MTFCA Forum

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2023 10:08 pm**

A man and his model T. From yesteryear--or yesterday?
What say ye?

Gerrit

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2023 10:22 pm**

Modern mirror - dead giveaway !

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2023 10:25 pm**

1 The extreme depth of field bespeaks a small format camera — 35mm or digital.
2 The mirror is a current model.
3 "Natural" spokes on a pre-26 Ford are pretty much a modern fad.

!00 points for the costume. That is excellent.

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2023 10:41 pm**

Looking at the picture detail, it could well have been taken with a digital camera. Just doesn't look like what we often see in other old pictures shown on this forum.

Art M

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2023 11:23 pm**

Probably gave it a little too much noise, but....

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 12:26 am**

I’m going to go with yesterday as he is frowning because he couldn’t get through to
Chaffin’s to place his order, but also thinking he will be smiling soon when his order
“Is on the way”

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 4:32 am**

Hi Gerrit, this looks like an iPhone photo to me. Is this a self portrait?

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 6:16 am**

... and plated nickel/chrome headlight bezels.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 6:57 am**

Old or new that is a great photo! thanks for posting it.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 7:44 am**

As some of you clever observers have figured out, this is a photo of me and my '23 Touring. Although I made no effort to de-modernize the car, I'm happy with the overall composition. A local woman wanted the car at her great grandfather's 100th birthday party, which was very local to where I live, so I happily obliged and the guests had a great time taking photos with the car.

Back home, I staged it against the fence and my horse-drawn McCormick-Deering sickle mower, which functions as "yard art" now. And adopted the most severe expression I could muster.

Thanks for the comments. What was bothering me is that I still felt after editing it that it looked too modern and I think it was the comment about depth of field that gave me that impression. A large format box camera would have given sharp definition to the subject but I am not sure the background would have been so clear. Thanks for the comments and playing along.

Gerrit

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 7:46 am**

Luke wrote: ↑
Mon May 01, 2023 11:23 pm
Probably gave it a little too much noise, but....

Very nice job retouching the photo, I like it.
Gerrit

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 8:03 am**

Nice photo, but I also say yesterday because he's not wearing a tie.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 8:11 am**

Delete the mirror and add a pocket watch and chain.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 8:17 am**

The wood fence looks to nice, straight and well made. To modern. The fence was the first new thing I noticed.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 9:32 am**

What a fun project ! Maybe this thread could inspire others to take similar photos of their Model Ts. Back when these cars were younger than their owners are now, it was popular (and fun) to wear clothes from the same era as the cars.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 10:31 am**

Ok, how about this one. It won't fool this group, the chain link fence and aluminum stormdoor give it away.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 12:20 pm**

Still, it's a very nice photo, John ! Thanks for adding to the thread. I'd say the Diamond window in the door is a stronger clue than the aluminum. Looking through the wonderful posts Tom Rootlieb has made, full of vintage photos, a big difference would be the absence of people in the photo. Most old ones that included the car were about the folks in the picture. Maybe others can fool us ?
Here's my entry:

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 12:51 pm**

The dimensions of the fence boards, posts and caps are much to perfect to be of yesteryear ,

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 4:01 pm**

Thanks Rich, I have a great double breasted suit from 1948 that was my Dad's. Other than overalls, I have not found good Period clothes from the late 20 s or early 30s that fit me. I can do a good Grapes of Wrath or Okie look though.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 4:07 pm**

Modern photo, his clothes fit too well to be Model T period.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2023 10:58 pm**

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2023 11:25 pm**

Without spending a bundle for sheet film, the best I can do for an "old" photo is choose a period setting.

I think this is pretty good, but a couple of details give it away.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 8:59 am**

Steve, this is an absolutely phenomenal photograph. Well done! You amaze me more every day.

Kelly

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 9:07 am**

Scott's has the "feel" of old time shop photos, but the rattle cans, plastic sheet and paper towels tell us it's "nowadays".

