Overmod Lithonia Operator I bet if Link were still alive, he would have made (or had made) the absolutely-best, highest-possible-res digital scan of his best negatives. Or possible scan the best print he had of each. As a photographer, you might want to go into why those are two very different things. To me, leaving the light heads in the picture adds, rather than detracts, to the interest of the image. In addition to showing the steam technology it's showing some of the image-capture technology as well. I'd be surprised if any of these 'nighttime' synchronized-flash shots were made with only one camera -- it's not as if even long-persistence bulbs would allow motor-drive bracketing of exposure, let alone 'insurance' that some of the equipment, or processing, might encounter problems that couldn't be fixed in post. Do we know how many cameras were used for the various angles in the famous Horse Shoe Curve centenary shot?
Lithonia Operator I bet if Link were still alive, he would have made (or had made) the absolutely-best, highest-possible-res digital scan of his best negatives. Or possible scan the best print he had of each.
As a photographer, you might want to go into why those are two very different things.
To me, leaving the light heads in the picture adds, rather than detracts, to the interest of the image. In addition to showing the steam technology it's showing some of the image-capture technology as well.
I'd be surprised if any of these 'nighttime' synchronized-flash shots were made with only one camera -- it's not as if even long-persistence bulbs would allow motor-drive bracketing of exposure, let alone 'insurance' that some of the equipment, or processing, might encounter problems that couldn't be fixed in post.
Do we know how many cameras were used for the various angles in the famous Horse Shoe Curve centenary shot?
Well, Link (and perhaps some of his assistants) was a master printer. If he started out with, say, his best (and perhaps largest) print of a given image, then all the dodging and burning and and other tricks he did would be already baked in. So then just a good straight scan would retain all of that. Perhaps an overall contrast tweak (very simple) would be needed; but otherwise all he'd have needed to do is clone some of the surrounding grassy area around those lights to obliterate them (turn them into grass). As I said, that's dead simple. I could believably zap those five lights in less than five minutes; maybe less than two.
If you scan the negative, first you have to reverse it to positive; but that's just a mouse click. However, now you have to start from scratch. So any "darkroom manipulation" would have to be done in Photoshop (or some other program). And even though I have not done such a comparison test, I think it would actually be a little more time-consuming to do some of those things digitally, and maybe hard to make it look exactly like a real darkroom print. However, once you had that digital file, if you stick to the same paper, and the same monitor, and the same printer, and all is kept calibrated, you could then just crank those out.
But there would be some major drawbacks. The collectors market would likely turn up their collective noses at the prints from digital files, even if they were giclee prints (which, btw, are quite expensive to have made; so Link would have to absorb that cost, either farmed out, or by buying the pricey tech gear to do it.) Also, creating more prints this way would water down the whole market.
I was just thinking it it were me, I would just love to see, maybe only have one for myself, a fine, large print of that image without the damn lights visible. I can't read minds, particularly of dead folks, but I'm guessing that it always bugged Link a little bit (or even a lot; he was a pretty compulsive guy) that he couldn't find a place to hide those lights. Basically, photographers like to hide their lights.
I don't mind that they're there. They're not super noticeable. But yeah, I wish he could have hidden them. However, I am very glad he did the shot anyway! That was a daunting task, and he didn't use something as a reason not to try. We all benefitted from his resolve.
Now, I should say that some of his shots don't work for me. There's this one. The lighting in this is way too heavy-handed for me. I don't care for that one. I think his best night/lit shots are the ones set in places with building, houses, railroad structures, etc. Those are locations where the viewer's brain expects some artificial light to exist. But that shot on the bridge, naaah, that does not look liike moon light! The lit stuff out in the countryside doesn't work so well. Likewise, a lot of locomotive shots done at night by railfans are way over-lit. The trick is in finding the right balance of available and added light.
I don't use much flash outdoors. But if a scene can make a good available-light shot as is, but would be enhanced if one part of it was lightened up, I'll sometimes do that. Really, day or night, I'll use "fill flash." If a guy is outdoors in bright daylight with a hat on, chances are his face will be too dark if you don't let the background blow out. Since I really hate over-exposure, I'll pop some fill in there. But I'm careful not to overdo it.
It's pretty wild how even my phone now can do this thing where it automatically reduces the contrast. (I'm blamnking out on the term for it at this moment.) So fill is generally less needed than it used to be.
A big reason Link might have wanted to do scans is for archival purposes. Ones and zeroes never fade or turn yellow.
I've gone on way long enough now. Thanks for the question.
BaltACD Amazing responses to a 19 year old thread.
Amazing responses to a 19 year old thread.
