Up the workers!

[samuijimmy]

covering a tin roof with flattened reeds ... now a "CoolBar" below!

[Chonburiram]

Farmer lady doing some silk weaving during the dry/cool season

The end result

I was inspecting/touching the loom intensively wich made the ladies giggle. In Isan, a man touching a girls loom is seen as a sign of

"interest". Didn't know that one...

[Chonburiram]

Doing a Buddha

[AYJAYDEE]

dont look down

[samuijimmy]

Tedious job cutting off leaves from tomato plants!

[sunshine51]

Tedious job cutting off leaves from tomato plants!

Jimmy...the words of a very wise man apply here...

“Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

[Chonburiram]

"No,

I'm not going to pay 20 000฿ for a stainless steel gate, the material cost me about 6 500฿, and I do it myself.

Why?

Because I can!"

(Thai)friend welding his own gate, taken with his Samsung phone by me. Gave him a helping hand as well.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Chonburiram

[Tywais]

Taking a break. Utapao, 1968

[Chonburiram]

^ Not really question it... '68?

I have coloured paper photos from '86 who look worse...

Edited May 22, 2015 by Chonburiram

[Tywais]

^ Not really question it... '68?

I have coloured paper photos from '86 who look worse...

All my film photos I've been posting are from slides kept in good condition and recently scanned by me. Paper photos tend to fade much quicker but the film for them or slides hold up very well. And yes, 1968 & 1969 shots when I was in the military here for a year. My next batches of slides of Thailand were from the mid '80s, so took a while for me to get back.

[samuijimmy]

Ready to head out to sea, with rough weather now, these guys will have a choppy night's fishing!

[Tywais]

The ability of that time of films, might have not been able to cope with the contrast light as well as modern digital cameras?

Actually film has a much broader dynamic range then digital as film is a fully linear chemical mechanism, no 10-bit, 12-bit to it. Part of the focus issue is probably in part to the scanner and its limitation rather than the actual photo itself and why its a bit soft. Plus, there were no autofocus cameras at the time that I'm aware of and had to fully depend on the SLR/TLR optical viewfinder and that magic circle.

The dynamic range and color saturation for Kodachrome film was remarkably good, especially after experiencing the digital world and its limitations.

[sunshine51]

1. Apols to Tywais for downloading & doing a severe crop & enlargement of his posted photo.

I hope you don't mind as it is used to clarify some things.

2. Pekka...The lady in the pic is not a mystery. Please look at my crop photo. Her face and

the parameters you gave all fit nicely. The bucket is in front of her face by a margin of a few

CM or inches...perhaps 6" or 4" but no more. As Tywais said we didn't have AF back then,

only a small circle with what was known & still is these days...a split prism focus. In other

words focus was achieved by making that split between the hemispheres of the litle circle

disappear so what was in the little circle looked sharp in the VF. Also not knowing the ASA

rating of the film Ty was using it is hard to define what aperture the pic was shot at but I'll

poke a guess at around 5.6 to 8 and perhaps a shuter speed around 1/60th a second. Also

hard to tell what time of day and what direction (NSEW). The light appears to fall along under

a 45 degree elevation perhaps around 30 degrees...morning or evening perhaps. The only

shadow seems to be from the structure and with the trees around...well it's hard to tell time

of day but I'll stick with morning or early evening since the lady's face is lit naturally. And...

you can see somebody else havng a nap behind her....

As to what we have today vs what we had back then....well we have virtually instant

views without having to wait for processing. In the case of Kodachrome the wait was

anywhere from 2 weeks to more than a month. Resolution wasn't a factor of how many

pixels are on a sensor or the ISO setting we're using at whatever time of day we're out

shooting. It was a matter of linearity of a light sensitive chemical solution exposed at

different ASA speeds. The lower the ASA rating of the film the finer the grain in the

resulting photo. Higher ASA's meant more grain and also the ability to get a shot in

lower light. There was and still is, always a trade off.

And since we didn't have AF..if all else was set correctly on the camera...ASA, aperture,

shuter speed and the shot came out blured...we only had ourselves to blame.

Another item we have today we didn't have, let me rephrase that, we didn't really have

back then, that we do have today is sharp zoom lenses.

And we have a savings in money today...somewhat of a savings. Because we don't have

to go to the photo store and buy film stock. Believe me when I tell you that when you have

only 36 exposures on a roll of film or only 24 because payday hasn't arrived yet...you didn't

throw any shots. Or at least you thought you didn't throw any shots....

http://stevemccurry.com/galleries/last-roll-kodachrome

Edited May 23, 2015 by sunshine51

[sunshine51]

One more item I forgot to put in the above post.

Pekka...the optics will be exactly the same as the image is only a

2D representation of a 3D image. The only "thing" that will effect

the scanned image is the scanner & its capabilities.

Plus a bit about the split prism....In the split prism one never really

got anything to disappear, apols, my wording earlier. One side would

show focus while the other side would show a blurred bit. As you

focused on your image the split prism would appear to shift and

become a sharp sphere when in focus. That diagonal line wouldn't

actually disappear it would simply become barely visable but still

there so one could adjust focus quickly if the subject...or the photog,

moved a lil bit.

In some high end digital cameras today there is a conversion focusing

screen available with a split prism...bit pricey too. And you can't swap it

out by yourself as we could easily do back in the old daze....

Edited May 23, 2015 by sunshine51

[Chonburiram]

Lenses from the sixties compared with today... wasn't there a computer revolution inbetween?

[sunshine51]

^^^ Chon...yes there was but good glass is still good glass regardless of the year

it was made. Computers just made optical calculations more precise...that's all.

Plus, with most camera makers their old lenses work very well with today's

bodies. Granted you loose AF & VR...so what.

Edited May 23, 2015 by sunshine51

[Goompa]

Cassava workers

[samuijimmy]

Two Burmese workers do a great job of this garden... ..... what to do next?

[Chonburiram]

^ Come over to my place, pronto!

[Goompa]

Punt Shunter

Working on a lake near Loei where there is floating " Lunch Huts" I got an image of this worker .

[samuijimmy]

He's a ...... well man! ....

[bundycat]

Chiang Rai Province .. VF you know where this is mm

[samuijimmy]

This is another way to carry bamboo!

[Chonburiram]

Burmese gardeners at Noong Nuch

[TP1]

Mixing the cement.

[TP1]

Building the workers toilet.

At least it had a lid on top.

[samuijimmy]

More Burmese workers!

[FracturedRabbit]

P5280021-5 by Spike Tennyson, on Flickr

[FracturedRabbit]

Lenses from the sixties compared with today... wasn't there a computer revolution inbetween?

The difference between early lenses and modern lenses is the quality of the coatings, and the ability to use computers to ensure that the design is accurately reflected in the final product.

Here's a photo (nothing special but at least it fits in with the theme of this thread), taken with a lens that was designed in the nineteen twenties and manufactured in 1931, an uncoated nickel-bodied Leica Elmar 50mm F3.5, the world's first interchangeable 35mm lens:

3-02 by Spike Tennyson, on Flickr

Mounted on a 1931 Leica 1, with the resulting negative scanned. Not bad for a lens that has had 84 years of use and abuse!

[sunshine51]

FR...is it ironic that the girl is selling selfie stix or....?????!

Nice shot.