I use the term “high resolution” somewhat subjectively/vaguely.
I recently stumbled across this photograph taken in 1939. I was amazed at the level of detail visible in a photograph that is now 73 years old.
Anything older than this that could qualify as a “high resolution” colour photograph?
Not sure about the exact date, buthi res color photos weren’t rare.
First color photograph was mid 19th century.
It took a while but everything had been worked out by the turn of the century. So you have images like this from 1912. If you search on Kromogram you’ll have a whole bunch including images of the San Fransisco earthquake. There was also the Joly process, the Lippman process, and Triptracks. There were several competing products.
The reason they weren’t more common is that it was hard to get right. It was generally more cumbersome. And it was almost always vastly more expensive. Like hundreds of dollars per shot. But high def (so to speak, roughly equivalent to 25 megapixels or better) color photography, was there all along. Many of these images have degraded with time. So they don’t necessarily look great today. But There was a lot of color photography from about 1900 on, but only in the hands of specific artists.
But what you are probably looking for is the mid 1930’s. That is when Kodak, Agfa, and other manufacturers created color films. By 1938, stable color film was easily commercially available. And that is when you start seeing an explosion of images. At that point anybody could do it. It was still more expensive than B&W. And it had some range limitations. So it wasn’t immediately universally adopted. But you start seeing a lot more pictures like the one in the OP.
This guy traveled around the Russian countryside in the first half of the 1910’s taking some pretty amazing color photographs.
Although, from what I understand, the process of combining the three negatives to make a print was the real weak point of the method he used, so back when he was working the prints would have been somewhat fuzzier. It wasn’t until they started using digital processes to combine them that you got some the incredibly crisp results you can see now.
Here’s more of his stuff: Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky - Wikimedia Commons
The other point is that negatives were much larger then. High resolution 4x5 inch negatives were common by the 30’s; so the only limitation was the quality of equipment, the expense of colour film, and the willingness to take time to get the focus right.
Keep in mind that part of what you’re seeing is that even typical 4x6 prints can seem “high resolution” when viewed on a computer monitor because monitors don’t have as much detail. Prints and film generally hold much more detail than the eye can readily see, and if you scan them in with a good scanner you’ll get a huge digital reproduction.
Nobody at that dance looks happy. It looks like a fight is brewing.
And that’s not even like that caught someone at a funny moment when they were blinking or about to sneeze. All the guys are walking away from their dates and look kinda mad. The red-head and the unibrow have fists formed already.
They also all look really hot and sweaty and they all have their sleeves rolled up which could just mean it’s hot in there, or they may have already been fighting, and one guy has a ripped shirt.
I wonder what’s behind the photographer.
The two guys in front could be brothers, even twins.
Kids asleep in the bedroom (one is awake and looking pensive)
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Band (they also look pensive but like they can get their groove on once they start rippin’ it)
Some more dancers (all look hot, angry, and awkward. The guy in the center appears to be making his date an offer she can’t refuse)
More dancers with the guys from the OP’s photo (Unibrow still looks pissed off, white shirt still looks like an early user of bath salts, and Opie is transfixed by his date’s breasts. The lonely guy in the back looks like trouble and probably started the fight.)
The band again - (fight’s over, back to groovin. But Ms. Striped socks still looks pensive)
Thanks Crazyhorse!
Gives new meaning to the word wallpaper, at least?
Swing dancing - unless you freeze a manic grin on your face, active dancing can give one some pretty funky facial expressions in still shots. I would guess the guys in khakis are in the CCC or WPA work battalions, these would be the organized dances to entertain them instead of them heading out to bars to get drunk and find hookers.
Whoever was on the decorating committee for that dance really didn’t have their heart in their work.
Nah, it was 1939 everyone was a bit pissed off, hence the largest war in history breaking out later that year.
Aside from Prokudin-Gorskii the other early colour photos I like are the French army ones from World War One- a little grainy but still pretty impressive.
Hereis a good source for Prokudin-Goirskii pics.
You see that a lot in old rural photographs. It comes from people working in the fields all summer with brimmed hats, the get a sunburn on just the lower half of their faces, which makes them look like they’re permanently flustered or drunk.
How aboutthis photofrom 1868. Would you consider it hi-res?
Looks pretty Impressionist to me.
How about this one of Senegalese troops on the Western Front?
Cool, some interesting links and photos to explore here. Thanks everyone who replied.