So far, Steve wins ! I can't pick out the details he says gives it away.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 9:26 am**

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 9:55 am**

One big thing that you forgot that points toward this being a modern photo is the lack of a hat. Just about all men wore a hat of some kind back then. The common working man, especially mechanics and factory workers all wore the “newsboy” cap. Men, who worked out in the sun, would have wore a brimmed hat such as a fedora. Nice photo, though. Jim Patrick

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 10:22 am**

: old w.jpg (100.55 KiB) Viewed 8631 times

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 10:32 am**

Good point Jim !! All one needs to do is peruse the wealth of period photos Tom Rootlieb has posted. Lots of hats !
I would take issue with the "20s Hats" proposed by Vintage Dancer. My impression may be skewed by a regional point of view, but the only offerings I see that could pass muster are the Newsboy, Fedora and Homburg. The straw boater is not proportioned like the old ones; a top hat would have been silk plush, very formal and most likely worn by Packard or Pierce Arrow owners. (or Kalamity Dick) The derby is nice, but I think they had mostly fallen out of favor by the early 20s. The rest look too modern, unlike hats of the period.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 10:56 am**

Rich P. Bingham wrote: ↑
Thu May 04, 2023 10:32 am
The rest look too modern, unlike hats of the period.

X2 Rich. It is hard to find even a modern "newsboy hat" that is shaped like the two hats seen in Jim's period ad, old photos and movies. Something just seems to be different about the hats sold today. Interesting that they are referred to as "golf style caps" in the ad.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 11:08 am**

I think practicing taking these type photos is important to the hobby to help preserve the entire "package" of the period.
The look of the people from when the cars were in regular use is not known by most.
I had no idea Panama hats went that far back,And I thought fedoras went on up into the 70's as my dad still wore 1 up until about 1980

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 11:12 am**

John M's late touring reminds me of factory photos with the panel reflections, back ground aside. Like it much.
Modern repop mirrors are dead give aways on 3 of the T's

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 11:20 am**

It's the little stuff that gives the game away. In my photo it's the mirror and the sign by the rain spout. In Scott's it's the modern fence. In Dan's it's the wheels and the old building (in the T era it would be newer). It's tough to get everything right. That gives me great respect for the folks who get it right in movies. Reportedly Buster Keaton told his set decorator Harry Roselotte that he wanted The General to "look so much like the civil War that it hurts". The result looks like Brady photographs that have come life. Every historical recreation has so many opportunities to get something wrong that it's remarkable that so many pros get everything right.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 1:11 pm**

Steve, the sign is inconspicuous enough to "pass". What ever are we to do about these modern brass mirrors !

Scott's photo can stand to have the modern T-post "bob-wahr" fence cropped out. Then the tip would be no person in the photo.

Same for Dan's, the natural finished spokes would be a corroborating "find" in a real vintage photo. It would be unlikely to find a building like that all boarded up.

Truly, it is a real challenge to stage an "authentic" vintage photo.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 5:35 pm**

Is this my Great Grand Daughter or my Daughter? Ed aka #4

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 5:58 pm**

My fake old photo, blurred a bit and color removed.

Posted: **Thu May 04, 2023 6:21 pm**

Steve,

Your image isn't particularly high resolution to start with but FWIW I 'fixed' a couple of those 'details', unfortunately I managed to rip the photo while I was doing it, sorry (I did glue it back together, more or less

, here's the result:

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 7:59 am**

I had fun with this, glad it started a discussion. I’d like to see more photos from others. I’d also like to give a “shout-out” to Luke in New Zealand who improved on my original effort by at least 150%. Very nice job. I’m re-posting his effort here because I like it so much.

As I mentioned to him, I knew the photo would not fool anyone here, just wanted to stage something that looked reasonably authentic to the untrained eye. For the hat, no I didn’t forget. Just didn’t have one. Would have gladly added that and a fob to the little tableau. Just used what I had on hand. A cane might have been a nice touch. Didn’t have that, either.

