There’s a quality to old slides that’s just not quite the same as digital. Although digital processing can make new pictures look sort of like old slides, the really hard part is re-creating the subject. Like this brilliant shot by ggh06, one of a series of old slides that he shot between 1974 and 1999, and has posted to the CC Cohort. Is this guy feeling the weight of that sign on his shoulders? I’ve picked out a few more for your mid-day enjoyment.
Does this evoke 1973, or what?
And a few decades even earlier. This is a 1947 Ford coal dumper.
No wonder original Chevy IIs are so hard to come by anymore.
Here’s the photographer’s own comments:
Photo series of 35mm slide scans from images from New York, Pennsylvania and Southern California during the period 1974-1999, using a Nikkormat FT2 or Nikon FM, and mostly Ektachrome 64 film (a couple were Kodachromes). I wasn’t shooting vehicles specifically at the time; now wish I had done more.
Given the quality of your shots, I concur with your final words.
I may be mistaken, but the colors seem a lot more vivid and sharper than usual digital photos.
I have some old Kodachrome slides that my father shot in the 1960s. Even after all these years, the color is spectacular. I need to get the equipment to digitize them so that my family can enjoy them. I recall a few that included cars, including a couple of San Francisco street scenes from about 1965. I am sure that there is some CC material there if I can get them into my computer.
As for these, I love the old street scenes. They remind me of the 1970s when those Malibus and Chevy pickups were everywhere and I was so sick of seeing them that I just wanted them to go away. Well, they did. Thanks for bringing them back for a moment.
You can mod digital pics as much as you want, they’ll never look like that.
That pic of the 73 Malibu and 80 Suburban was at the earliest 1995.
I want to fantasize about that last pic a bit, maybe that’s a Hurst Olds with the Lightning Sticks and an Olds 350.
I’ve only ever seen one in the wild..
Jeez.. It took too long to get the joke in the first pic.. I was so focused on the Buick I didn’t see the joker at the arrowhead..
Wherever that 47 Ford is, I think I’d like to live there..
Another nice aspect of these photographs is seeing the old license plates.
Love the ’47 Dumper juxtaposed next to that barn/structure. The texture of the barn w/ the unique color of the truck is a treat!
Three letters to describe these pictures: Y.U.M!
I want to wash that dirty 70 Deuce and Quarter badly, I like the yellow Chevelle in the second pic, but my car geek brain keeps me from pretending its 1973, since the Suburban is like a 79-80 with the square headlights.
I am thinking the same thing! I have a really weird hang-up on pretty much all non-Vega 1973 GM products….must own more of these…..
I believe the ‘burb front end is exclusive to the 1980 models. We ended up with my wife’s grandfather’s 1980 K-10 Silverado… The front end reminds me of a ’79 Chevy wearing coke-bottle eyeglasses.
Pic was taken right before engine#2 (and front tag) were removed
The ‘Bu is a 73 and the Dirty Deuce needs to be made into a song or band in a “bad” way. A “Steely Dan” kind of way..
Is there gas in the Deuce??? Yes, there’s gas in the Deuce!
That top picture looks like it was shot at the Geistown Shopping Center on Scalp Avenue in Johnstown, PA. The ‘Tile City’ business was on the bottom floor of a large-ish ‘big box’ store, cannot remember the name. The name above ‘Tile City’ is cut off, is probably the name of the big box store, and does not jog a memory.
And tis is when I tip my head to the masters of Kodachrome and Film. Nothing quite matches the brilliance of what happens when chemical reactions turn a moment into a permanent image.
Photo #4 looks like they left the car in situ, half way through a job, while demolishing the workshop around it!
These are stunning images, worthy of big prints in a gallery. I hope the pseudonymous photographer shares more!
Hi folks; it wuz me what took the photos, so thanks for the kind words. Honestly, I could kick myself around the block for not taking more photos of cars back then (particularly the ‘rents ’66 Country Squire and ’67 Catalina 2-door hardtop) but at the time I was fixated on trains, what can I say? I may have a few more turn up at a later date but most of my stuff is digital, and as someone said, the colors just seem more muddy than was ever the case with slide film.
