|
drrockso20 posted:Which reminds me of that episode of Gomer Pyle where he sings the song Impossible Dream from Man of La Mancha which led to me finding out that Jim Nabors had an absolutely stunning singing voice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZT8pXnPxHc
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
duckmaster posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vzLduvnW-FA Not that certainly, actually! In 1905, the two brothers Milton and Yanaki Manaki travelled to their home village of Avdella in what is today northern Greece and back then formed part of the Ottoman Empire. Along then came a film camera they had bought shortly before in London, and with it they captured a couple of everyday scenes in Avdella (they probably didn’t know that this was also the first footage shot in the Balkans ever). Amongst the scenes and people filmed was their grandmother Despina, who they claimed to be 114 years old at the time, which would mean that she was born around 1791. There’s no way to prove or disprove that claim, but personally I like to believe that the earliest born person to be filmed wasn’t an extremely powerful monarch and clergyman, but an old peasant woman living in the middle of nowhere. https://youtu.be/vCxkADaZHd4
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
A daguerreotype for ants
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BBkFacaBHY They called Helmuth von Molkte “The Great Silent One”, but so far as we know, he is the only person born prior to the nineteenth century whose voice has been preserved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
Say Nothing posted:If you've ever wondered why everyone seems to look so stern in old photographs, this is the reason - nobody could hold a smile for the long exposure time. That's also why the eyes often look kind of weird. You had to sit still for a pretty significant period of time and good luck not blinking that long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:A daguerreotype for ants Eyy I forgot to put the link in to the bigger version. Should be fixed now. ToxicSlurpee posted:That's also why the eyes often look kind of weird. You had to sit still for a pretty significant period of time and good luck not blinking that long. This is another reason that the whole 'oh no they were photographing their dead relatives one last time' thing is so heavily perpetuated today. Yes, it did happen, of course, but much of the time the reason that kid's eyes are painted on is because there ain't no one keeping a 3 year old still for that long. That Damn Satyr has a new favorite as of 16:57 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
keep in mind that they had exposure times down to nearly-modern brevity by the late 19th century -- if the photo is on cardstock instead of a metal plate, the sitters only had to stay still for a moment, but the serious face for a serious portrait remained a cultural phenomenon for decades after it was no longer caused/required by technological limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:keep in mind that they had exposure times down to nearly-modern brevity by the late 19th century -- if the photo is on cardstock instead of a metal plate, the sitters only had to stay still for a moment, but the serious face for a serious portrait remained a cultural phenomenon for decades after it was no longer caused/required by technological limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
I'd say it's got more to do with how people look in paintings than the process of photography itself ("sitting for a portrait", which is serious business, being the common denominator). I've seen photos of people smiling back to the 1910s at least, maybe further? My sister did an art school thing some years back where she classed several old photos by expressions happy/sad/angry (subjectively of course) Carthag Tuek has a new favorite as of 00:14 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
There's this photo from 1900 or so
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There's this photo from 1900 or so The first goon
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
stab posted:The first goon Much too handsome for that
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
That guy is cool af
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There's this photo from 1900 or so Those are the eye bags of a man that's held that pose for six hours
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
That looks like it's from Arrested Development.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There's this photo from 1900 or so I'm reminded of that gag from Mulan where we see a portrait a guy had taken of him with the Emperor of China, at first you think it's funny just because he's making a really goofy face in it, but then you realize just how long it takes a portrait to be painted and then it becomes hilarious because he had to have held that face the whole time it was being painted
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Wasn't photography real expensive, even on cardstock? I remember seeing a bunch of photos of victorians pulling stupid faces because the cameraman was trying to use up a bunch of film before it expired, so they got it for free. Although this was a thing by 1905: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/What%27s_Delaying_My_Dinner I'd have posted the image but imgur was being lovely with me and pretending not to exist
