http://i53.tinypic.com/xgd5oz.jpg
http://www.shorpy.com/node/8946
Printable View
I thought the WTC was built on a landfill ?
Partially. The other half was a commuter rail terminal for what's now called the PATH train. And there were offices, a bunch of shops, etc. In a sense these were the original "twin towers".
So these buildings occupied the east side of the present WTC site more or less ?
Yupyup.
Thread sparked me to google New York 1910 images :)
Spoiler:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i_AovfzNXg...+York+1910.jpg
Wonderful I love those old pictures, especially if there are some things in it that you can still see today.
That is a huge triangular building. It looks shopped, though...
Never heard of it before?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatiron_Building
There's a building in my city here that is inspired by it, and I like that one a lot too.
Back the day [nine years ago] you could have actually seen the World Trade Center beyond the white arch at the end of 5th avenue to the right of the Flatiron building.
When I look at old pictures of New York (which I do love), I'm often amazed at the proliferation and size of of signs. It makes me question all the alarmists who talk about how we're bombarded with advertising.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/theyLive.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Maybe I have seen it briefly, but never really noticed it before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Our city also has a building that has the same style and shape, though it is red brick and about 10 stories or so instead of 22!
I was more amazed by the clarity of the negatives from 1910. Those photos must have been very difficult to take (they didn't have f-stops or telephoto lenses back then, did they?) So it must really be true that photography is more about the photographer (artist) than the camera (technology).Quote:
Lower Manhattan circa 1910. "Hudson Terminal buildings." 8x10 inch dry plate glass negative, Detroit Publishing Company. View full size.
Oh man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
They Live!
Supeerrrb film. :up:
http://www.movingimagesource.us/imag...142-medium.jpg
It's funny in a sad way to watch all these anti-capitalist 80's movies and how little impact they had in the end.
No, "true photography" is a combination of an artist doing the best of their abilities with the best equipment they have available, which with an unlimited budget means the best available technology. There's no inherent value in doing things "the old way" just for the sake of it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
They had aperture adjustments, just not finely-tuned F-stops that we're used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
But this is why photography was both an art and a trade. Obviously it wasn't easy to make exposures like this, but it was very possible. And because it's an 8x10 negative (which is huge), the clarity can be suburb.
If you check out other pictures on Shorpy, a lot of their content is from around then and even earlier.