Red Ring Tupperware Party, Autumnal Equinoctal Edition (24)

gjl711 wrote in post #17715738
What I have discovered, especially with the older images, that pictures of stuff (vacation pictures, houses, landscapes, wildlife) have almost no value. No one wants them. It's the pictures of people that have value.

That just shows how narrow most people's interests are: people, people, and people. Local historical societies might be interested in some of your culls, and the older the better.

OhLook wrote in post #17715838
That just shows how narrow most people's interests are: people, people, and people. Local historical societies might be interested in some of your culls, and the older the better.

I don't think it's narrow interests, but as Mel says, a landscape of the Rockies pretty much looks the same today as it did 50 years ago. Some are interesting as they possible show change but many are just plain nature shots. Nice trees, mountains, clouds, nothing really interesting to anyone but the photographer. My own library is filled with those types of images as well. It has meaning to me because I was on that hike and remember that day but show them to my kids and they see a bunch of trees. They have no connection to the image other than it's a pretty picture. However, show them their grandmother when she was 20 and their eyes light up. They are very interested. They have a connection.

gjl711 wrote in post #17715812
I have actually sat down with a lot of the old timers and identified the people and labeled them. Otherwise as you say, get two generations out and no one knows who they are. I have actually found pictures of my great grandmother and great grandfather.

I have tons of pictures of the family going back many generations, all on my mother's side. Everyone seemed to love photography. Most of the actual photos are labelled, but the slides are not.
Unfortunately, there is no one left on my mother's side of the family. Except for maybe some distant cousins that I've occasionally heard about. We do have some decent to excellent genealogies though. Mom's dad's family, the Bicknell's, has a complete genealogy.

First photo is my great, great, great grandmother. Annie Elizabeth Birdsall (Phillips).

Second photo is my grandmother, my great grandmother, and my great great grandmother.
Florence Irene Day (Bicknell), born Dec 9, 1901
Florence Helen Pettigrew (Day), born Nov 22, 1879
Adazetta Georgia Phillips (Pettigrew), born 1859

So Annie was probably born in the 1830's. Her mother's name was Sarah (Beth) Williams, descendant of Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island.
And that's as far back as that line goes, as listed in the family bible. They were Irish and lived in the New York/Manhattan area after immigrating.

cool stuff, Mel.

Awesome.

I wonder how much that dress cost. And how much that would be in today's dollars. Just the material alone would be hundreds of dollars today.

gjl711 wrote in post #17715870
I don't think it's narrow interests, but as Mel says, a landscape of the Rockies pretty much looks the same today as it did 50 years ago. Some are interesting as they possible show change but many are just plain nature shots.

Sure, but photos with buildings or vehicles might have a wider audience. Horse-drawn carts? The city of ________ when it was a little mining town? Street scenes when men routinely wore hats? Anything that shows history. Those would interest some people outside the family.

Jill-of-all-Trades wrote in post #17715968
I wonder how much that dress cost. And how much that would be in today's dollars. Just the material alone would be hundreds of dollars today.

I wonder how long it took to make, possibly all hand-stitched! The corset under it adds cost, too. Changes in fashion are part of what I was talking about. You don't have to be a descendant of the person in the portrait to appreciate such things.

OhLook wrote in post #17716036
Sure, but photos with buildings or vehicles might have a wider audience. Horse-drawn carts? The city of ________ when it was a little mining town? Street scenes when men routinely wore hats? Anything that shows history. Those would interest some people outside the family.

I understand what you are saying but the photos of historical significance are very rare. Most are just plain places, very uninteresting and not worth hours of time scanning in.

I plan to purchase a good quality photo scanner used, do all the old slides I have, as well as select ones from parents and grandparents, as well as select photos from the past too. Once I finish scanning, I will resell the unit for very little loss in cost.

Of course, that will likely be in a year or two, once I at least semi-retire and have more time.

That is the plan right now anyway.

Historical societies are always interested in old street views, waterfronts, or significant buildings. Maybe some events or team photos. Otherwise, most of them really carry no interest.

My grandfather took some pictures of where he worked. If I get around to it I may search them up on Google Earth and see if there is any change. He was a quality photographer, so the pictures are good, but who knows if anyone would be interested in them.

