Here are the rest of the old photos that I picked up on my recent visit to Covent Garden market.
First, a girls' field hockey (I think?) team from Scotland, in a photo dated February 1949. "1st and 2nd XTs after double victory over Aberdeen Girls' High teams," it says on the back. All the girls are named, with the girl at far right in the top row identified as "self." When I put the picture on Flickr I'll list them all. It was taken by Star Photos of Perth.
This looks like it might have been taken in North Africa, like Egypt or Morocco -- somewhere around the Mediterranean, anyway. There's no info on the picture.
"Eric on Frank's motorcycle, taken about August 1949."
"Lilly W. at Gretford."
It's always interesting to see how people frame a photo. Why so much grass in this one? Maybe to show less of the house?
For that matter, why is Eric so far to the left in the previous photo?
This ghostly interior is intriguing. I suspect it's the inside of the book shop I showed in my previous old-picture post. I bought both pictures from the same person, and they're the same size, on the same type of paper and labeled "32" on the back in pencil -- though this one is more yellowed.
"Gary and his nanny at Southport. Not very good of either. I meant to send this weeks ago."
A photo dated 1968 in a cardboard folder, depicting a tour group in Jerusalem. Again, what is up with the framing? Those poor people on the far left -- one guy is represented only by his upper arm. But thank goodness we got the whole handbag of the woman on the right.
Just for fun, here's the cover of the folder:
27 comments:
The hockey sticks are not ordinary hockey sticks, look more like shinty sticks, a wilder Scottish version of hockey.
These are wonderful! As for cropping, I wouldn’t necessarily read too much into it. My father’s shots were often heavy to one side or the other. My mother’s always had too much foreground. Mine, on the other hand, are ALWAYS exactly how I intend (cough). What a fun thing to do. I really enjoyed these photos of strangers. And the quality of some, phenomenal.
Oh yes Steve, seeing the cover of that folder was loads of fun! Eric was probably travelling at forty miles an hour, captured at the very moment he is about to crash through the fence before ending up in hospital with a broken skull. He should have been wearing a crash helmet.
Well gosh! Now I'm going to be more conscious of how my pictures are framed.
Most people taking snapshots were not terribly sophisticated about framing and probably still are not, either in taking or viewing the shot. I'd say these are about par for the course. Although they are making you wince a bit, most would be blissfully unaware.
Same as my interior-decorating-minded boss at the inn who used to zero in on and scold us housekeepers about any picture frames left ever-so-slightly askew in a cleaned room regardless of how hard we'd had to scrub the shower.
Considering viewfinders were upside down on those cameras, not surprising that farming wasn't very sophisticated. I remember trying as a kid to understand just what was in my photo before I clunked down the little lever. Brownie box, 120, six exposures to the roll. So expensive we rarely took pictures,so we didn't get much practice.
I think the Lily W one was photographed that way to show off the fountain???
Fun photos to speculate about. Gary and his nanny takes the cake for me.
My mum was awful at taking photos, cutting bits off of people, or lots of ceiling or wall.
My box of accumulated photos will be a mystery to whoever digs through them as I don't think I've put a single name on any of them.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I figure most photos are cropped to exclude things as much as they are to frame what they want. (I know I often do that) Perhaps the photographer didn't like the owner of that arm in the group photo! 😂
I'm with Andrew- Gary and his nanny for the win! Do you suppose Gary loved his nanny? Did his nanny have a name?
Who knows?
So many questions these pictures leave us to ask.
I had to study each photo as if I might recognize someone! I enjoyed your snarky comments about the framing of the shots! People were just in a hurry to snap the photo and just pushed the button! We have several old photos with my Mom's thumb in the photo as it would get in the way when she went to snap the pic! It always brings a smile when we see it now!
These are great. The first thing I noticed in the first photo was the 1940's hairstyles. I have pictures of my mom with hair like that. I think my favorite is the two gentleman by the palm tree. It looks like a clip out of an old movie.
Some wonderful photo finds. I think people back then (even now) shot quickly -- a snapshot with emphasis on the snap. And they didn't have the advantage of being able to easily crop. I can't count the number of pix I've taken digitally (or scanned in and edited) where I've corrected framing or my big nemesis, slanting horizon lines! Although, back then, with film and processing being so expensive and every shot counting, it is surprising they didn't take a little more time on that!
Gary's Nanny almost looks like she has a cigarette in her mouth. Hmmm...
As far as the Jerusalem photo, you know that the person who owned the photo was SO UPSET that they let Bob come on the trip so they made sure to crop him out of the picture.