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Yeah, it wasn't cheap as it took a lot of work. Processing the pictures was done carefully by hand in a dark room. Photography was a difficult skill at the time. Polaroid cameras were a massive game changer as we're film rolls that could be mechanically processed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Also glass plate negatives were a thing in the early days. Those must have cost a mint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Kodak really revolutionized things with their first camera in 1888. It cost $25 and came pre-loaded with 100 exposures; you shoot them all, mail the camera to Kodak, and they mail it back with your developed photos and a fresh roll of film. That camera was about $620 in today's money, but at the equivalent of $6.20 a picture that was a loving steal. "Snapshots" simply didn't exist until then. It got even crazier with the Brownie, since it only cost $1 (about $25-30 in modern money at the time of release) and could be loaded and unloaded by hand. You could buy as many rolls of film as you wanted and shoot them all at your leisure, simply sending the rolls to get developed. I've got a collection of Brownies and similar cheap box cameras from the 1900s through the 1930s and they're all worlds ahead of 19th century cameras in terms of ease of use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
I have a 1917 patent Brownie and that thing still works. I shot on it back in '04 or so. Really simple, robust little machines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:Still happens, every few months somebody posts a screenshot from one of the sites that shows the tracks of flights in the TFR airpower or AI airplane threads of an airliner test flight or military training flight drawing a dick in the sky across half the US. In the military case, sometimes an SA goon was onboard, iirc. NASA put a dick on loving Mars. e: And, this being El Reg: The Register posted:We note the page allows visitors to "enlarge" the image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I have a 1917 patent Brownie and that thing still works. I shot on it back in '04 or so. Really simple, robust little machines. My oldest is pre-1910. I can verify its age from a website that has all the Brownie changes and what year they started, though I can't get more accurate than "This was from the original run until the 1910s". I did some shooting with it and unfortunately the roll jammed halfway through, so badly that I partially tore the cardboard casing pulling the winding key out to unstick it. The pictures came out severely light leaked but still kinda salvageable, like creepypasta photos of the Magic Kingdom. I did some shots as well on a Kodak 50th Anniversary Hawkeye and they came out perfect. The resolution on those things with modern film is tremendously high, even though they can't handle any light lower than direct sunlight or indoor fluorescent lights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:That guy is cool af That's not an empty quote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There's this photo from 1900 or so That dude loves him some rice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
My post (that) was not an empty quote. That dude owns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Ah, gotcha
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
This a bit random but the other week I learned that President Teddy Roosevelt used to learn and practice Judo from a Japanese delegate who was a black belt under Maeda (who was responsible for, iirc, removing the gang stigma Judo had gotten around that era) and was also America's first brown belt (1 rank under black belt). He also apparently lost vision or something in one of his eyes from boxing sparring which he did on the weekends even as president. This info was via Daneli Boleli on his recent JRE episode (cant recall the number) and this article http://m.fightland.vice.com/blog/the-strenuous-life-theodore-roosevelts-mixed-martial-arts
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Teddy Roosevelt knowing judo is perfectly in keeping with the meme perception of him as this super manly Ultimate Badass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 10:08
|
|
|
I mean, don't suck the ghost of his dick too hard. He was still a bit of a racist, but a lot more suave with his wording (if not his thinking) than his contemporaries, and a big ableist that promoted eugenics that stripped "degenerates" of breeding rights. Strange, considering his childhood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Roosevelt had the advantage of being in such close proximity to Wilson, which makes him look less racist by comparison. As far as I'm aware, eugenics was just "good science" as far as a lot of (not all, obviously) "learned" people were concerned. George Bernard Shaw was a big believer in eugenics, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
Well, if you're completely disregarding ethics & morality, eugenics is fairly scientific (also assuming everyone could agree on which traits were desirable and which weren't). Super hosed up though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
Eugenics doesn’t work. The Nazis murdered a hell of a lot of schizophrenic people and surprise! The rate of schizophrenia is Germany today is the same as everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
I was thinking more like breeding for short people or brown hair lol Basically like with dogs
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 11:38
|
|
|
McKinley had it coming. sic semper tyrannis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
i unironically think Leon Czolgosz did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
also if you excuse eugenics as "good science of its day" i think a poo poo ton of non-eugenicist scientists and other not-awful people from back then gladly would have told you it was bunk even at the time
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused how "a president did judo s rad" wound up being about eugenics but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Mekchu posted:I'm a bit confused how "a president did judo s rad" wound up being about eugenics but whatever. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 05:43
|
|
