1900-1915 HD quality photos of the United States cities. Is that normal?

Some of them looks like CGI to me.
If this is real pictures, then the type of lens in use and the shutter speed is similar, maybe better than most modern camera.

No movement blur anywhere, that’s some fast exposure right there when 80+% of the cameras in use were still glass plate. Even expanding images on my iPad can’t catch them out.
Korben, right on cue, just as I’m settling down for the night, once again you pop up and give me something new to think about.
Bleary eyed, just when he thought the day was nearly over, he staggers out of the room to switch on his desktop....

They had equipment.

• Early Photographic Equipment

Turpinhero said:

No movement blur anywhere, that’s some fast exposure right there when 80+% of the cameras in use were still glass plate. Even expanding images on my iPad can’t catch them out.
Korben, right on cue, just as I’m settling down for the night, once again you pop up and give me something new to think about.
Bleary eyed, just when he thought the day was nearly over, he staggers out of the room to switch on his desktop....

Click to expand...

There is a bit of motion blur, but it's hard to spot. Mostly in people's feet as they're stepping forward, or rubber wheel tread/ spokes.

The quality is from dry glass plate and fast exposure times.

This all seems about right to me, but I'm probably too "radicalized" at this point. At the very least, it is yet another example that the arrow of progress, especially when it comes to technology, does not necessarily move forward. Being "better" often isn't the endgame, being cheaper/faster plays a role, as does the politics of the industry. As KD has shown repeatedly, mass transportation was clearly better 100 years ago in terms of efficiency, availability, and most other standards, but there was big time money to be made selling everyone a gas burning car.

With photography too, I think we have to deal with the modern day marketing of HD and the switch from analog to digital. It's really all just a different delivery mechanism for a people with clearly different entertainment priorities than 100 years ago. The fact is you only need a higher resolution if you need something to be huge (which is again a need promoted by marketing).

Basically, it makes sense to me that wonderful "HD" quality photography was available 50 to 75 years after it was allegedly invented, but most people didn't have a use-case for a photo the size of a mural. So the industry was able to scale down the quality for reasons of quicker/cheaper production (think Polaroid) in order to get more people to buy it. Eventually, once the market is saturated, it's time to unveil the "upgrades" which is just rebranding what already existed (think Tesla).

What's interesting (and probably the saddest) is that it really seems like there's nothing new under the sun, just a market that expands and collapses based on the overall culture and the average person's disposable income.

Banta said:

This all seems about right to me, but I'm probably too "radicalized" at this point.

Click to expand...

I think some of us are to a degree. For me it can also be hard to separate the “common core” narrative from some of the things we see.

KorbenDallas said:

I think some of us are to a degree. For me it can also be hard to separate the “common core” narrative from some of the things we see.

Click to expand...

Heh, yeah. I mean, sure, the average person might find the picture quality available here to be anachronistic, but I would suspect that any expert in the field of photographic history wouldn't be. It's just that we are raised in a certain paradigm that tries to reject any anomalies to the overall storyline. And we live in a world that is increasingly specialized, so most people's knowledge outside of their field of expertise is so shallow, they have no choice but to accept the consensus (which is more driven by corporate interest and the media than by actual "experts").

That said, I do believe everytime someone becomes confronted with one of these perceived anomalies, there's an opportunity to expand one's personal paradigm. Or you can just say "cameras wouldn't show people back then, idiot!" and go back to sleep.

Agreed. We probably need a certain standard of when and what was possible, within the narrative, of course. Unfortunately, the narrative is too vague about many things. Could be for a reason, I guess.

Here we could run into some difficulties figuring out what the actual narrative is. Things we uncover could arguably be an overlooked, and therefore unadvertised narrative. Well, at least, this could be a convenient position for the PTB to assume.

May be the narrative is what’s commonly accepted as normal, for there have to be other reasons why certain things are not being advertised.

Look into what they recorded the images on to. Film/glass plate, emulsions, size of film sheet/glass plate. I'm of an age to know these things really matter when it comes to the amount of visual clarity captured. Basically the larger the sheet the more detail there is assuming the emulsion is up to it.
Ipads and all screens are incapable of rendering an analogue image in full detail as they are all limited by pixel size.

KorbenDallas said:

I don't know about you, but this quality of the 1900-1915 photography does not quite match my perception, based on the dogmatic education I received. Below are some photos available on the Library of Congress website. The quality is beyond explainable IMHO.

These photographs predominantly pertain to New York City, with a few from Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, Atlantic City, etc.

View attachment 5905
View attachment 5906View attachment 5907View attachment 5908View attachment 5909View attachment 5910View attachment 5911View attachment 5912View attachment 5913View attachment 5914View attachment 5915View attachment 5916View attachment 5917View attachment 5918View attachment 5919View attachment 5920View attachment 5921View attachment 5922View attachment 5923View attachment 5924View attachment 5925View attachment 5926View attachment 5927View attachment 5928View attachment 5929View attachment 5930View attachment 5931View attachment 5932View attachment 5933View attachment 5934View attachment 5935View attachment 5936​

---

KD: What do you think? Does the quality of the photos match the known technology, and the time when they were supposedly taken?

Click to expand...

The 2 large buildings in the first photo are absolutely incredible. Built with horse and wagon and no power tools, right? I've been stunned and impressed with many photos on this site, but every time I see these 2, I'm still floored.

It's the architectural style of the buildings depicted in the first photograph, that makes me question our narrative based reality.

KorbenDallas said:

It's the architectural style of the buildings depicted in the first photograph, that makes me question our narrative based reality.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

I look in wonder and ask myself what would it be to live then? It was great I suppose if one was in the in-group. Life all about competing with other families for the business of the coming boom in babies and foreign exiles. Maybe one would speculate in stocks (printed, of course) and/or spirits (via seances). Pianos and organs and cheap cigars. Everyone dolled up, walking as if on parade for each other. Maybe some jazz in Harlem.

Here is a woman who talks about life in 1880s' Los Angeles. Innocent, easy, and proper. The entire world around her magical.

As for questioning narrative-based reality, it seems to me that the vast majority of humans are living as though in a dream. I suppose when the dream starts to crack up, they need to make sacrifices. The world wars were just what they "needed." And just around the corner.

I wonder what powered those type of carriages on th 2nd photo (electricity?):

Indeed...


This is like it was a totally different world back then.