Re: Histoerical Purity - Hear Whee Go Again!! ...

Russo Loco Wrote:
=======================================================
> mikerowe Wrote:
> ===================================
> > Sometimes methinks the slavish adherence
> > to "The way things were Back in the Day"
> > approaches the point of absurdity.
>
> Right on, Mike!   Who was authorized to
> remove that dog poo that I accidentally stepped in
>
> near the coaling tower back in '66?   - or
> was it '64??
>
> > Notice that the endless debate over tender
> > lettering is back with
> > us.  I think that particular argument will
> still
> > be going on -- without resolution -- long after
>
> > I have departed the face of this earth. 
> Sigh!
>
> Dang curmudeonly
> DünkelOlivGrünDampfKesselMantelFanatiker
> s!! - Clearly, it's all THEIR fault!
>
> > There are no absolutes in rail preservation.
> At-
> > tempting to maintain a semblance of
> histörical
> > authenticity is always in tension with the need
>
> > to meet contemporary operating realities.
> Brake-
> > men running back and forth on car roofs,
> > clubbing down mechanical brakes?
>
> Please forgive me - This 1968 photo - titled
> "Slippery Footing" for obvious reasons - has been
> posted before (as have the two below):
>
>
> > Just exactly what IS histörical purity?
>
> IMHO, 'Historical' should ALWAYS be spelled with
> an umlaut 'oh' - 'ö' - to encourage proper
> pronunciation ("histoerical") and keep things in
> perspective ...    
>
>
> Tom Gildersleeve Wrote Replied:
> ===================================
> > ... If you want to get into authenticity issues,
> the
> > passenger cars would top the list for
> > obvious reasons, but they are a necessary evil
> if
> > the railroad is to fulfill its mission and
> survive as
> > an operating museum.  Back in the nineties
> I rode
> > a couple of photo freights where every attempt
> was
> > made to restore it to a 1960's appearance, and
> the
> > two obvious problems were the spark arresters
> on
> > the engines and the fact that they ran with
> head-
> > lights on during the day.  In both cases I
> believe
> > it reflected changing rules that were in place
> by the
> > 1990s and not in place in the 1960s.
>
> ... Except for the following two exceptions which,
> SFAIK, the Grande made ONLY on 08/28 and 08/29,
> 1968:
>
>
>
> (#498's headlight was NOT on when she left Cumbres
> Pass and rounded Tanglefoot curve, but WAS on
> later in the afternoon of 08/29/68.)

You kind of prove my case except that it happened earlier than the nineties. I have daytime shots from the early 1960s with headlights on as well, but they were shot at dusk, when daylight was fading.
>
> > As far as I am concerned, the engines would
> have
> > been outfitted exactly the same if the Rio
> Grande
> > was still operating the railroad with those
> engines.
> > ... It is well to not lose sight of the fact
> that evolving
> > conditions and regulations will change things no
>
> > matter what.
> >
> > The pictures that Kevin shot are generally
> quite
> > superior to what was shot on that railroad
> during
> > the Rio Grande era, especially that glint shot
> > taken just before sunset of the train going
> away.
>
> Not to detract in any way from Kevin's beautiful
> photos, or others from last month that have been
> posted, but IMHO your own photos from the 1960's,
> JBWX's, and several others I've seen, are every
> bit as good and - being on film, probably a bit
> sharper - than even the finest digital images.

As far as I'm concerned, digital is now considerably sharper than 35mm film. That's assuming, of course, that you are using at least a 12 megpixel camera and shooting RAW with a good lens. That being said, how sharp do you need? Some of my early sixties shots were on ISO 10 Kodachrome, and others were on a very grainy ISO 160 High Speed Ektachrome. Those films made high resolution work difficult. The stuff I shot on ISO 25 Kodachrome II is generally pretty good optically.
>
> > That shot, in particular, was absolutely
> wonder-
> > ful and really unique. It would have been a
> near
> > impossibility for anything like that to have
> been
> > shot during the Rio Grande era given the inac-
> > cessibility of most of the line, the light
> traffic,
> > the limitations of camera and film at that time,
>
> > and even the fact that most photographers were
> > not even shooting in color.
>
> "Color?  COLOR??  Who needs stinkin'
> COLOR???"  For a STUNNING black & white
> image, taken at the same location, see page 48 of
> Dick Steinheimer's "BACKWOODS RAILROADS OF THE
> WEST".  (The same image was used on the dust
> jacket of said book.)
> Here's the best I was able to capture that evening
> using my humble $500 Panasonic FZ-100:
>
>
> ... and the same image converted to grayscale:
>
> (John Cole would probably shoot me if I
> "Photoshopped" the telegraphone pole just behind
> the first locomotive.)

The image looks far better in gray than I would have expected. As to moving the pole, Kevin merely shot a few seconds ahead of you and avoided the problem. I am guilty of moving a pole in one of my shots, but I won't tell you which one and nobody would be able to identify it, not even if you were standing next to me at the time. It turned a reject into a great shot. As to the Steinhemer shot, it does not move me. Somehow you and Kevin inadvertantly managed to include a train in your shots, and it made a huge difference. Yours come alive; his does not.
>
> > The one thing the old stuff had, however, was
> > the histörical authenticity of depicting a
> railroad
> > going about its daily business of doing what it
> > was built to do.   Anything shot today can
> be
> > nothing more than an attempt to duplicate that,
> > and will never have the same histörical
> value.
> > Today you can get high quality pictures of a
> > histörical replication.  Back in the
> day you
> > got low quality pictures of the real deal.
> > It's a tradeoff.
>
> Are you kidding us, Tom?   As noted above -
> and proven by the images published in your own
> book, 'NARROW GAUGE - then and now' (and lent to
> us for the "Help Restore #483" screen savers),
> many of those 35mm Kodachrome photos from the
> early and mid nineteen-sixties will, IMHO, never
> be excelled - or even equaled.  And that's
> not even counting the superb portraits of the
> D&RG(W) taken on glass plate, and later large- and
> medium-format film cameras.

Okay; if you think my stuff from the early sixties was wonderful, who am I to argue!!
>
> > Anyhow, getting back to signals and CTC, I
> would
> > be delighted if the C&TS was doing the kind of
> bus-
> > iness that made such improvements a necessity.
>
> And I would NOT - as that much traffic would
> undoubtedly result in both diseaselization and
> even tighter security.  (Not that the latter
> would necessarily be needed, as diseaselization
> would greatly decrease the incentive to trespass
> ... )

That's an interesting subject. Based on audience reaction at Winterail, you might get more fans if they did dieselize. As to you and me, maybe we could meet in the middle and run enough trains to make the railroad prosperous to the point that investors were clammering to get in, (And I could sell more books.) but not so prosperous that the railroad needed to dieselize and throw curmudgons like you off the property.

By the way, please explain to an uneducated person such as myself what IMHO means.

Tom