Puts a new meaning to "duck down"!
Printable View
Puts a new meaning to "duck down"!
Coaling a steamer in the Virgin Islands, c.1898.
Fullsize image: https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...w_fullsize.jpg
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net..._work_crew.jpg
It's nearby; here we use 'normal' motivational posters.Quote:
Originally Posted by marksbug
And casual Fridays.
Lol.
Now that was an equal opportunity employer just as many women if not more than men and probably everyone receiving the exact same pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Reminds me of Tennessee Ernie Ford and 16 tons...not sure it was equal opportunity in the Virgin Island in 1898.
https://youtu.be/EkRYuMqw-B0
Thanks Jon, Great Pic!
Coal is heavy! I'm a little surprised to see it ported on peoples' heads. I see they have those little padded hats, like Motorcycle lifting on head guy.
I also found an interesting head carrying device called a tumpline.
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/tumpline1.jpg
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/tumpline2.jpg
I often work with a mission in the Dominican Republic. I once watched 4 men unloading a full size, flat-bed, semi trailer of 100 pound cement bags. One man on the truck, sliding the bags off the trailer, onto 3 men's heads, one man/one bag. They then carried the bags, on their head, into the storage building. The 3 men were spaced out so there was always one guy walking up to the truck for his next bag, as another was walking away. Knowing how they work down there, if they would have had to carry the bags much further, I am guessing they would have had 4 men on the ground, so the timing would be right. The men on the ground were covered in cement dust, from head to toe. I saw this in the morning on the way to a work site. In the afternoon as we passed them on the way home, they were finishing the job. I can only hope they took a break during the heat of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Just like seeing this coal loading photo, I do not complain about any of the work I need to do when I get back home.
And they wont have med ins to reduce pain/operate of crushed discs. I have but one and it gives me curry but forget an op: statistics are getting better re success.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemmjo
Haven't heard that for decades. Lots of the ol' songs were about labour (mostly love) "Workin for the Man" and getting out of poverty. I don't get am reception in the home but in my car I listen to a Brisbane station that plays 60's to 80's songs. Love old stuff & ones like like Johnny horton 60's, Beatles, stones, Animals eagles b.boys etc. A local fm station plays 60's through to current ones like Brett Denham. Not really into most Rapp or Swampy stuff.
Thanks for the time warp, PJ.
Some more heavy music, to go with post #180
https://youtu.be/hFVd6EoPCBI
Poetry and musical chorals might be the final bastion of imperial measure. I'd challenge any writer, even Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, or Ian Anderson the lyricization of "16 Tons" into "load 14514.9558 kilograms and and whadda ya get"...
I just had to investigate origin; link opened to "Historic 1912 recording of rowing song of a boat's crew on the Yangtze River in Sichuan, China" The beginning had me envisioning Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by threesixesinarow
I would challenge any of the testosterone deficient singers of today in any genera of what laughingly tries to pass for music to try and sing any of Tennessee Earnie's songs Think of how John Henry or Big John would sound sung by BieberQuote:
Originally Posted by Toolmaker51
That jes makes me headbone hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank S
Lol "testosterone deficient" isn't the only problem, a crop of "estrogen laden" performers isn't relieving it.
While I can't provide a direct quote, Noel Gallagher remarks the crop main fail is delivering material sufficient listeners can identify with in a positive way. Frank S's offer of Sinatra "My Way" isn't one of mine, but the message is undeniable.
Somehow, our HMT family fits right in with that. Could there be a broader strata? I am not surprised.
HA HA Ha but if they were challenged to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolmaker51
Fullsize image: https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...n_fullsize.jpgQuote:
Liberty ships under construction in a Baltimore shipyard during WWII, 1942.
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...nstruction.jpg
Happens all the time, new favorite picture. Not fickle, the examples just continue to improve and prove my soapbox chant.
I haven't really picked a favorite yet but I have ear marked several that I want to print off in a 3x5 format that's 3 foot by 5 foot to frame and put on my walls in the shop office if it ever gets built.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolmaker51
Too long. Won't fit 3:30 radio format...Quote:
Originally Posted by ranald
I agree about making a poster of it, but it would be a real push to get that size Frank. It's actually almost square at 8bits per channel RGB, but at 300ppi it's only ~5"x5". Might crop a bit of the sky but would take from the perspective, imho. Perhaps a giclee would take up some of the slack and get you up to 2x2' in Gray scale at 32bits/channel, maybeż Reminds me of Coney Island or The Pike in Long Beach for some reason..or ants roaming among the giants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank S
I love most of these for various reasons and would be hard pressed to pick a top 5 let alone top 10, and only 76 saved from these posts that Jon has so graciously shared with us.
