Prototype Tim Mills' Photos

[Martin Shaw]

The periphery of human vision is broadly speaking rectangular, and within the constraints of technology of the moving picture industry, a rectangular format of varying ratio has been there since the beginning, so I wonder where square negatives for still photography originated. Presumably/ possibly something to do with plate camera design, anyone have a thought on this?
Regards on an idle Sunday
Martin

 

[JimG]

Presumably/ possibly something to do with plate camera design, anyone have a thought on this?

Martin,

I would have thought more like roll film cameras on 120 and 620 sizes - like Rollieflex. My father had both plate cameras and a Rollieflex camera and the plates used - quarter, half and full - were all rectangular. I think 127 roll film camera mainly had rectangular frames but my Rollie 4 x 4 had square frames on 127 - maybe Rollieflex carrying on their practices on a non-professional film gauge.

Jim.

 

[oldravendale]

For those of us involved in moving pictures that's an interesting question, Martin. After quite a lot of fiddling around with formats the standard which was arrived at was 1.33:1 shot on (nominally) 35mm wide film. (Interestingly - or not - film sizes have generally been described by a metric width - 8, 16 or 35mm, but an imperial length - 50, 100, 400 or 1000 ft. 35mm print film was also described as 16 or 35mm but with lengths up to 6000 ft. In practice I never heard it described as 1828 metres, although that measurement was on the bags alongside the imperial length. But I digress.)

Formats grew width-wise and eventually Cinemascope, created using anamorphic lenses reached 2.4:1 which is an immersive format as it's difficult to see the edges of the screen on regular projection. I'm ignoring 70mm and IMAX here to try to avoid confusion which is so easy when looking at film formats.

It is suggested that square negative formats for still photography were popular because it was possible to mask a vertical or horizontal format from the (relatively) large neg area. As Jim says plate and sheet film cameras used rectangular formats, I think exclusively, from 4 x 5" up to 20 x 24". When I learned my photography we were taught exclusively on sheet film cameras. However, in general 35mm still film full frame format of 24 x 36mm was popularised because the format was felt to be more satisfying added to which the equipment (again a sweeping generalisation) was smaller and lighter than even roll film cameras even though large format cameras continue in use to this day.

There have been many studies about the most satisfying format for viewing an image and for regular use, and the one on which TV is now based (again a sweeping generalisation) is 1.66:1. Doubtless, for spectaculars, particularly in the cinema the wider formats will continue to be used.

This has sort of come full circle. I tend to make a master copy of each negative I process at full format and then pull an A4 format (approximately 1.4:1) from the neg. This is for purely practical reasons as I can then print on A4 paper for the exhibitions we occasionally create of Tim's work. There is, of course, nothing stopping me from printing 16:9/1.66:1 and trimming the paper accordingly.

There is a great deal written about this subject and without extending these comments significantly with sets and subsets it's pretty well impossible to cover the full background. Whilst this is a subject of interest to me it's doubtful that there are a huge number of people out there wearing this particular anorak!

Brian

 

[LarryG]

I imagine the square format simply allowed one to get more shots per 120 roll of film. True it gave vertical and horizontal printing options, but this in itself wasted film. I soon went back to rectangular formats.

Digital scanning brings a lot more out of negatives today than was possible using the old wet darkroom. Looking back, I should have stuck with 35mm (and Nikon), but that's with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[oldravendale]

Here's a certain well known loco photographed at Old Oak Common. Tim has attributed this to 1964 but it's in the same batch of negs as the rail tour below so it's more likely to be October 1963.



These few photos are at Paddington and of the "Western Belle" of 19th October 1963. Reporting number 1Z78 throughout. Tim's notes advise "Ian Allan Railtour Curtailed at Swindon Suspected Sabotage to Loco." but I think that's incorrect. There is a later railtour of which Tim took photos where Flying Scotsman failed so I believe there's some confusion. 4472 was used Paddington to Taunton, then 7317 and 7332 Taunton to Exeter Central via Ilfracombe, and 4472 again Exeter Central to Waterloo.


Brian

 

[LarryG]

I love the lighting as the A3 passes under the bridge.