With the usual rollover of forum participants, it is actually sort of a new thread.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I can't understand why there was only 1 reply to the original posting and it was a week later. I would have thought there would have been at least the number of replies to this thread this time around and maybe more.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper VaporoI can't understand why there was only 1 reply to the original posting and it was a week later.
There's a lot more computers out there now. I didn't have one in 2001, I didn't get one until several years later and even then it was company-issued. I'd guess a lot of people on the Forum now were the same as me.
Semper Vaporo I can't understand why there was only 1 reply to the original posting and it was a week later. I would have thought there would have been at least the number of replies to this thread this time around and maybe more.
I wondered that also. But I think Flintlock nailed it.
Did you know O. Winston Link had a cameo in the 1999 film "October Sky?"
There's a steam locomotive runby where Southern 4501, relettered as a Norfolk & Western locomotive, passes a group of high schoolers, and Mr. Link is the engineer!
Here's 4501:
https://cinetrains.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/october1.png
And here's the man himself!
https://cinetrains.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/october2.png
I wonder how many N & W and O. Winston Link fans got the surprise of their lives watching this?
There's a couple of clips on YouTube of the sequence, but OWL's time on screen in the clips is so brief if you blink you miss him, so I didn't bother posting them.
I wonder how much subject matter influences us on who we think the "best" photographers are. I've always liked the Northeast, so I've gravitated towards Jim Shaughnessy and John Krause.
I thought that I'd already posted this, but I must've not hit the submit button or it disappeared.
Flintlock76 Did you know O. Winston Link had a cameo in the 1999 film "October Sky?" There's a steam locomotive runby where Southern 4501, relettered as a Norfolk & Western locomotive, passes a group of high schoolers, and Mr. Link is the engineer! Here's 4501: https://cinetrains.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/october1.png And here's the man himself! https://cinetrains.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/october2.png I wonder how many N & W and O. Winston Link fans got the surprise of their lives watching this? There's a couple of clips on YouTube of the sequence, but OWL's time on screen in the clips is so brief if you blink you miss him, so I didn't bother posting them.
Wow. I had not heard that. I loved that movie.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingThere's always the chance that there were several posts on the same subject and this one got the least amount of attention?
Do you remember what the forum looked like before they went with the current software? I'm talking several "upgrades" ago, before the gui intensive framework used now.
It was more of a "dressed up" usenet format, with hierarchy depicted by line traces similar to a sports bracketing form.
I think this thread started under that old format. And it was a lot easier for a thread to get lost in the weeds, and be pushed back to the next page.
That's my guess anyway...it was so long ago I dont remember the exact date when the switch to the current package took place.....but I'd guess around 2003......the birthdate for "anonymous" poster
Lithonia OperatorI wondered that also. But I think Flintlock nailed it.
This past Sunday I picked up a 1999 issue of "Classic Toy Trains" from a give-away table at a local train show. This morning out of curiosity I looked at the advertisers in the mag and out of 155 barely one-third had websites. Some had "800" or "888" numbers, some had fax numbers, but the "networked" ones were definately in the minority.
Not 2001 of course, but I figured it was close enough. Personal computers were certainly not as pervasive as they are now. In fact, it's hard to imagine life in this day and age without one.
What a difference 20 years makes.
You just know that somewhere down the road some dernded fool will try to colorize some of his photos. I wonder what color they"ll make the locomotuves?
Murphy Siding You just know that somewhere down the road some dernded fool will try to colorize some of his photos. I wonder what color they"ll make the locomotuves?
"Dernded fool" indeed! Black and white photography was an art in itself, look at some classic old movies from the Thirties and Forties for example, especially the "Noir" films.
I'd hate to think it's a lost art, but if it isn't it probably will be.
I think black & white photography is here to stay. I'm pretty confident that's the case.
There is something about black & white pictures that attracts me. I can't describe it, but the word "mood" comes to mind.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington There is something about black & white pictures that attracts me. I can't describe it, but the word "mood" comes to mind.
Where's Chris (CopCarSS) when you need him?
Honestly, I think he's much better than O.W. Link. Hope that doesn't give him too much of a big head...
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Lithonia OperatorI think black & white photography is here to stay. I'm pretty confident that's the case.
B&W makes something SEEM historical, even if it is not.
Our (Boomer) generation was fed a diet of B&W WW II news reels and other documentaries as well as B&W TV for most all our youth. Color is what we have experienced in most of our adult lives and thus view it as being contemporary.
Watching some WW II era movies that were either shot in Kodakrome or colorized from B&W masters seem jarring when viewed from the framework that was established in my youth.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Lithonia Operator I think black & white photography is here to stay. I'm pretty confident that's the case.
