A LATE 1800's - EARLY 1900'S PRINT ON GLASS?

Mardon wrote:

Thank you. I'm gald that they're now safe with the National Archives too.
Here's another peek at one. It's plate #81, taken March 6, 1902.
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/misc/images/Cnp0081.jpg

Wow, that's amazing. I could look at old pics like that for hours.
Post some more if you get a chance.

BTW, is it just me or does the color seem to be just a bit off in that
one?

Annika1980 wrote:
Mardon wrote:

Thank you. I'm gald that they're now safe with the National Archives too.
Here's another peek at one. It's plate #81, taken March 6, 1902.
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/misc/images/Cnp0081.jpg

Wow, that's amazing. I could look at old pics like that for hours.
Post some more if you get a chance.

BTW, is it just me or does the color seem to be just a bit off in that
one?

LOL.......I don't think color film was invented back then, but I could
be wrong.
Yeah, those old pics are a treat to view. I have a whole bunch of them
from my mother's side of the family. I have nothing from my father's
side.
Helen

"Annika1980" wrote:

Wow, that's amazing. I could look at old pics like that for hours.
Post some more if you get a chance.

BTW, is it just me or does the color seem to be just a bit off in that
one?

Thanks.

I've added a page to my website for these old images. I've put 3 there for
now.
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/misc/cnp/

Maybe I'll add more from time to time. I have over 1,500 images scanned
from glass plate negatives exposed during the first decade of the 20th
century.

Are you joking about the colour being off? I hope so. They are grayscale
images with an embedded profile of "Gray Gamma 2.2". Maybe they won't look
good on a Mac at gamma 1.8?.

"Annika1980" wrote:

I could look at old pics like that for hours.
Post some more if you get a chance.

I forgot to mention that my family history website is full of old photos of
my ancestors. The place to start from is he
http://www.ErblandBrown.org

Mardon wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:

Wow, that's amazing. I could look at old pics like that for hours.
Post some more if you get a chance.

BTW, is it just me or does the color seem to be just a bit off in that
one?

Thanks.

I've added a page to my website for these old images. I've put 3 there for
now.
http://www.JustPhotos.ca/misc/cnp/

Maybe I'll add more from time to time. I have over 1,500 images scanned
from glass plate negatives exposed during the first decade of the 20th
century.

Are you joking about the colour being off? I hope so. They are grayscale
images with an embedded profile of "Gray Gamma 2.2". Maybe they won't look
good on a Mac at gamma 1.8?.

They look fine on this (laptop) Mac.

But: they are RGB! Now, each channel has exactly the same histogram as
the others, but somewhere it got put into RGB.

If it has a color cast, that suggests the monitor is a tad off.... it
looks completely grayscale here, but it most certainly has three color
channels, however lacking in saturation!

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

They look fine on this (laptop) Mac.

But: they are RGB! Now, each channel has exactly the same histogram as
the others, but somewhere it got put into RGB.

If it has a color cast, that suggests the monitor is a tad off.... it
looks completely grayscale here, but it most certainly has three color
channels, however lacking in saturation!

The 3 thumbnails at http://www.justphotos.ca/misc/cnp/ are RGB but the
images that are linked to the thumbnails are definitely grayscale with an
embedded grayscale profile. I just double-checked. Why do you say they
are RGB?

Mardon wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

They look fine on this (laptop) Mac.

But: they are RGB! Now, each channel has exactly the same histogram as
the others, but somewhere it got put into RGB.

If it has a color cast, that suggests the monitor is a tad off.... it
looks completely grayscale here, but it most certainly has three color
channels, however lacking in saturation!

The 3 thumbnails at http://www.justphotos.ca/misc/cnp/ are RGB but the
images that are linked to the thumbnails are definitely grayscale with an
embedded grayscale profile. I just double-checked. Why do you say they
are RGB?

Something's wrong with the link, then. Both your images are definitely
RGB. I opened them in Photoshop, and the Mode said RGB for both
Further, the first image unpacked size is 14.2 MB, and on converting to
grayscale in PS the size dropped to 4.74 MB, likewise the second image,
from 9.18 MB to 3.06 MB.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Colin_D wrote:

Something's wrong with the link, then. Both your images are definitely
RGB. I opened them in Photoshop, and the Mode said RGB for both
Further, the first image unpacked size is 14.2 MB, and on converting to
grayscale in PS the size dropped to 4.74 MB, likewise the second image,
from 9.18 MB to 3.06 MB.

Colin D.

Hi,

I'm totally puzzled. I'd really like to understand what is going on that
causes people to see these images as RGB. I just ftp'd the 3 images in
question from the server back to my PC. These images a

http://www.justphotos.ca/misc/cnp/im...038CloseUp.jpg
http://www.justphotos.ca/misc/cnp/images/Cnp1514.jpg
http://www.justphotos.ca/misc/cnp/images/Falls1924.jpg

I then looked at them using Adobe Bridge CS3 and opened them in PS CS3.
The file specs from Bridge are shown below. PS CS3 shows the "Mode" as
"grayscale". I'm at a loss as to why they are appearing to be RGB to
others. Any thoughts?

Filename Cnp1038CloseUp.jpg
File Size 195 KB
Dimensions 1100 x 734
Resolution 72 dpi
Color Mode B&W
Color Profile Gray Gamma 2.2

Filename Cnp1514.jpg
File Size 164 KB
Dimensions 1100 x 787
Resolution 72 dpi
Color Mode B&W
Color Profile Gray Gamma 2.2

Filename Cnp1924.jpg
File Size 218 KB
Dimensions 1100 x 7377
Resolution 72 dpi
Color Mode B&W
Color Profile Gray Gamma 2.2

j ` f wrote:

The JPEG specification is only RGB. All greyscale, duotone, cmyk, etc.
images are either converted to RGB automatically or have to be converted
prior to compression, depending on the software used.

With due respect, that's not the way that I read the standard. Am I
misinterperating something? Here's a link to the JPEG image compression
FAQ published by "Independent JPEG Group" that writes and distributes the
widely used free library for JPEG image compression:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

Here are 2 excerpts from the FAQ:

"Baseline JPEG stores images with 8 bits per color sample, in other words
24 bits per pixel for RGB images, 8 bits/pixel for grayscale, 32 bits/pixel
for CMYK, etc."

"Hardly anything that's not prepress-savvy will cope with CMYK JPEGs (or
any other CMYK format for that matter). When making JPEGs for Web use, be
sure to save from RGB or grayscale mode."

Something's wrong with the link, then. Both your images are definitely
RGB. I opened them in Photoshop, and the Mode said RGB for both
Further, the first image unpacked size is 14.2 MB, and on converting to
grayscale in PS the size dropped to 4.74 MB, likewise the second image,
from 9.18 MB to 3.06 MB.

Krita and the GIMP both think they are greyscale on linux.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk