The Lemon Fool

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-43782267

I found these photos really interesting. London in the late 50s early 60s looking so different...and some earlier shots too from the 1930s.

Some really fantastic almost Cartier-Bresson type shots.

I was strangely fascinated by the hardware store showing all the goods displayed outside...it must have taken ages to set up the display ever day like that.

John

Very talented photographer indeed.

Yes. I particularly liked the one 'Passing in the street, London, 1956'. One of my first thoughts was: "Couldn't take that with a digital camera!"

Forgive me if I am wrong there. I am not a photographer and only have an oldish and very simple digital camera.

XFool wrote:Yes. I particularly liked the one 'Passing in the street, London, 1956'. One of my first thoughts was: "Couldn't take that with a digital camera!"

Forgive me if I am wrong there. I am not a photographer and only have an oldish and very simple digital camera.

It is a very striking photo but I'm not sure why you think it could not be taken with a digital camera. What do you see as the problem?

John

I'm wondering how the car in Howland St got crushed!

AleisterCrowley wrote:I'm wondering how the car in Howland St got crushed!

Yes, and it doesn't look like it would have ended well for any occupants...

Something fell of the Post Office Tower (and went back in time 6 years or more....)

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote:Yes. I particularly liked the one 'Passing in the street, London, 1956'. One of my first thoughts was: "Couldn't take that with a digital camera!"

Forgive me if I am wrong there. I am not a photographer and only have an oldish and very simple digital camera.

It is a very striking photo but I'm not sure why you think it could not be taken with a digital camera. What do you see as the problem?

So called 'shutter delay' - the really dreadful thing about digital cameras. How do you take a photo at an instant with a simple digital camera?

Maybe the technology has moved on, also as I said I am not a photographer and don't have a 'proper' camera, but with mine I could never take a live photograph of a moment.

I had an older version Nikon Coolpix some 15 years ago and found the same thing - from switching the camera on to waiting for the lens to settle down (moving in and out) took what seemed like an age and the moment was gone.

However, I now have the latest Coolpix and it can be switched on and ready to shoot in under a second.

BBLSP1 wrote:I had an older version Nikon Coolpix some 15 years ago and found the same thing - from switching the camera on to waiting for the lens to settle down (moving in and out) took what seemed like an age and the moment was gone.

However, I now have the latest Coolpix and it can be switched on and ready to shoot in under a second.

We are talking at cross purposes here.

I am talking of a simple, consumer type, 'ordinary' digital camera of 10 - 15 years ago (6 Mpixel resolution). The problem then (now?) with ALL those cameras was 'shutter delay'. Press the 'shutter' button, image was eventually captured several tens to hundred or so milliseconds later.

Still life - AOK. Real, living, moving life - forget about it!

(To my non photographic but technical mind, major component of the problem came from the standardisation on the use of a 'zoom' rather than fixed focus lenses in ordinary consumer cameras and how this was dealt with in the camera firmware. In which case, by my guess, the later period equivalent non 'digital' film cameras could have suffered from a similar problem.)

Obviously, camera start up with an electronic camera is a serious additional problem as you explain. My point is, even if the camera is on and pointing, you still have (had?) an inherent problem.

XFool wrote:(To my non photographic but technical mind, major component of the problem came from the standardisation on the use of a 'zoom' rather than fixed focus lenses in ordinary consumer cameras and how this was dealt with in the camera firmware. In which case, by my guess, the later period equivalent non 'digital' film cameras could have suffered from a similar problem.)

I think you're mixing up "fixed focus" and "fixed focal length". Cameras that don't need to focus are either simple or niche in my experience.

And fixed focal length cameras still need to be focused, so zoom is a red herring.

In short, old digital cameras had the problem you refer to, decent current ones tend not to.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

XFool wrote:(To my non photographic but technical mind, major component of the problem came from the standardisation on the use of a 'zoom' rather than fixed focus lenses in ordinary consumer cameras and how this was dealt with in the camera firmware. In which case, by my guess, the later period equivalent non 'digital' film cameras could have suffered from a similar problem.)

I think you're mixing up "fixed focus" and "fixed focal length".

I don't think I am, though that depends on exactly how these cameras operate.

swill453 wrote:And fixed focal length cameras still need to be focused, so zoom is a red herring.

I don't believe it is (was?). (In my judgement it was a major contributor to the 'shutter delay' I experienced.)

swill453 wrote:In short, old digital cameras had the problem you refer to, decent current ones tend not to.

That's good to know - hoping it applies to cheap ordinary consumer cameras, as used by non photographers.

XFool wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

XFool wrote:Yes. I particularly liked the one 'Passing in the street, London, 1956'. One of my first thoughts was: "Couldn't take that with a digital camera!"

Forgive me if I am wrong there. I am not a photographer and only have an oldish and very simple digital camera.

It is a very striking photo but I'm not sure why you think it could not be taken with a digital camera. What do you see as the problem?

So called 'shutter delay' - the really dreadful thing about digital cameras. How do you take a photo at an instant with a simple digital camera?

Maybe the technology has moved on, also as I said I am not a photographer and don't have a 'proper' camera, but with mine I could never take a live photograph of a moment.

Aha, now I understand.

It's a long time since I shot with a cheap camera but I do remember what you are referring to.

I only shoot with a DSLR these days and the shutter has no delay, so capturing the "decisive moment" is not a problem (well at least not a camera problem).

John

AleisterCrowley wrote:I'm wondering how the car in Howland St got crushed!

I wondered that as well. It was fine, earlier in 1958, before it was flown over. Probably dropped from an aircraft or similar:

https://repository.library.northeastern ... neu:133860

"The woman collecting for PDSA..." from 1955, interesting record sleeves in the window. Top one is Johnny Mathis's EP, which is actually from 1957...

https://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=565411

Below it looks like "Latin Picnic", I think...

Of all the photography hobbyists, none have any interest in forensic work.