My mom was one of the worst when it came to taking pictures- always off kilter. The best one she took was when my sister and I were at the Japanese garden somewhere in DC and wanted mom to take a picture of us. When we got them developed all there was was completely blue sky and the very tip of the pagoda at the bottom of the picture. Of course, it's one of my favorite pictures because it brings her back to me. But all your found pictures are wonderful-such fun to go back in time.
View finders were not always centered on what the film would receive through the lense, having been knocked about perhaps...so the film would not be seeing exactly what the photographer thought, and the view finder (not being an SLR) was just a frame through which he/she looked...with a bit of a lens to enlarge the scene. After a while a photographer might have realized his aim needed correction.
What one saw in a view finder was often not representative of the produced photo. I have been guilty of many of these types of photos myself! :) Now I do some cropping but sometimes I leave a lot of sky or grass, if they are particularly attractive.
Quite a variety! And I second The Bug - Granny's smoking, I think - lol
The first is pure st Trinians
Wonderful pics. Will keep a look out for the field hockey team on Flickr. What is your name on Flickr? Mine is Jim Reeves.
I've enjoyed every one of these. I have a similar shot of G's father as the coach of a tem in Pakistan.
I do love the old photos. Perhaps I'll go through the box we got from Jim's Mom's house, some of them are pretty weird.
Rachel: I have never heard of shinty! That's a new one for me. BTW, did you take down your blog? I can't get to it anymore.
Mitchell: Well, as some of the other commenters pointed out, old cameras didn't have great viewfinders, so it was sometimes hard to tell what was going to appear on film. I hadn't really thought of that.
YP: I like that folder! Poor Eric and his head injury.
River: Absolutely! They say a good picture is all about the edges.
Lynn Marie: It's probably true that I'm noticing it more than most. :)
Boud: That's a very good point, and I hadn't really considered that. It could be hard on old cameras to tell what was in the picture.
Bob: Oh, I definitely think the fountain was supposed to be in it, but what's with all the grass in the foreground? Why not aim the camera a little higher? I think they were trying to exclude the wall and the windows of the house for some reason.
Andrew: Yeah, I like that one too! Gary looks very skeptical.
Pixie: My mom did the same! I think it all comes down to practice. She never took many pictures and just didn't develop a feel for what would be included.
Ellen: If you think your descendants will want the photos, you could label them. We've added names to some of our family pictures and it's been hugely helpful.
Kelly: That's definitely true -- I frame to exclude as well. Maybe not a person in a group photo, though! LOL
Ms Moon: The nanny's name has been lost to history, alas, though I suppose Gary might remember it if he's still with us.
Ellen D: That's the quintessential photographer mistake! Even I sometimes get my fingers in front of the lens, especially on my iPhone.
Sharon: I really like the one with the palm tree as well. It has an air of mystery about it. Makes me think of the movie "Casablanca."
Jeanie: I have that problem with slanting horizons, too! No matter how careful I am to shoot on a level, the picture never comes out that way. I seriously wonder if something is wrong with my eyes.
Bug: I think Gary's nanny has some dubious dental work, but it's hard to tell. I'm laughing about Bob! If the exclusion is going to be THAT conspicuous it seems like it would have been better to just include him!
Lini: Ha! That's funny -- sounds like that pic was WAY off. At least my mom usually got me in the photo, though often off to one side or with no feet or with some extraneous objects nearby.
Barbara: Yeah, that's a good point. I hadn't really thought about how the viewfinders on old cameras weren't very accurate.
Margaret: As I mentioned above, that IS a good point. And sometimes badly framed photos can be interesting. Even in these cases, having the subjects off to the side adds an element of curiosity. Look how much we're talking about them!
Jenny-O: Ha! I really think that's her teeth but I could be wrong.
John: I had to look up "St. Trinian's." Somehow that whole franchise escaped me. I don't think it's very big in the states!
Haddock: I am SReed99342 on Flickr. I've been using Flickr since 2006 and I have about 35,000 pictures on there!
Mage: I guess the "team photo" is a longstanding tradition, but they can be interesting when you really look at the faces and think about the time period.
Allison: Absolutely! But I almost think it's easier to go through a stranger's pictures, because then you see them without any emotional associations. It's the image alone that produces a feeling or reaction. You know?
I too Rescue Old Photos and am Glad you do also. I can't imagine them being forever Lost and I like to refer to all of mine as my "ADOPTED Relatives". I recently found an entire Photo Album from the 1930's of an Asian Family who were in Cali at the time of the Photos... how their Family Album ended up in an Antique Store in Phoenix, who knows? I'm glad it was preserved tho', it is interesting to see how people lived and what they took photos of during various Eras and Cultures.
What a mystery journey, thanks Steve.
I think the framing has to do with the older types of camera. You did not always see the complete picture as it will be photographed in the viewfinder then.
Post a Comment