the ever important humble amateur Image -- that Moment in Time

[Pál_K]

Previously in this thread I posted an old family photo from 1910. Although that was a formal studio photo, almost all the very old photos I have are of people.

Places and other things were rarely photographed - to my family, only people mattered. Nobody in my family was interested in photography.

Somehow I became interested in photography as a young kid - actually I became interested in television cameras first, because they seemed like magic.

As a kid, I couldn't afford my own television broadcast studio, but I could afford an inexpensive 8mm movie camera after about six months of earning and saving money. That's what got me into photography - in 1964. I still have the camera and my Kodachrome II movies from that period.

So, pretty much continuously from 1964 onward I was making photos, with 127 film, 126 film, and then with my first 35mm SLR in 1971.

I would photograph everything - neighborhood streets, cars, buildings, dogs, cats, family, a whole environment in a time that no longer exists.

My photos of where I spent most of my early life are how I remember that area. I don't want those images to change, so I deliberately don't go back to visit that place - I know it's changed. I also deliberately don't look at aerial photos, street view photos, or documentaries, or news broadcasts anywhere near there.

 

[charjohncarter]

I agree ^^^ every time I go but to Oswego, Oregon (now Lakes Oswego) I'm torn. I stay out by the freeway because the one motel in town is always booked. My old home has been completely remodeled, I know where I am but everything has been changed.

I worked here in 1963, Nothing left on all four corners:

Plus X 1963 by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Pfreddee]

Yes!!!

with best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[zuiko85]

Remember being a kid in the 1950's. Picture taking at home was an event. Mom would get out her big black box Kodak, walk down a block to the drug store to get a roll of film. (Not sure but I think it was 616.) And then myself and my 2 year younger sister would be spiffed up and sat outside in the full sun. A box of animal crackers would divert out attention while mom loaded the camera on the porch and then it was time for our pictures.
By then I was hot, cranky and trying to keep MY animal crackers away from my sister.
She actually caught a picture of my snarling face as I'm fussing at my sister.
So then, all six shots taken, my by now frazzled mother would walk back to the drug store to send off the film. A week later the little yellow envelop containing six deckle edged B&W prints would be dutifully placed in our family album (all were 'keepers')
with the little black gummed corners.


I miss that. Didn't at the time but I do now.

 

[charjohncarter]

Remember being a kid in the 1950's. Picture taking at home was an event. Mom would get out her big black box Kodak, walk down a block to the drug store to get a roll of film. (Not sure but I think it was 616.) And then myself and my 2 year younger sister would be spiffed up and sat outside in the full sun. A box of animal crackers would divert out attention while mom loaded the camera on the porch and then it was time for our pictures.
By then I was hot, cranky and trying to keep MY animal crackers away from my sister.
She actually caught a picture of my snarling face as I'm fussing at my sister.
So then, all six shots taken, my by now frazzled mother would walk back to the drug store to send off the film. A week later the little yellow envelop containing six deckle edged B&W prints would be dutifully placed in our family album (all were 'keepers')
with the little black gummed corners.


I miss that. Didn't at the time but I do now.

I liked the Kodak camera that you shot the photos and when you were finished you sent the camera back to Kodak. And they sent you a new camera and your photos. I guess they didn't trust people to remove the film without letting it hit light.

 

[CMur12]

I liked the Kodak camera that you shot the photos and when you were finished you sent the camera back to Kodak. And they sent you a new camera and your photos. I guess they didn't trust people to remove the film without letting it hit light.

If you remember that, John, you have a truly impressive memory! 😀

- Murray

 

[huddy]

Well said Stephen. I have a small collection of digital scans of the few family photos going back into the middle 1800's and many of them even have identified names (thank you to all of my older family members who identified them). My most cherished photos are all of my family as they help to keep the memories alive within my mind of all the years that have gone by, and to remember the good times we have shared together.

People truly do matter the most, more than the world around us. With that said, photography is an enjoyable art form, pursuit, hobby etc and I enjoy well executed pictures that tell the stories of places we've been.

 

[Pál_K]

... deckle edged...

A charming story! Also, I learned a new word. Many of my family photos from the 1950's have such edges.

My message to current and future photographers: annotate your photos! Write the date and who or what and where the subject of the photo is.

I have so many good photos with nothing written on the back, leaving me with a mystery.

 

[peterm1]

I found this series of photos today. Documenting an ordinary family in 1950s USA.

https://www.vintage-everyday.com/2019/06/vintage-ohio-family.html

The site, by the way is Vintage Everyday and is a good source of some very interesting old photos. Unfortunately it does not have a particularly good way of searching (the search tool does not seem very productive) or categorizing them so mostly its down to a page by page browsing exercise. Never the less a good site for photo buffs (and social history buffs).