staged, but it is most assuredly not "colorized" or tinted. First of all, a hand-tinted black-and-white image can't have this degree of color saturation and richness, precisely because it's made by adding transparent color over shades of gray. Second, the notch code is not the same as that for Technical Pan. It does not match that of any film currently manufactured by Kodak. The notch code is, in fact identical to that on most of the images -- specifically described as "color transparenc{ies}" -- in the collection at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/fsac:@FIELD(SUBJ+@band(+Transparencies+Color+)) So unless anyone would care to argue that all of those photographs are black and white images, hand-tinted by some unknown process which adds color as saturated as that of a Kodachrome, and all given inaccurate descriptions by the Library of Congress, I think we have to agree that this is a color image exactly as described. Cactus Wren (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The notch code on the transparencies at the Library of Congress link you provide is for Kodachrome sheet film. This is correct for the period and validates the LoC's description. I'm quite sure that the people who work there can read old notch codes! Even early Kodachrome was capable of extremely rich, saturated colors, and it is in fact extremely fine-grained. Technically speaking, Kodachrome is actually a black and white process, with different layers in the film registering the analog luminance values of the three primary colors, and then the colored dyes are added during a very lengthy and finicky development process - this meant that really strong colors could be gotten very early on. Although the brand name is nearly universally recognized, few people today have actually worked with Kodachrome, so they aren't familiar with its special qualities. It was pretty sensational stuff. The current E6-type films are very, very good, and they have their own character, but they don't look like Kodachrome - not that anyone really cares anymore, digital capture being the last word in convenience, with any color profile you want only a click away. This particular shot was doubtless rather elaborately staged, just as it would be today for an annual report or similar - those ultra-natural compositions we do now with the light just so and the steam in the right place are not grab shots taken with a cell phone. The style today is just more artfully un-artful, that's all. I think it's likely that the shot was taken outdoors rather than in the studio. The background is underexposed somewhat to bring up the color of the sky - you can see how dark the cranes are - and the model is floodlit to compensate, which explains the blown-out highlights on his knee and chest and the rather unsettling and conflicting light sources. The small highlight on his hat would actually be from the sun. The intensely blue sky and the odd darkening of it indicates the use of a polarizing filter - they were available by then. I do think the blue is a little more intense than you would expect to see on the original transparency - the saturation may have been boosted a bit when the LoC scan was made. The photo would actually have been easiest to shoot outdoors, and by considering the setup you can tell that's how it was done. The background, although slightly out of focus, is still much too sharp and detailed to be an image projected on a backdrop. A rear-lit transparency would not yet have been possible - that's 1950s tech. Much easier and more certain just to pack up and go out to an industrial site. More fun, too. Very high quality uncoated lenses of the WW2 and prewar eras can take pictures with color like this - back in the 1980s I had an old Cooke triple convertable in a massive brass shutter that probably dated from the 1920s, and it took gloriously rich color transparencies - as long as you were obsessive about keeping stray light out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.126.92.31 (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks hugely for clearing that up. It's good to get some information from someone who knows something on the topic -- something beyond "People were stupid and ignorant back then" and "I have never heard of it therefore it did not exist." Cactus Wren (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a retouched version? I looked at the other versions, whose colors look more realistic, so one of those previous ones is perhaps the original. serioushat 08:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Per a Kodak support person with whom I spoke today (2011/08/10), the notch code on this film corresponds to the notch code for Kodak Super Panchro Press Type B film. This photo is similar to a number of photos shot by Alfred Palmer in October of 1942. They are currently located here: http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/New-photos-from-WWII-era-America/5514/1 Rmalarz (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)R.Malarz

To me..
Common sense dictates this was just never taken that long ago. Even if this is a touched, adjusted version, no amount of photoshop skill could recreate a picture like this. An alternative is the extremely obvious point that this was very recently taken... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloakdeath (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for any poster to explain how, if this picture was "very recently taken", the Library of Congress managed to list it as a color transparency taken in 1942. Cactus Wren (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

--- See my detailed discussion above. This photo is well within what was possible photographically in the WW2 period. It's old Kodachrome sheet film - the colors on that stuff will knock your eye out. The shot was taken on location with slightly awkward fill light and a polarizer. The uncoated lens was not a problem as long as the photographer was very aware of where all light sources were located. I've shot color with uncoated lenses and it can look this good. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.126.92.31 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedian edited version
Is pretty bad. Very bright, at the cost of detail. If the picture isn't good, don't try to wrangle it in photoshop to look like a good picture. It's either good as is with full detail or it's too dark. 75.170.42.21 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)