For the 100th birthday party I attended with the car, all the guests had a very authentic 1920s look. Women with long necklaces and dresses you’d solidly put in the era of “flappers.” Men with trousers held up by suspenders and paperboy hats and bow ties. They really embraced the theme.

More photos!

Gerrit[/size]

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 9:13 am**

Thank you for starting this thread Gerrit ! It's a lot of fun, and I hope it will keep going !

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 10:34 am**

This is the wrong kind of car (it's what I had at the time), but the photo illustrates the short depth of field achievable with a large format camera. In this case that was a 4 x 5 Speed Graphic (think news photographers in old movies). The subject is in focus and the background is blurred. If I had used a slower film the effect would have been more pronounced. I can't say exactly where this was. I just drove around West L.A until I found fancy old houses and prewar street lights.

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 10:54 am**

It is 1939 for sure !! Great photo, Steve. (and a fine Packard)

As I recall, the great "Wee Gee" formula for his Speed Graphic was ten feet, f8 at 1/50 second with a flash.

I believe the Speed Graphic had an f3.5 lens, which was considered mighty fast at the time. Dunno what his film speed would have been, maybe ASA 30 ?

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 11:04 am**

Here's one to dissect. New ? Old ? Why ?

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 11:14 am**

Don't forget that there were different film emulsions for different film stocks. Some were blue sensitive and made blue eyed people shots look like they had almost white eyes.

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 11:26 am**

It's been a while since we've staged a photo, these kids are both teenagers now.

Posted: **Fri May 05, 2023 11:28 am**

Right you are John ! Orthochromatic films were "blind" to red, and presented a skewed grey scale. Panchromatic emulsions were invented before 1900 but did not become commercially available until 1906. They were mostly out of reach being twice as expensive as ortho films. By 1926 competition had closed the price gap and Eastman Kodak discontinued ortho film in 1930.

Posted: **Tue May 09, 2023 7:13 pm**

Steve Jelf wrote: ↑
Fri May 05, 2023 10:34 am
PK4.jpg
This is the wrong kind of car (it's what I had at the time), but the photo illustrates the short depth of field achievable with a large format camera. In this case that was a 4 x 5 Speed Graphic (think news photographers in old movies). The subject is in focus and the background is blurred. If I had used a slower film the effect would have been more pronounced. I can't say exactly where this was. I just drove around West L.A until I found fancy old houses and prewar street lights.

Very nice, looks convincing. Classy photo.

Posted: **Tue May 09, 2023 7:19 pm**

Rich P. Bingham wrote: ↑
Fri May 05, 2023 11:04 am
Here's one to dissect. New ? Old ? Why ?

I'm going to say modern. Period dress looks correct, can't speak to the authenticity of the car since I'm by no means an expert or even that knowledgeable about Model Tees. For that matter, I don't even know if that IS a Model T. My knowledge of the cars can be summed up thusly:

"I like the black ones."

But the poses look a bit staged. Hope I'm wrong and it's a vintage photo.

Gerrit

Posted: **Tue May 09, 2023 7:33 pm**

Rich P. Bingham wrote: ↑
Fri May 05, 2023 9:13 am
Thank you for starting this thread Gerrit ! It's a lot of fun, and I hope it will keep going !

Rich, you're welcome. I had fun with the photo and especially seeing its transformation. I'm finding that I'm also learning about mostly lost film processes because I haven't heard of many of the films mentioned. I dabbled in B&W, developing my own film and prints back in the early 1980s. I seem to recall that film was asa125 maybe? Ektachrome comes to mind but maybe that was a color film. Long time ago. There is a print of a cousin''s Hudson pickup when it was still in reasonably good shape but I fear it has been lost to time. The truck is now in ruins, has been left out in the elements for decades. Looks like I've gone off on a tangent, pretty typical for me. Thanks for the comments, hope to see more modern "vintage" photos.

