Bulbs, not powder were prevalent in the 50's. There were bulbs which put put amazing quantities of light. A "peanut #5 put out enough to light the faces of the crowds on the opposite side of a football field. And they truly were "peanut" size in comparison to those which were as large as a 250 watt bulb, like a #2. Those great little #5's were said to put out more lumens than the largest handheld strobe.
Last edited by Jim Noel; 28-Apr-2020 at 13:42. Reason: spelling error
I only saw sheet film that had two 'V' notches...that would be Super XX. But there was one that looked like the Vs were spaced further apart (Royal Pan), but difficult to tell.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Apparently the Super XX notch pattern remained the same over the years; two close notches the whole time. I just checked the 1947 Kodak manual, which is the closest date version I can find on my shelves to the given era. He's cut the corner on the Royal Pan examples, so could have been toting both. I had to brighten the screen to detect the difference, but it's there. Royal Pan was recommended for flash, Super XX the dependable long-scale workhorse film for many years.
If you have not found the link to the rest of Custer's 150 photos yet, it is https://www.okmorephotos.com/backtothepast
Looks like a very small lens in some of the only photos. Any ideas on what lens they used to make these remarkable images?
What a delightful story and photos. Thanks for posting!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
If you look at the shadows in most of the photos, he must have been using a flash held high above and photographers' left of the camera. Sometimes balanced with exterior lighting (in the sense that when there is a window, it is usually bright, but not totally blown out). Probably a moderately wide angle lens to capture the interiors - you can see mild wide angle distortion of people's heads - stopped down a lot for depth of field.
The floors always look textured to the point of dirty. I doubt they were actually mostly dirty in the stores (I'm sure they were stained in the garage!). Probably some combination of the perspective showing more floor than we usually see, people not being able to afford new floors of mark-resistant material, and the lighting accentuating the detail, makes it stand out in a way that newer, fancier interior design photos would hide.
Bookmarks