Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: pearlstreet on December 13, 2017, 02:12:56 pm
-
I have some small contact prints my father took in England during WWII. Can anyone tell me what film this is from?
-
Sharon, that needs Sherlock!
I assume you mean it's from part of a motion picture?
Rob
-
I have no idea. They are from a lot of different places so I doubt it's a motion picture. I wish I had the negatives. Some of them are really interesting.
-
Looks to me like thatched roofs... if that narrows it down; but it probably is somewhere in England. To my surprise, I can't definitively say whether they existed north of the border - I certainly don't remember coming across them at any time, but neither would I claim to have been the sharpest eye in town.
But one thing: had these been shot on digital, would anybody have been able to reproduce the files today, whereas being film, it would be perfectly possible if they were available.
Perhaps an object lesson in keeping records, even if only on the back of a print!
Rob
-
Rob is this Church recognizable to you?
-
Rob is this Church recognizable to you?
Do you know what outfit your father was a part? From that you can research where they were assigned? Do you have specific dates?
Peter
-
My dad was 82nd Airborne. He was in every major battle in Europe except the Battle of the Bulge and during that battle he was on special assignment from Eisenhower. and spent time in England and the US. I think these were taken then. I was curious what camera he might have been using as the format seems so odd to me.
-
My dad was 82nd Airborne. He was in every major battle in Europe except the Battle of the Bulge and during that battle he was on special assignment from Eisenhower. and spent time in England and the US. I think these were taken then. I was curious what camera he might have been using as the format seems so odd to me.
As these are contact prints and looking at the size of the image, they appear to be from a 35 MM camera. Do you remember a camera that your dad may have had, early in your childhood?
Peter
-
Sharon,
Churches were not really my thing - but it strikes me as a bit ornate for Britain, but we'd need an architect's expertise to decide these things - or perhaps even a historian might have an idea. Isn't there some Google app that lets you feed in a picture and it returns similar ones? Could be the answer, but then again, with me you are dealing with a technophobe who would never have his finger on those pulses!
Rob
-
It could be from Holland...another pic has windmills. Thanks. :-)
-
It could be from Holland...another pic has windmills. Thanks. :-)
The 82nd was in holland Sept of 44 for operation Market Garden...didn't go all that well. A Movie A BRIDGE TOO FAR is all about the operation...
Peter
-
Yeah, my dad was there. He had some amazing stories. He was a pathfinder at DDay. Was in Sicily.
-
My uncles were all thru Europe and Father spent almost four years island hopping in the South Pacific...very amazing stories!!
Peter
-
35mm cameras weren't that common in the US 'til after WWII. But there were some, like the Argus A. I'd put my speculative money on an A being Sharon's dad's camera.
-Dave-
-
I have some small contact prints my father took in England during WWII. Can anyone tell me what film this is from?
127 roll film?
http://www.obsoletemedia.org/127-film/
http://www.photographyhistory.com/cc6.html
Rand
-
The 82nd was in holland Sept of 44 for operation Market Garden...didn't go all that well. A Movie A BRIDGE TOO FAR is all about the operation...
Peter
The 82nd airborne performed brilliantly in that operation - did everything they were tasked to do.
The problem was at Arnhem and the tactical plan for the capture of the bridge over the lower Rhine which was the responsibility of the British 6th airborne division. The issue was that the plan called for landings 12-15 km away from the bridge. Doesn't sound very far but for an airborne operation at that time it may as well have been the distance to the moon.
Only a handful of British paratroops even got as far as Arnhem...
The outstanding tactical lesson for airborne operations in WW2 was that one needed to be dropped or land (they used gliders extensively) right on top of one's objective. That lesson was not heeded by the planners of the operation at Arnhem.
Interestingly enough the two American airborne divisions (the 82nd and 101st airborne) involved in operation Market Garden performed flawlessly and achieved all their objectives. Their tactical plans called for the drop zones and landing zones to be right next to their objectives. A less than subtle pattern emerges...
All airborne operations carried out in WW2, by any army, resulted in heavy casualties. However, by the end of the war, despite the casualties, the American airborne units had written, and rewritten, the book on airborne operations...Many of those operations are still taught as textbook operations in military academies around the world today!
Hero's to the last - every one of them!
-
The 82nd airborne performed brilliantly in that operation - did everything they were tasked to do.
The problem was at Arnhem and the tactical plan for the capture of the bridge over the lower Rhine which was the responsibility of the British 6th airborne division. The issue was that the plan called for landings 12-15 km away from the bridge. Doesn't sound very far but for an airborne operation at that time it may as well have been the distance to the moon.