For the comment from guitar man about the cell phone photo, which mine was: what gave it away? Certain aspect ration peculiar to cell phones? I've set aside my big SLR Canon in favor of the phone and its one lens. Found I was babysitting the camera too much, especially on long trips.

Gerrit

Posted: **Wed May 10, 2023 12:10 am**

One more detail with the original photo, I don't think string ties were a thing in the 1920s.

On the film front, Kodak Tri-X was 400 ASA and Plus-X was 125 ASA.

Posted: **Wed May 10, 2023 1:43 am**

Orthochromatic films were "blind" to red...

That's why the little window showing you the picture numbers in your 1905 Kodak Brownie is red. Printing papers remained orthochromatic, so you could work under red lights in the darkroom and see what you were doing.

On the film front, Kodak Tri-X was 400 ASA and Plus-X was 125 ASA.

Kodak's most-used B&W roll film was Verichrome. It was ASA 50 when it was introduced in 1931, but later sped up to ASA 125. When I started shooting slides in the early fifties Kodachrome was rated at ASA 16, so when Kodachrome 64 was introduced it was a big deal.

Posted: **Wed May 10, 2023 10:47 am**

Current camera lenses are too sharp. They're coated and often have multiple elements. Back in the day, they were cheap single piece of glass which was small and easily dirtied and scratched.
Try to find one of those old cameras and load it with slow speed B&W film; then work on the contrast in the darkroom or on your computer. Rich Bingham's shot looks old. Ground is washed out, image is soft, period clothing looks spot on.
Could be a great staged photo or an original. What say you Rich?

Posted: **Wed May 10, 2023 11:32 am**

Current camera lenses are too sharp. They're coated and often have multiple elements. Back in the day, they were cheap single piece of glass which was small and easily dirtied and scratched.

Yes and no. Inexpensive box cameras had "cheap single piece of glass" lenses. They were fixed focus, and subjects closer than six feet would be blurred. But there were also excellent lenses, used on more sophisticated cameras.

Mom was too close when she took this picture of me with a fixed focus box camera. Even the houses in the distance are not wonderfully sharp, despite being in focus. The cheap lens in the 116 Kodak is simply not very sharp.

Obviously shot with a good lens. If we could see the original print, or a fresh one from the original negative, I expect the resolution of fine detail would be even more apparent.

Posted: **Wed May 10, 2023 12:08 pm**

NY John T wrote: ↑
Wed May 10, 2023 10:47 am
. . . Rich Bingham's shot looks old. Ground is washed out, image is soft, period clothing looks spot on.
Could be a great staged photo or an original. What say you Rich?

No date, place or identification of the guys in the photo, just something I stumbled onto perusing the "winternet". It was presented as being from the era, which is totally believable on all counts. Looks like one of probably many flats five guys encountered on the road, "staged" as they took the opportunity to clown around for the camera while their pal did the hard work !

Posted: **Wed May 10, 2023 3:10 pm**

Here's a fun one. A whole family flirting with disaster !!

Posted: **Thu May 11, 2023 10:30 am**

John E. Guitar wrote: ↑
Wed May 10, 2023 12:10 am
One more detail with the original photo, I don't think string ties were a thing in the 1920s.

On the film front, Kodak Tri-X was 400 ASA and Plus-X was 125 ASA.

Yes, that rings a bell. Plus-X. I think during a certain period having a darkroom at home was a fairly common hobby. It's what it meant when someone said they "did photography." Not just taking pictures. Hard to believe in the not-too-distant past we took rolls of film to the pharmacy, dropped them off then waited a week.

Posted: **Thu May 11, 2023 2:49 pm**

Too clear to be old- old pics have a natural haze over time, this one clearly (no pun intended) is grainy intentionally. Steve would also say look at them spokes.....modern manifestation of leaving them natural.

MTFCA Forum

Old photo? Or not?

Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?

Re: Old photo? Or not?