 

[Rob Pulham]

Hi Brian,

It's a remarkable coincidence that you have posted Flying Scotsman today as my friend, neighbour and fellow 7mm scale modeler passed away early this morning (aged 90) he remembered seeing Flying Scotsman in York Station in 1938.

 

[Arun Sharma]

Here's a certain well known loco photographed at Old Oak Common. Tim has attributed this to 1964 but it's in the same batch of negs as the rail tour below so it's more likely to be October 1963.

View attachment 146490 View attachment 146490 View attachment 146492 View attachment 146493

These few photos are at Paddington and of the "Western Belle" of 19th October 1963. Reporting number 1Z78 throughout. Tim's notes advise "Ian Allan Railtour Curtailed at Swindon Suspected Sabotage to Loco." but I think that's incorrect. There is a later railtour of which Tim took photos where Flying Scotsman failed so I believe there's some confusion. 4472 was used Paddington to Taunton, then 7317 and 7332 Taunton to Exeter Central via Ilfracombe, and 4472 again Exeter Central to Waterloo.

View attachment 146494 View attachment 146495 View attachment 146496 View attachment 146497
Brian

Interesting looking at the back end of 4472's tender. Even though it is lettered LNER, it doesn't have the white-black-white rectangle lining - Any ideas?

 

[Tim Watson]

I don’t think the big tenders had the rectangular panel line on them.

Tim

 

[Arun Sharma]

I don’t think the big tenders had the rectangular panel line on them.

Tim

Tim - There are certainly photos which don't appear to show engines in LNER livery with tender back lining but Fig 69 of Vol 2A of the RCTS green series has a very clear photo of A3 No: 44 Melton in July 48 with the back of the tender lined out in LNER livery. Engines that were in LNER livery but with BRITISH RAILWAYS painted on the tender appear to have had the rear panel lining painted out.

Perhaps Mickoo and/or Ian Rathbone would care to comment?

 

[LarryG]

I'm not surprised the Tender lacks the rectangular panel of double white lining with black inner line. It's a corridor Tender.

 

[Wagonman]

For those of us involved in moving pictures that's an interesting question, Martin. After quite a lot of fiddling around with formats the standard which was arrived at was 1.33:1 shot on (nominally) 35mm wide film. (Interestingly - or not - film sizes have generally been described by a metric width - 8, 16 or 35mm, but an imperial length - 50, 100, 400 or 1000 ft. 35mm print film was also described as 16 or 35mm but with lengths up to 6000 ft. In practice I never heard it described as 1828 metres, although that measurement was on the bags alongside the imperial length. But I digress.)

Formats grew width-wise and eventually Cinemascope, created using anamorphic lenses reached 2.4:1 which is an immersive format as it's difficult to see the edges of the screen on regular projection. I'm ignoring 70mm and IMAX here to try to avoid confusion which is so easy when looking at film formats.

It is suggested that square negative formats for still photography were popular because it was possible to mask a vertical or horizontal format from the (relatively) large neg area. As Jim says plate and sheet film cameras used rectangular formats, I think exclusively, from 4 x 5" up to 20 x 24". When I learned my photography we were taught exclusively on sheet film cameras. However, in general 35mm still film full frame format of 24 x 36mm was popularised because the format was felt to be more satisfying added to which the equipment (again a sweeping generalisation) was smaller and lighter than even roll film cameras even though large format cameras continue in use to this day.

There have been many studies about the most satisfying format for viewing an image and for regular use, and the one on which TV is now based (again a sweeping generalisation) is 1.66:1. Doubtless, for spectaculars, particularly in the cinema the wider formats will continue to be used.

This has sort of come full circle. I tend to make a master copy of each negative I process at full format and then pull an A4 format (approximately 1.4:1) from the neg. This is for purely practical reasons as I can then print on A4 paper for the exhibitions we occasionally create of Tim's work. There is, of course, nothing stopping me from printing 16:9/1.66:1 and trimming the paper accordingly.

There is a great deal written about this subject and without extending these comments significantly with sets and subsets it's pretty well impossible to cover the full background. Whilst this is a subject of interest to me it's doubtful that there are a huge number of people out there wearing this particular anorak!