BaltACDWatching some WW II era movies that were either shot in Kodakrome or colorized from B&W masters seem jarring when viewed from the framework that was established in my youth.
I know what you mean. It reminds me of a Hitler documentary I watched for the first time that was put together from contemporary Agfachrome color films of Hitler. It was a bit of a shock, like that madman was still alive.
In black-and-white he's back in the past, color brought him right into the present. Scary.
Then, I'm reminded of what Elie Wiesel said about Hitler that sums it all up perfectly:
"Even dead, this man is terrifying."
Interestingly, quite a bit of WW2 footage was originally shot in color. The WW2 documentaries Balt, myself, and others remember from years back were produced in black and white from the original color films since they were intended for broadcast in an era when the majority of homes had black and white televisons, it was cheaper that way. It's only within the past 30-odd years that those color WW2 films have been shown as originally shot.
As far as colorizing goes I can't say I'm a big fan of it, I'd prefer to see original B&W footage restored to the way it should look.
And then Peter Jackson came along and threw me a curve ball! Did any of you see this when it came out? It was stunning!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74h-o8dFU8E
Because black and white photography preceded color photography, people tend to think B&W is inferior. But really they are just two different forms of art like water color and charcoal drawing. B&W is not just less than color. It does something that color does not do. That effect can be an asset to the image, and that same benefit cannot be achieved with color.
B&W tends to make an image appear as very close and intimate. This is because by lacking color, it lacks color temperature. Color temperature creates depth because warm colors advance and cool colors recede. Without any color temperature, B&W images seem very strong and intrusive. Link’s photos seem to reinforce that by having strong focus throughout the whole depth of field. The train in the distances seems as sharp as the people in the foreground.
And this is all enhanced by shooting at night with very strong concentrations of light. All of this works together to make some of his images almost surreal.
There was a very long and detailed article in Railfan Magazine back in the 1970s that covered how Mr. Link set up his photos with all the wires, switching, connectors, and flash bulbs. It was complicated with many steps and many things that could cause the shot to fail. I was fascinated by the art of setting all of that lighting and cameras up, and then firing the shot with just one chance. It seems like it would have been so exciting to see the image develop after all that work and expense just for one picture.
For all the set up and the intricacies of timing the flash lighting as well as the timing of the shutter and the focal legnth setting of the lens - once everything fired - he still had NO IDEA of what he had actually captured on film and he would have no idea until he was able to get back to a dark room and develop the film and actually SEE what he had captured.
Yes his skills would tell him he got 'something', but the reality of what he actually had captured would remain unknown until the film was developed.
The 'stress' of the moment can overwhem the one trying to capture the magic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4
Euclid I was fascinated by the art of setting all of that lighting and cameras up, and then firing the shot with just one chance.
As noted earlier, Mr. Link had the run of the railroad, and capturing a number of his images involved multiple takes, or run-bys as appropriate. That would involve repositioning the train, and of course, replacing all of those flash bulbs (for the night shots, anyhow).
If you see images of his teams for these shoots, they're all wearing headlamps.
tree68 Euclid I was fascinated by the art of setting all of that lighting and cameras up, and then firing the shot with just one chance. As noted earlier, Mr. Link had the run of the railroad, and capturing a number of his images involved multiple takes, or run-bys as appropriate. That would involve repositioning the train, and of course, replacing all of those flash bulbs (for the night shots, anyhow). If you see images of his teams for these shoots, they're all wearing headlamps.
And still, with having, 'the run of the railroad', he would have no idea if he would need 'another runby' after capturing shot 1. I suspect he would have set up multiple cameras in multiple locations to be remotly triggered when he featured it was 'time' to take the shot on his prime camera - thus increasing the likelyhood of getting a satasfactory image.
Most of you don't understand night flash photography. You don't have to time the opening of the shutter with the flash... you open the shutter and start gathering light on the film... whatever there is of it... stars, streetlights, moonlight... very little is available, but you have the iris closed down so that the depth of field is very wide/deep, not much will reach the film. Then at the moment you want to capture some moving item, POW! you fire off the flash. That flash must provide all the light you need with that depth of field caused by the small iris opening. (Thus the dozens of flashbulbs that Link used!)
My brother takes photos of humming birds. He uses a black background and takes the photos on the east side of a building in the evening so there is little ambient light. He can open the shutter and wait for the bird to show up, then pop a 1/1000 second flash and get photos of the birds in flight and the wings are totally unblurred, you can even see the individual veins in the feather shafts and the "feathering" of the tips.