Thanks for another great one Jon. :clapping:
Your right PJs I have the photo saved at 8065 x 8338 or 5.89 MB which would print out at around 40"by 36" @ 200 DPIQuote:
Originally Posted by PJs
My plotter can print up to 1200 DPI and I have 16 gb ram and 36 gb virtual
so size and power is there won't come out at 3 ft by 5 ft but will be able to get 36" by 40"
I once scanned in an 8 by 10 glossy at 5400 DPI setting on my scanner then printed it out approximately 42 inches wide by 52 inches long on my old plotter which was not as good as the one I have now that photo turned out just fine It would have been better if I would have had photo paper instead of just butcher paper but it was OK for what we needed it for.
This plotter I can print to vinyl or even nylon cloth for banners but I haven't tried it yet
What DPI do you need for a decent print photograph?
around 150 would be about the minimum I would want I've tried printing email pictures without first trying to enhance them they are usually around 75 DPI
A trick I have used several times is to up size in Microsoft office to 30% larger at a time then save then auto correct and repeat several times until the saved size is 400% larger than original then print them off on my smaller printer on photo paper they come out more or less fair there is only so much enlargement that can be done but a good scanner can do wonders to a wallet size photo if you want a 4x6 print No where near what a true photo enlarger can do at the lab though and even those depend on the exposure setting the photo was taken on and the clarity and lighting.
There was studio in Kuwait that printed wrap adds for the sides of the buses they could take a digital photo of a painting about 3500 by 2400 and blow it up to fit the side of the bus which would look like it had been painted on by Rembrandt himself they were that good
My pipe dream is to have these types of photos somehow painted or similarly imaged onto a garage wall.
Like when you go to some museums, and they have lifesize black-and-white photos on the wall. How are they doing that?
Well you probably couldn't do it this way LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Jon
https://youtu.be/_CA0DR4GSQg
But this way could work if you did it is reasonable sized sections at a time
https://www.diynetwork.com/how-to/ma...ansfer-pumpkin
but this will explain the process a little better
https://www.instructables.com/id/Ima...nsfer-to-Wood/
Technically Jon, digital picture files are considered "Print Ready" at 300PPI (Pixels/in). Printers use DPI as it represents Dots/in, as in most inkjets use a droplet (Dot) form of some type. Laserjets are another story as they use a coronal process on a roller and typically considered to be about 600ppi even in color.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Like Frank says you can get a decent-ish print at 200ppi but the eye will notice the aberrations. 300ppi is at the edge of what most people can discern in clarity and has been the standard for a long time. Up-scaling anymore than 10-15% will blow it to smithereens and a waste of ink, imho.
I did a 4/0, 4' x 8' vinyl poster a while back for a client that was "Print Ready" but it was required to be 1200PPI in order to scale it to that size in good resolution to the eye. It had a couple of pictures and a Vector Logo I did for him prior but the pictures had to be scanned a 1200ppi, cleaned up, adjusted, then inserted in order to be good visually at distance. Another thing that helps the printing processes is to Flatten the artwork and usually required for print houses. In this case I had a lot of drop shadows to highlight the logo, and some text as well as some other layer overlay effects...without flattening most printers misinterpret those opacities and colors giving a very bad effect, printed. To give a clue the restoration I did of my GGGPa tintype (~1.75x2.25) I scanned it as a 1600ppi TIFF file, just to get it big enough to print a 300ppi 4x6.
Imho, the only way to get these to a decent quality wall picture would be to save and print them as 300PPI and send the print to a Scan House (lots out there) and let them scan it at say 2400-3600ppi. These scan houses can do the whole process, much like Chip and Joan did on their HGTV series with the split rolling frame Before shots, but on a TV budget they could afford ~$1000per. I'm sure they were shot with a quality DLSR Or DLST and sent out for production. My hit is those were probably 150dpi prints on canvas or vinyl. Also keeping in mind when you scan to these resolutions, all the aberrations are enhanced as well as Interpolated above the original.
