Topics

NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!


Jeffrey L Witt
 

You can read all about it HERE: http://gdlines.org/GDLines/index.html 

A big thank you to Ken for providing the photos, and Randy Decker for all his help and detective work!!!

Make sure you refresh your browser if you don't see the update (as below).



Jeff


Bruce Wilson
 

All of those photos are badly out of focus.  Is that they way they were, a problem with scanning or something else?

Bruce Wilson
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Life Member NMRA
Member Scale 7 Group Gauge 0 Guild 7mmNGA
Member Bird Studies Canada Ontario Bird Banding Association
Nature Barrie Simcoe County Banding Group

On 12/2/2020 19:18, Jeffrey L Witt via groups.io wrote:
You can read all about it HERE: http://gdlines.org/GDLines/index.html

A big thank you to Ken for providing the photos, and Randy Decker for all his help and detective work!!!

Make sure you refresh your browser if you don't see the update (as below).


Charles Kinzer
 

My guess is that fairly slow film (like Kodachrome 64 or something) was used with just the available lighting.  And the camera aperture was probably opened as wide as it would go.  And probably a pretty slow shutter speed.

 

So this make a problem for depth of field AND how steady the camera must be held.

 

There are some parts of some photos that are sharp.  So I’m sure it isn’t from the scanning of them.

 

I think they just are what they are.  And still another great opportunity to see yet more photos of the layout.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Bruce Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:40 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!

 

A

 


Warner Swarner
 

Chuck,
 I think your answer is correct but I am curious what film was used here?  The color balance looks correct.  Have these shots been color corrected or were they Kodachrome shot with a blue filter?  We know they were shot with existing light (John would not permit anything else) and they obviously appear handheld (shakey).  But to get this color balance they were either “tungsten” film or shot with a color filter which worsened the exposure (slowed the ASA) even further.  Randy, do you know the film type?  Were these prints or slides? Have they been color adjusted?  
Ken probably was thinking he could use flash or else he would have been loaded with faster film or a tripod. 
These are very valuable views.  They document detail and structures from important locations.  Even though they are very shaken, they contribute greatly to the canon of documentation.  We owe everybody, especially Randy a great amount of thanks. 
Warner



On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:



My guess is that fairly slow film (like Kodachrome 64 or something) was used with just the available lighting.  And the camera aperture was probably opened as wide as it would go.  And probably a pretty slow shutter speed.

 

So this make a problem for depth of field AND how steady the camera must be held.

 

There are some parts of some photos that are sharp.  So I’m sure it isn’t from the scanning of them.

 

I think they just are what they are.  And still another great opportunity to see yet more photos of the layout.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Bruce Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:40 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!

 

A

 


Ken Moordigian
 

Bruce and all,

These were all taken with a cheap polaroid camera... you remember those plastic cameras with the red button that you squeezed toward you. 
It was hard to hold the camera still while pulling it into your face, crouched under the layout and stretching to get the shot, nervous that I might break something!
Then wave the print around for a minute until it fixed, then pull off the paper and Voila, another blurry image...

Oh well, I'm glad the content is usable despite the quality.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Warner Swarner via groups.io <wbswarner@...>
To: GandD@groups.io
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2020 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!

Chuck,
 I think your answer is correct but I am curious what film was used here?  The color balance looks correct.  Have these shots been color corrected or were they Kodachrome shot with a blue filter?  We know they were shot with existing light (John would not permit anything else) and they obviously appear handheld (shakey).  But to get this color balance they were either “tungsten” film or shot with a color filter which worsened the exposure (slowed the ASA) even further.  Randy, do you know the film type?  Were these prints or slides? Have they been color adjusted?  
Ken probably was thinking he could use flash or else he would have been loaded with faster film or a tripod. 
These are very valuable views.  They document detail and structures from important locations.  Even though they are very shaken, they contribute greatly to the canon of documentation.  We owe everybody, especially Randy a great amount of thanks. 
Warner



On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:


My guess is that fairly slow film (like Kodachrome 64 or something) was used with just the available lighting.  And the camera aperture was probably opened as wide as it would go.  And probably a pretty slow shutter speed.
 
So this make a problem for depth of field AND how steady the camera must be held.
 
There are some parts of some photos that are sharp.  So I’m sure it isn’t from the scanning of them.
 