I used to "paint" a photo at night with a small flashlight. Put the camera on a tripod, close down the iris, focus on the subject, open the shutter ("bulb" setting) and then use the flashlight to shine on the parts I wanted to show up in the photo. I even walked in front of the camera while shining the light on something to the side (where I was not between the camera and that part of the scene). As long as I didn't let the side of the flashlight get in the view you'd never know I walked right in front of the camera shining the light on the scene.
I learned this technique at a Kodak Photo Seminar where the 2 presenters were Kodak employees that toured the world taking photos for Kodak (dream job!). One of them was in India and wanted photos of a 2 story building that had multiple arches on both floors. This was in a city that had no electricity for illumination of buildings. He put the camera on a tripod, opened the shutter and with his portable flash unit walked to the bulding, pointed the flash unit at each pillar between the arches and popped it once for each one. Then went up to the 2nd floor porch and standing behind each pillar up there, popped his flash unit at the ceiling. When done he went back to the camera and closed the shutter. Note, this was in a crowded plaza with people wandering all around, even stopping in front of the camera to peer into the lens. He had to watch the camera when setting off the flash unit to be sure someone was not between the camera and the part of the scene he was flashing light onto.
In the photo the building is beautifully illuminated! Careful study of the marvelous image does reveal that many people in the plaza were smoking... you can see reddish curved streaks where the lit cigarette was carried as the person swung their arms as they walked. There were also brighter red spots where they took a puff on their "adult binkie". But other than that, no people are visible in the photo!
Night flash "FILM" photography is fun... but like was stated here earlier, you don't know if it worked until you get prints back from the developer! I usually had the shutter open for 1 to 2 minutes and surprizingly, mostly got good results using the technique of:
"Gee, I guess I have painted the scene enough! Maybe I'll close the shutter now."
I have been unable to perform this type of photography in Digital... I don't have a digital camera with a "bulb" setting on the shutter!
BaltACDAnd still, with having, 'the run of the railroad', he would have no idea if he would need 'another runby' after capturing shot 1. I suspect he would have set up multiple cameras in multiple locations to be remotly triggered when he featured it was 'time' to take the shot on his prime camera - thus increasing the likelyhood of getting a satasfactory image.
I've seen images by Link that were captioned to note that there was a flash failure. I would imagine that if it looked like all the ducks lined up it would be considered a good run. I'd pretty well bet, though, that any image involved several exposures.
Semper VaporoMost of you don't understand night flash photography. You don't have to time the opening of the shutter with the flash... you open the shutter and start gathering light on the film... whatever there is of it... stars, streetlights, moonlight... very little is available, but you have the iris closed down so that the depth of field is very wide/deep, not much will reach the film. Then at the moment you want to capture some moving item, POW! you fire off the flash. That flash must provide all the light you need with that depth of field caused by the small iris opening. (Thus the dozens of flashbulbs that Link used!)
I love available light shots. Not as crazy about night shots with flashes. If not done right, you get a very flat image (remember the alien bee craze a few years ago? Lots of flatness abound).
Years ago, I tired my hand at night shots. Never found much luck in painting with light. Always was better with available light.
I still shoot film and I've had some luck with available light shots. Experience helps and I believe that shooting with film improves your skill and knowledge much better than shooting digital.
CSSHEGEWISCHI still shoot film and I've had some luck with available light shots. Experience helps and I believe that shooting with film improves your skill and knowledge much better than shooting digital.
I don't think that's true.
zugmannI love available light shots. Not as crazy about night shots with flashes. If not done right, you get a very flat image (remember the alien bee craze a few years ago? Lots of flatness abound). Years ago, I tired my hand at night shots. Never found much luck in painting with light. Always was better with available light.
Link spent a bit of time coming up with his night rig, such that he was able to provide the available light that looks like available light. This was with multiple reflectors, large flash bulbs and many yards of connecting wire from the camera to the flash locations. Strobes were not a viable option in the fifties, so he had to spend time with one or two assistants to set the shots up. Since he had cooperation of crews and N&W management, it was slightly easier for him. The skill part of the art was to end up with a picture that would print and look like the lighting was natural, available light. My take is that he succeeded for the most part.
The other important thing about Link was that he was not just capturing an image, he was telling a story. That had to stem from his commercial photography experience, where the advertisement art had to tell a story about the product. Relative to that goal, he succeeded far beyond most of our abilities.
BTW, the flashbulbs he probably used were about the size of a 100-watt bulb and had normal Edison bases. The flash equipment and supplies were packed into a trailer that he dragged behind his car.
O contraire! If said train was making too much smoke he would call the dispatcher and have it back up.
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.