Only a handful of British paratroops even got as far as Arnhem...
The outstanding tactical lesson for airborne operations in WW2 was that one needed to be dropped or land (they used gliders extensively) right on top of one's objective. That lesson was not heeded by the planners of the operation at Arnhem.
Interestingly enough the two American airborne divisions (the 82nd and 101st airborne) involved in operation Market Garden performed flawlessly and achieved all their objectives. Their tactical plans called for the drop zones and landing zones to be right next to their objectives. A less than subtle pattern emerges...
All airborne operations carried out in WW2, by any army, resulted in heavy casualties. However, by the end of the war, despite the casualties, the American airborne units had written, and rewritten, the book on airborne operations...Many of those operations are still taught as textbook operations in military academies around the world today!
Hero's to the last - every one of them!
All this, and not a memntion of John Wayne or Errol Flynn? How unkind!
;-)
Rob
-
My dad was 82nd Airborne.
Sharon, my father was also in the 82nd and jumped on D-day.
I have the division history book which follows each battle in detail, from training in the UK (before D-day) to the end of the war, when (units of) the 82nd was stationed in Berlin. If you could find a more specific battalion your father was assigned to during preparations (in the UK) or during the D-day jump, I might be able to locate a region the the UK, where your father may have been located.
The book has a photo of my father on the banks of Loch Ness. No, he didn't mention meerting the monster. ;)
-
Isn't there some Google app that lets you feed in a picture and it returns similar ones?
You can do that with Google Images - just click on the camera icon in the search bar. I tried with Sharon's image, but Google gets confused by the tree branches. I also tried tighter crops of parts of the architecture, but no joy. It's a spectacular looking church, somewhat similar to the North Entrance of Westminster Abbey. Should be easily identifiable by someone who knows their churches.
-
Sharon, my father was also in the 82nd and jumped on D-day.
I have the division history book which follows each battle in detail, from training in the UK (before D-day) to the end of the war, when (units of) the 82nd was stationed in Berlin. If you could find a more specific battalion your father was assigned to during preparations (in the UK) or during the D-day jump, I might be able to locate a region the the UK, where your father may have been located.
The book has a photo of my father on the banks of Loch Ness. No, he didn't mention meerting the monster. ;)
Hi Mike. My dad's plane at Dday was pathfinder one. Its the one that Col. Frank Bagby of Eisenhowers staff stole a ride on. :-). From what I remember, my dad was pulled out of his unit for an assignment from Eisenhower concerning a secret radio operation. So when he was in England, i don't think he was with his regular unit. My dad died in 1986- i wish he had lived when the internet came to be - he would have loved finding other vets.
My dad is standing on the far right in this photo.
-
Thanks for all your comments guys. My dad's family had a photography studio in western Oklahoma but I guess this roll of film didn't make it back to them. Here's a couple of examples...too bad they are so small.
-
Ah, the two faces make goblet photo...I remember doing this with my friends when I attended Pratt Institute in the seventies. Much fun.
Peter
-
As these are contact prints and looking at the size of the image, they appear to be from a 35 MM camera.
There were few 35mm cameras at that time that were affordable. I think the main ones from the U.S. were the Argus (affordable) and the Kodak Retina (expensive.) Judging from the images, I don't think they were made with an expensive camera.
Kent in SD
-
There were few 35mm cameras at that time that were affordable. I think the main ones from the U.S. were the Argus (affordable) and the Kodak Retina (expensive.) Judging from the images, I don't think they were made with an expensive camera.
Kent in SD
Probably not but these are scans of contact prints that are about an inch wide so it's hard to say. But I can't imagine him having an expensive camera in the war. It had to be disposable.
-
Ah, the two faces make goblet photo...I remember doing this with my friends when I attended Pratt Institute in the seventies. Much fun.
Peter
Ha!
-
Looking closely at the film jogged my memory--there are no sprocket holes. There was another format that size popular at that time--127 roll film. There were several Kodak (and Ansco) cameras of the period that would have worked then. During WW1 the Kodak Vest Pocket was very popular with U.S. troops. It folded up very compactly and shot 127. What are the exact measurements of the negatives? That's the biggest clue.
"The VPK took film negatives slightly larger than a postage stamp—just 1⅝ by 2½ inches. "
https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-vest-pocket-kodak-was-the-soldiers-camera/
Another candidate is 828 roll film--basically 35mm with out sprocket holes. Often used in the "plain" Kodak Bantam camera:
"This permitted an image area of 28×40 mm"
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Bantam
Kent in SD
-
Looking closely at the film jogged my memory--there are no sprocket holes. There was another format that size popular at that time--127 roll film. There were several Kodak (and Ansco) cameras of the period that would have worked then. During WW1 the Kodak Vest Pocket was very popular with U.S. troops. It folded up very compactly and shot 127. What are the exact measurements of the negatives? That's the biggest clue.