I think they just are what they are.  And still another great opportunity to see yet more photos of the layout.
 
Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Bruce Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:40 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!
 
A
 


Russell Courtenay
 

I love your description of using the old Polaroid cameras! 

In the late 70’s I found a couple nice used ones, looked like something an old newspaper reporter would use- big, heavy and covered in chrome and leather for $1 each. 

I sprung for several rolls of expensive Polaroid film (I believe it was $10 for 10 photos even back then) and experimented in color and black & white. Gotta find those shots...

Russell Courtenay
Solemnity and profundity are sublime in inequity. 


On Dec 2, 2020, at 9:05 PM, Ken Moordigian via groups.io <TheKenWiley@...> wrote:

Bruce and all,

These were all taken with a cheap polaroid camera... you remember those plastic cameras with the red button that you squeezed toward you. 
It was hard to hold the camera still while pulling it into your face, crouched under the layout and stretching to get the shot, nervous that I might break something!
Then wave the print around for a minute until it fixed, then pull off the paper and Voila, another blurry image...

Oh well, I'm glad the content is usable despite the quality.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Warner Swarner via groups.io <wbswarner@...>
To: GandD@groups.io
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2020 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!

Chuck,
 I think your answer is correct but I am curious what film was used here?  The color balance looks correct.  Have these shots been color corrected or were they Kodachrome shot with a blue filter?  We know they were shot with existing light (John would not permit anything else) and they obviously appear handheld (shakey).  But to get this color balance they were either “tungsten” film or shot with a color filter which worsened the exposure (slowed the ASA) even further.  Randy, do you know the film type?  Were these prints or slides? Have they been color adjusted?  
Ken probably was thinking he could use flash or else he would have been loaded with faster film or a tripod. 
These are very valuable views.  They document detail and structures from important locations.  Even though they are very shaken, they contribute greatly to the canon of documentation.  We owe everybody, especially Randy a great amount of thanks. 
Warner



On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:


My guess is that fairly slow film (like Kodachrome 64 or something) was used with just the available lighting.  And the camera aperture was probably opened as wide as it would go.  And probably a pretty slow shutter speed.
 
So this make a problem for depth of field AND how steady the camera must be held.
 
There are some parts of some photos that are sharp.  So I’m sure it isn’t from the scanning of them.
 
I think they just are what they are.  And still another great opportunity to see yet more photos of the layout.
 
Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Bruce Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:40 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!
 
A
 


Warner Swarner
 

Ken,
Perfect explanation. That clears up the color balance. What a great classic depiction of your visit and the struggle with the camera. Your story makes them all the more valuable. I will treasure viewing them always imagining your drying the Polaroid prints. It brings up Memories of so many holiday photos doing the same routine as well as visiting the G&D, constantly afraid something would get broken.  
Thank you for sharing!
Warner



On Dec 2, 2020, at 8:05 PM, Ken Moordigian via groups.io <TheKenWiley@...> wrote:


Bruce and all,

These were all taken with a cheap polaroid camera... you remember those plastic cameras with the red button that you squeezed toward you. 
It was hard to hold the camera still while pulling it into your face, crouched under the layout and stretching to get the shot, nervous that I might break something!
Then wave the print around for a minute until it fixed, then pull off the paper and Voila, another blurry image...

Oh well, I'm glad the content is usable despite the quality.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Warner Swarner via groups.io <wbswarner@...>
To: GandD@groups.io
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2020 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!

Chuck,
 I think your answer is correct but I am curious what film was used here?  The color balance looks correct.  Have these shots been color corrected or were they Kodachrome shot with a blue filter?  We know they were shot with existing light (John would not permit anything else) and they obviously appear handheld (shakey).  But to get this color balance they were either “tungsten” film or shot with a color filter which worsened the exposure (slowed the ASA) even further.  Randy, do you know the film type?  Were these prints or slides? Have they been color adjusted?  
Ken probably was thinking he could use flash or else he would have been loaded with faster film or a tripod. 
These are very valuable views.  They document detail and structures from important locations.  Even though they are very shaken, they contribute greatly to the canon of documentation.  We owe everybody, especially Randy a great amount of thanks. 
Warner



On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:


My guess is that fairly slow film (like Kodachrome 64 or something) was used with just the available lighting.  And the camera aperture was probably opened as wide as it would go.  And probably a pretty slow shutter speed.
 