Syke: impressively accurate score on the location in the ‘Tile City’ shot. Can’t remember the name of the store at the time, either, but later on, for decades, it was Value City. Every time I’d go back to visit my parents, I’d stop there to buy socks and cheap shirts.
You’re from Johnstown? What part? Westmont, class of ’68 here, during the ’90’s flew colors for the Brotherhood of Veterans M/C, then the Phoenix Riders M/C. Moved to VA in ’98. Dad ran the Chevrolet dealership during 1950-1965 when it was Motor Sales then Hallman’s Chevrolet.
I remember Value City very well, cannot remember it’s predecessor.
Go back at least once a year for Thunder in the Valley.
Westmont ’72, actually. Small world, etc.
Here’s at least one vote for a “Trackside Classic” if you get a chance. 🙂
That Chevy II shot is a great photograph. I like the 73 Chevelle too – always liked that year Chevelle.
Oh, sorry, but re: a couple other comments: the shot with the ’73 Malibu was indeed taken in ’99, as the license plates kind of give away, and the one with the coal truck was taken in Boyertown, PA, north of Philly, and which was practically a living museum without even intending to be so.
Might as well mention, I’ve also got a small pile of scanned slides of vehicles shot in France, from ’90 to ’97. I’ll post those to the Cohort sometime in the next ten days or so.
It’s not just nostalgia at work. From a technical standpoint, film still has a wider dynamic range and can record a broader color range than digital, even if the prints themselves sometimes fade. Not to mention the noise issue with digital, absent in even the cheapest film. I think that’s part of what makes film look so good.
Good write-up here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
Bob, you have a good point.
My first job was at a “Photo Shop” where they did pics for Blaupunkt, Bosch and GM as well as processing the last of the Kodachrome stuff. They even worked with the short lived “Disc” cameras.
I was 13 years old and these guys had been running things since the 50s. They could turn trash into gold with the right light and film.
Having a kid that mixed the chems wrong couldn’t have helped hem too much.. Who knew “mustard gas” was that easy..
Actually, digital blows film away for anything over ASA 200 as far as grain goes – especially if you’re shooting with a reasonably modern digital SLR – even a base model Nikon or Canon will produce ASA 3200 output that has about the same level of noise/grain as 400 speed film.
Digital colors still look “artificial” compared to a good color negative film like Ektar 100.
Great shots there El Kabong,
Love how film softens things a little with its grainy emusion and how the colors, while still intense, have a slightly muted quality to it that digital can’t match, and yet, not be dull.
Seeing vintage photos of places in times gone by is always fun.
When my mom died in 2010, I found in her stuff a set of 4X5 Kodachrome negatives of her and my dad’s wedding day. They had never been printed as at the time they were broke and then they never got around it. The colour is amazing but even more cool was seeing all my relatives in their youthful prime, in colour. This was 1957 and it was a black and white world then. Seeing my granny in colour and my uncle’s red hair, the exact same shade as mine, was mind-blowing, as well as my dad’s green 1952 Chevy complete with mouldy, falling headliner….
I could go on but film will always be the best.
Show us!
The old Chebbie at least.. I’d be fine with the whole set too..
Digital handles highlights horribly. They look really weird and artificial compared to film.
That’s why I still shoot film even though I have a couple Nikon digital SLRs. The digital SLRs are more convenient, but film is great for work that doesn’t need instant reproduction. I’d rather get it right in the camera with film than fiddle with an image in Lightroom for a couple hours.
After all this reminiscing about Kodachrome, the song by Simon & Garfunkel is stuck in my head.
When I saw these on the CCC, I think I favorited a good half of them. Brilliant. Love the last one with the two B’s.
I think that the last picture is under the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Williamsburg, Booklyn. These days you wouldn’t be able to take that shot without at least 3 or 4 hipsters somewhere in the photo.