LV Moose wrote in post #17714351
Thanks. I'll have to ask my boss/social coordinator; it's my birthday, so she may have some secret plans. We're arriving Oct 26th, and probably leaving the 31st. The second half of the week we've got my two daughters and their families coming in. First half of the week I think we're just driving up and down the coast, chillaxin', maybe hitting the zoo (we did the Safari Park last time). I'll PM you when I know more.

OK. As you saw in Jim's shot, my wife works at the zoo and we live very close to the zoo also. I could certainly meet you there.

Timphoto wrote in post #17714926
Apparently a known bug. DO NOT UPGRADE until 9.1 (or something better than 9.0) is out.

Also back up your device NOW.

I just updated my iPad to OS 9 without a hitch.

gjl711 wrote in post #17715629
And to post up some photographic content, this weekend I build my own slide converter from a couple of filter rings, a slide tray, a cardboard tube and some duct tape. It works fantastic. I'll post up some pics tonight when I get home.

It's so simple to use, I don't know why I didn't thing of it before. It just screws on to the filter ring of my 100mm, pop in a slide, point it at the sun, use live view to get that perfect focus and press the shutter button. Slide digitized.

I have a small light box that I made a slide holder for. I put the box on a copy stand, position the camera above it and shoot away at the slides. Once the focus is set, it doesn't change and I correct for color or fading in post processing.

JWright wrote in post #17716225
OK. As you saw in Jim's shot, my wife works at the zoo and we live very close to the zoo also. I could certainly meet you there.

Thanks. We may take you up on that.

BTW, on a FF, if I was bringing just one lens to the zoo... I assume a 70-200 would be better than either a 24-70 or 150-600?

Ian Mackie wrote in post #17715379
Guess I was lucky, my iPhone 4 (I know, get with it) upgrade to 9.0 went without a hitch.

Traci_Ann wrote in post #17715401
I was lucky too. My 5S upgraded without issues.

Did either of you have "Location Service" or "Find my phone" on?

My wife's 3rd gen Ipad is also bricked. Can't even do a hardware reset on it. She had location services and find my phone/ipad turned to ON.

LV Moose wrote in post #17715780
I imagine I can do a lot of culling. As you say, people are more important subjects, and my dad took lots of site-seeing shots (Europe, mostly).

the local library has got loads of archival photos and they even produce a calender each year with a series of old photos of Hamilton, NZ. they may show people but they are def not people photos. A photo of the way things where to me is just as important as photos of family members.

gjl711 wrote in post #17715812
I have actually sat down with a lot of the old timers and identified the people and labeled them. Otherwise as you say, get two generations out and no one knows who they are. I have actually found pictures of my great grandmother and great grandfather.

that's a good idea and a reminder about photos that we take to today. even if you don't print them it should be a case that people are labelled in the exif data or some such. It's nice that you got a bunch of old photos from family long gone. I don't have any of that and of course I don't have any kids to pass on photos even if I did.

Jill-of-all-Trades wrote in post #17716129
Historical societies are always interested in old street views, waterfronts, or significant buildings. Maybe some events or team photos. Otherwise, most of them really carry no interest.

My grandfather took some pictures of where he worked. If I get around to it I may search them up on Google Earth and see if there is any change. He was a quality photographer, so the pictures are good, but who knows if anyone would be interested in them.

As stated I think it's just as important to take photos of what things look like today. people 50 or 75 years from now would be looking at the photos of today and think wow look how things have changed or can't believe that we used to have personal phones that wasn't built in. But it brings up the question of how our digital photos are going to be available for those people and of course printing them is the only real way to keeping family photos. There is available archive printing paper.

If anyone does have old photos of towns and streets and how things where then I would defiantly talk to Historical societies or in my case the local library. These photos are apart of history and I am sure there are some groups out there that would love to have them.

LV Moose wrote in post #17716261
Thanks. We may take you up on that.

BTW, on a FF, if I was bringing just one lens to the zoo... I assume a 70-200 would be better than either a 24-70 or 150-600?

I think the 150-600 would be too long, but you might want to consider both the 24-70 and the 70-200. It's been so long since I shot on full frame (35 mm film) that I'm not sure how they would work at the zoo. If I had to go with one lens I'd have to go with the 70-200 with the possible inclusion of a 1.4 or 2x extender (or both.) You will need something long to help blur out the wire of the exhibit enclosures.