So this make a problem for depth of field AND how steady the camera must be held.
 
There are some parts of some photos that are sharp.  So I’m sure it isn’t from the scanning of them.
 
I think they just are what they are.  And still another great opportunity to see yet more photos of the layout.
 
Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Bruce Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:40 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!
 
A
 


Tom Hokel (Pine Ridge RR)
 

Thank you, Ken, for that batch of GD photos. And, thanks to Randy and Jeff for, yet, another discovery and posting.

That last one of the saw mill at Andrews is a real nugget?

--
Tom
<PR> PINE RIDGE RR


Bruce Wilson
 

Thanks for the answer Ken.  I was wondering if there had been a problem when scanning or when uploaded.  Polarois>  There is a blast from the past made more or less obsolete by today's technology although they are still around.

Bruce Wilson
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Life Member    NMRA
Member    Scale 7 Group    Gauge 0 Guild  7mmNGA
Member Bird Studies Canada   Ontario Bird Banding Association
Nature Barrie      Simcoe County Banding Group
On 12/2/2020 23:05, Ken Moordigian via groups.io wrote:

Bruce and all,

These were all taken with a cheap polaroid camera... you remember those plastic cameras with the red button that you squeezed toward you. 
It was hard to hold the camera still while pulling it into your face, crouched under the layout and stretching to get the shot, nervous that I might break something!
Then wave the print around for a minute until it fixed, then pull off the paper and Voila, another blurry image...

Oh well, I'm glad the content is usable despite the quality.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Warner Swarner via groups.io <wbswarner@...>
To: GandD@groups.io
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2020 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!

Chuck,
 I think your answer is correct but I am curious what film was used here?  The color balance looks correct.  Have these shots been color corrected or were they Kodachrome shot with a blue filter?  We know they were shot with existing light (John would not permit anything else) and they obviously appear handheld (shakey).  But to get this color balance they were either “tungsten” film or shot with a color filter which worsened the exposure (slowed the ASA) even further.  Randy, do you know the film type?  Were these prints or slides? Have they been color adjusted?  
Ken probably was thinking he could use flash or else he would have been loaded with faster film or a tripod. 
These are very valuable views.  They document detail and structures from important locations.  Even though they are very shaken, they contribute greatly to the canon of documentation.  We owe everybody, especially Randy a great amount of thanks. 
Warner



On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:


My guess is that fairly slow film (like Kodachrome 64 or something) was used with just the available lighting.  And the camera aperture was probably opened as wide as it would go.  And probably a pretty slow shutter speed.
 
So this make a problem for depth of field AND how steady the camera must be held.
 
There are some parts of some photos that are sharp.  So I’m sure it isn’t from the scanning of them.
 
I think they just are what they are.  And still another great opportunity to see yet more photos of the layout.
 
Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Bruce Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:40 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] NOW ONLINE - the Ken Moordigian Gallery at GDLines.org!!!!
 
A
 


Jeffrey L Witt
 

I scanned them at 600 dpi from the prints that Ken generously provided.

I did perform digital manipulations in Photoshop for contrast and color balance, but there is only so much information in the prints, so you can't go too far or things get weird with artifacts.

I decided not to exclude any of the images, because you never know what someone will find valuable. As Tom says, the "end of the line" at Andrews is rarely photographed at this level.

Also, the image behind Scalp Mountain is almost NEVER seen - that concrete bridge, and the relatively unfinished state of the track of Sims Loop - great stuff. Then there's the two Timesavers in competition mode. Love it!

Ken, no need to apologize for anything, I for one (and many other, I'm sure), am thrilled to add these photos, as well as your memories of the visit, to the site.

The GDRP's mission is to preserve and share John's legacy, and this gallery is a fine addition to the cause.

Jeff


Randy Lee Decker
 

Ken only had a cheap camera that day but mixed in the group are some shots that I am glad to have now seen. They show different views and some changes to areas such as Andrews and the back wall mirror there. And the buildings and these pictures to not show nearly as much of this area, in all the other photo's we have so far. So very glad to have these shots. And the stories put any of us right there in John's home and give you a real feel of the place.

Randy