Brian

I believe the square format for 120 twin and single lens reflex cameras derived from the extreme difficulty using them on their side... After many years using a Hasselblad I still tend to set my iPhone's camera to 'square'!

Richard

 

[Arun Sharma]

I'm not surprised the Tender lacks the rectangular panel of double white lining with black inner line. It's a corridor Tender.

Ah!- so it is - Thank you

 

[JimG]

I believe the square format for 120 twin and single lens reflex cameras derived from the extreme difficulty using them on their side... After many years using a Hasselblad I still tend to set my iPhone's camera to 'square'!

I would agree with that. I have a Mamiaflex (square format on 120) which would be even more difficult to use on its side than a Rollie or a Hasselblad.

Jim.

 

[LarryG]

I used a prism fnder on my Mamiya 645 for a very short time just so I could take vertical photos. Just about every one had to have sky and foreground cropped. To my mind, 35mm gave the best format for railway photography because trains are long and slim.

A good big 'un always beat a good small 'un and film stock was notoriously dodgy for some years after WW2.

 

[oldravendale]

Apologies to my regulars - you must have wondered, yet again, where I've got to. Work has continued on the Tim Mills collection, and now I have a quantity of large format colour slides which I've started to scan. However, work continues for the moment on the black and white images. Anyway, here we are again with another selection of Western Region images. These are all at Old Oak Common in 1964.

First is a somewhat begrimed Modified Hall, 7922 Salford Hall. I believe that the crane behind is part of the ash pit equipment. It went to Southall in 1962 so it's probably not too surprising to see it here. In August 1965 it moved to Oxford from where it was withdrawn at the end of the year. Final disposal took place at Cashmore's, Newport, in May 1966.



Here's the first of the 57XX class condensing pannier tanks, 9700. As far as I can establish it was always an Old Oak Common engine, being withdrawn from there in early October 1963 and scrapped in December the same year at Swindon. Although not in steam it looks to be in perfectly usable condition so the date of these photos must be questioned - they are probably a year earlier than suggested.



This is 84XX 0-6-0PT 9405 on empty stock. It moved from Old Oak Common, where it arrived in June 1959 to Reading in July 1964, then back to Old Oak a month later ending up at Bristol Barrow Road at the end of March 1965. Withdrawal followed in the middle of June the same year. It was scrapped by the end of October the same year at T W Ward, Briton Ferry.



Another empty stock train, this time with 9420, with a Warship lurking in the background. 9420 was a long time Old Oak engine, going there in 1951 until withdrawal in March 1964. It was scrapped in August the same year at Swindon.



Finally for today, to say this photo is as rare as hens' teeth is probably an exaggeration, but there aren't many photos of complete breakdown trains. For that reason alone this is quite valuable to us railway modellers. If there's a wish to see blow ups of each vehicle let me know although each image will be limited in value as they'll be quite small. I can't identify the loco but believe it to be a Manor, in itself an unusual visitor to Old Oak - if I'm wrong doubtless I'll be rapidly corrected.


Brian

 

[AJC]

A nice selection in there, Brian. I especially like the crane, of course (one of the big Ransome and Rapier ones?), but it's the pair of empty stock workings that are most interesting to me, much more everyday stuff. I like the Thompson corridor coach behind 9405 and peeking in behind 9420 is one of the pilot scheme Swindon Warships (D800-02) - the giveaway is the absence of roller blind train indicators.

Adam

 

[simond]

It might be “the breakdown train”, but I suggest it’s not going to a breakdown or accident. I wonder what’s under the tarp on the low wagon (my money’s on a Loriot L based on one pic in ABT) ahead of the crane. I think whatever it is is going to be lifted into position.

Can’t shed any light on the riding van. I concur that the loco’s a Manor, but no clue which.

Atb
Simon

 

[daifly]

The ‘Manor’ is actually a ‘Grange’! The rear driver splasher is fully in front of the cab. On a ‘Manor’ the rear splasher is cut off by the cab front. I’d go so far as to speculate that it is 6817 Gwenddwr Grange. The cab plate looks to end with 17.
Dave

 

[mickoo]

I wonder what’s under the tarp on the low wagon

Atb
Simon

I'd suggest out riggers and packing blocks by the look of things.