"The VPK took film negatives slightly larger than a postage stamp—just 1⅝ by 2½ inches. "
https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-vest-pocket-kodak-was-the-soldiers-camera/
Another candidate is 828 roll film--basically 35mm with out sprocket holes. Often used in the "plain" Kodak Bantam camera:
"This permitted an image area of 28×40 mm"
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Bantam
Kent in SD
Kent I wish I had the negatives but all I have are these little prints. In my first post I put it by a ruler. Maybe it is the 127.
-
A contact print will be exactly the same size as the original film negative. The image dimensions will give you the format, and from that the film size. You can then narrow down what camera was used because: (1) likely made in America (2) lens quality was not high (3) you know the time period (4) you know the film format.
Kent in SD
-
The film could be 127. My mom had a 127 camera in the '50s that made approx. 27x40mm images. OTOH the contact prints Sharon has are tight enough that the sprocket holes may be cropped out.
-Dave-
-
The film could be 127. My mom had a 127 camera in the '50s that made approx. 27x40mm images. OTOH the contact prints Sharon has are tight enough that the sprocket holes may be cropped out.
-Dave-
Yeah, only HC-B had that borderline (?) fixation. And of course, later Hassy snappers, too. Clever of Victor to think of that! I like him more every day.
:-)
-
The second photo, of the railroad tracks, sure looks like roll film to me. I've shot a lot of roll film the past seven years--120, 127, 828.
Kent in SD
-
The second photo, of the railroad tracks, sure looks like roll film to me. I've shot a lot of roll film the past seven years--120, 127, 828.
Kent in SD
-
The second photo, of the railroad tracks, sure looks like roll film to me. I've shot a lot of roll film the past seven years--120, 127, 828.
Kent in SD
I shot roll film all my pro life; please tell me how you make your deduction from one web repro of a contact print.
If anything, the white blob at the bottom right could suggest a sprocket hole...
Rob C
-
FFS folks, it’s 35mm! 1.5" wide; very much a Barnack-y 1:1.5 aspect ratio—what other data is needed? Show me any 127 camera with a 3:2 ratio! I’ll buy you dinner at my favourite Malaysian restaurant in Adelaide any time!
Talk about sprocket holes is, sadly, irrelevant—I have never seen a 35mm film holder available for sale which displayed sprockets!
-
Rob is this Church recognizable to you?
Am I not seeing flying buttresses? It's hard to tell where the tallest spire is attached because of the branches, but it is very large/tall indeed. These may be clues that could help someone with better knowledge of churches, cathedrals and architecture.
-
Am I not seeing flying buttresses? It's hard to tell where the tallest spire is attached because of the branches, but it is very large/tall indeed. These may be clues that could help someone with better knowledge of churches, cathedrals and architecture.
It will probaby turn out to be in Paris, or, worse for me, the cathedral in Palma de Mallorca! Shame on me if it is!
Rob
-
FFS folks, it’s 35mm! 1.5" wide; very much a Barnack-y 1:1.5 aspect ratio—what other data is needed? Show me any 127 camera with a 3:2 ratio! I’ll buy you dinner at my favourite Malaysian restaurant in Adelaide any time!
Talk about sprocket holes is, sadly, irrelevant—I have never seen a 35mm film holder available for sale which displayed sprockets!
True, but making contacts doesn't require anything but a base and some glass. Who knows how long the film strips, or even if some were cut into single frames.
(One thing, Sharon, give the lads a chance and they will argue until well after the cows are already home. That's why women read more books than do men.)
;-)
Rob
-
True, but making contacts doesn't require anything but a base and some glass. Who knows how long the film strips, or even if some were cut into single frames.
(One thing, Sharon, give the lads a chance and they will argue until well after the cows are already home. That's why women read more books than do men.)
;-)
Rob
Both points constitute the truest things expressed in this thread so far.
;)
Eric
-
:) Argue away. It's been interesting.
-
Since you all did so well identifying the church photo (cough/cough), I'll put up another. Is this a kiln?
-
Looks like a kiln to me. I've taken the liberty of yanking around the tonal values a bit. No idea where this might be…
-Dave-
-
No, it's a slag heap. After that, it's a double exposure.
:-)
Rob
-
:-)