Great Hi Res Pic WWII

Thanks, these are great.

I can't resist looking at old WW2 pics. There is just something about them that attracts me like a magnet. Especially of the Pacific Theater and aircraft. In general I've always been fascinated by the time period from the early 1920's and into WW2.

I know its kinda weird but you know that feeling you get when you look at something and get the feeling you've seen it before or been there? I was born long after WW2 was over.

Hi

Yes, completely agree.

Im fact considering in sending a couple of these for a digital print and hang them in my hobby shop, mans cave...hehehe

Yeah, those are awesome. The detail is so crisp. Love 'em.

Notice something about the girl mechs vs the guy mechs?

The lady mechs don't have a spot of oil/grease on their clothing!

I'm sorry but something's bugging me here.... In the first link, the pictures look like the might be too high definition to be from World War II. I don't know but I think these may have been taken with a digital camera.... The definition just looks to be TOO too high to me. They're great pictures, I mean, they are very nice... but they just look too modern to me..

There were a lot of large format cameras in use in WW2.  Even though GIs taking their own pictures had 35s or 120s, many of the pros, especially in rear areas, used Speed Graphics and other 4 x 5s, I and I have seen shots by others that includes photographers with big cameras that looked to be even bigger than 4 x 5.  The resolution of those old things when using good, slow film was awesome.

However, when we do a search for pics of old aircraft today, we do have to look out for refurbs and museum aircraft, which may or may not be all that accurate. It is important, if you are doing something like a google image search, to go to the web page itself and try to find out whose plane it is and when the pic was taken.

I'd wager that all of those US-based shots were taken with a 4x5 camera, and possibly a few of the posed and lighted shots were taken with a larger format.

These aren't "HD", just large format transparencies using Kodachrome 25 or 64. (fact- Daguerreotypes can have even more resolution than these, despite being a far older technology!).

Yes, these photos all look to be taken by professional PR type photographers with top of the line cameras and film, and some are obviously posed. Thanks for posting the link, I LOVE them!!! I look at the photos and see the people and realize that even of the school children in there, they are now either elderly or deceased, as well as all of the factory workers, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines... yet the qulity of these photos keeps them forever alive at that moment and age... beautiful stuff.

Agreed!!

Analog technology is much better than digital.

Colors are richer and wamer...it's the same as music. You could have the best digital technology but it wont be as good as the best analog system. This is why LP discs are coming back.

Im an IT guy...I know...

garzonh

Agreed!!  it's the same as music. You could have the best digital technology but it wont be as good as the best analog system. This is why LP discs are coming back.

So true.  A brand new phonograph record will sound better than a new compact disc.  Analog music has a "floor" that digital does not have.  It's more alive and natural sounding.  The problem is longevity; each playing of a record slightly degrades the sound.  Remember "pops" and "hisses"?  And, analog records aren't very portable are they?  Try playing one in your car...

Gary

Garzonh, I gotta strongly disagree with some of that.

When a deadline is imminent,  I'd much rather have a new Nikon D4 than an old Nikon F4... 30 minutes minimum to get film to print vs. 30 seconds.   Analog is OK if you have lead time, but not if you need the results right now.   Plus, I can plug a cable or card into the digital camera and have real-time transmission of the imagery world-wide- something that was simply impossible with film technology.

And lastly, today's top-o-the line SLR digi's are just about equal to the old large format cameras in regard to resolution and acuity, with better exposure control, wider film speeds and lens selection.

The only thing film has over digital is a better archival track record.

Dre

When a deadline is imminent,  I'd much rather have a new Nikon D4 than an old Nikon F4... 30 minutes minimum to get film to print vs. 30 seconds.   Analog is OK if you have lead time, but not if you need the results right now.   Plus, I can plug a cable or card into the digital camera and have real-time transmission of the imagery world-wide- something that was simply impossible with film technology.

Convenient is not equal to better.

Just because you could have burguer at Fast Food chain in 2 minutes, doesn't makes it any better than a slow carbon grilled burguer. 

With the new digital cameras now everyone is an artist..ehem...Instagram...ehemmm... but are the subjects and contets of the pictures good?, is the composition correct?...

I just don't buy it.

Maybe you don't buy it, I do.   I'm a working photographer- I do this for a living.  

Back in the film days, there were no fine grain high speed color print/slide film.  Sure, you could push ISO 1600 to 6400, but it was far too grainy to be really useful beyond spot news.  Same with B/W TMZ 3200- push it beyond that and you had grain the size of Texas, no midtones and no acuity.   Modern digi's can go well beyond that with far less noise and grain.

Also, which is preferable in today's economy- $150 for a brick of film, or $30 for a 8GB memory card? Consider the bulk of those two items as well.   That's roughly the same number of exposures in my camera- 720 for film, 798 for digital with no stopping to change rolls.  

Sorry dude, but modern digital cameras are better in so many quantifiable ways than film.   The only strong advantage film has is the archival longevity of the medium (at least for properly processed and stored emulsions like B/W or Kodachrome).

(everyone back in the film days was on par with Ansel Adams, Alfred Stieglitz and Henri Cartier-Bresson? )

Both systems have their pro's and con's. And digital photography is still evolving and improving.But there is still something to be said for film photography- it does require more thought & effort to be done nicely- there are far fewer spots on a roll of film than on a memory card... and there is noting wrong with more thought being put into anything, just like in this hobby....

BTW, that Shorpy site is excellent! Thanks for that link Garzon.

garzonh

Agreed!!

Analog technology is much better than digital.

Colors are richer and wamer...it's the same as music. You could have the best digital technology but it wont be as good as the best analog system. This is why LP discs are coming back.

Im an IT guy...I know...

Even though I posted the message about the large format cameras, and used film for many decades, I would argue against the film being better than digital.  Modern digital cameras have both resolution AND speed at the same time- you used to have to pick one vs other.  Modern digital cameras have more dynamic range for color photography than almost any color film (yeah, there were some great B&W films that had good DR, but now we don't have to carry two cameras :-)  ).

Even before retirement over a decade ago, I had found that military was switching to solid state cameras for recon work.  Surprised me at the time but at that point I did not have access to latest data.

Also, I would argue against calling film analog and electronic cameras digital.  Both CCD and CMOS cameras actually have analog photodetectors- A/D conversion takes place after readout of image chip.  I personally believe the methods should be called film and electronic.

In most applications, the time advantages of digital over film are a convienience. Only for the military and law enforement applications can I see it truly being a necessity. Real time intelligence can save lives and take down bad guys or their infrastructure. Work/news deadlines are simply time constraints put in place to sell a product more quickly.