I had the good fortune to get to work with a local printing wizard who taught me a lot in the beginning. He help a lot, particularly in developing some of the larger giclee's I've done. Those were done in AI (Adobe Illustrator) but had certain picture elements in some that had to be gotten to at least 300ppi to print...my largest was a 30" x 48" on canvas and I gave him the file at 1200ppi to run through their commercial grade High End large format HP plotter.
Also keep in mind that Jpgs are RGB and most inkjets run a CMYK cartridge setup and the printer takes up the difference which is considerable. Not so much on Sepia or B/W (which I use TIFF format) but it does make a big difference on rendered color perception.
Hope that helps and didn't go completely off the TMI rails.
PJ
And for the next DIY X/Y plotter project...just keep in mind the DPI/PPI still needs to be correct.
https://youtu.be/LjK46EZKOXY
Thanks! Didn't know there was that much to it. Got the idea from looking at all of those old Mesta factory photographs. Would love to look at a wall of my garage, and see those old machines as if they were in the distance on the same floor. Although, admittedly, this is perhaps not my single most important project right now.
That is a great idea! I was thinking a collage of some type but a perspective from floor level...awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Not sure where I got the idea. I think I saw it first at a museum or airport. Like on a big wall at a passenger terminal, or behind a museum display or something. And you know how there are lifesize sepia or black-and-white photographs with people in them, maybe a timeline or historical data or explanation superimposed on it. I'm sure we've all seen this concept. Those big honkin' Mesta photographs are just dying to be reborn like that.
If that isn't really doable, I will settle for a photograph-topped cappuccino made with a pic of a Heavy Press.
LOL on the heavy press cap! :clapping:
Got to thinking, as I've seen custom wall paper from pics. Just a quick search and this popped up. https://www.megaprint.com/wallpaper.php
Here is a link to the pricing...don't know the size of your wall. https://www.megaprint.com/prices-sizes-prints.php
This is for a 8' x 12' smooth wallpaper. Not bad $$ for an all out man cave, but I would have to chat with them about resolution.
Attachment 28065
Another possibility would be a Halftone printing of some type where the resolution isn't as high. Old school but still around.
PJ
P.S. let me know about the PM I sent, and I'd be happy to prep the artwork for you.
Hey Jon, your cuppa could be of a top dog with saw in hand & when you reach the dregs the under-dog would appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Did you locate my lost post or should I simply redo it? (not that you have nothing to do-ha ha). I'm a one fingered typist & often posts pop up that weren't there when I started typing!LOL.
That does look interesting, and the price is not unreasonable, but I can't do even close to that sq ft price. I do see some of those fancy "spray a photograph on a wall" machines around; I might just need to wait a few years until that stuff reaches the DIY world.
ranald - yes, redo please.
Was thinking someone here might want the DIY challenge of a 2 axis with a 11x17 printer head...might take awhile but doable. Looks like something you might see on instructables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon
Looking at the pictures on that site, they're using a large format HP inkjet very similar the one we have (a Z6200); it's max color resolution is 2400 x 1200 "optimized dpi"; it makes pretty good looking images from standard files. (300ppi or lower.) The printer driver does a lot of pretty smart interpolation to achieve that "optimized dpi" bit.
Their FAQ gives you an idea of what they expect to be working with.
Some day I'm going to get around to printing out a few of my photos on it, then I'll be able to definitively tell.
Fullsize image: https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...w_fullsize.jpgQuote:
Crib trestle on the Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad. The Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad was a logging railroad for the Peninsular Lumber Company of Portland in the area around Columbia City, Oregon.
https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net..._work_crew.jpg
An interlocked cribbing trestle. Now that is 1 super strong structure, but it could have been made much stronger and more stable had they taken the time to notch a few of the courses of the logs . A few lateral diagonal stay logs would have insured the structure cold not shift sideways.
What looks like timber and pipe isn't. Longitudinal members are timber also. I've never seen or heard of cribbing in structural sense, just as individual blocking. I wonder at diagonals too; but friction and a mess of parallel members [probably lagged] could work.
Actually when you look at the interlocking way that log cabins are constructed the walls are nothing more than a stacked cribing structure to hold up the roof .Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolmaker51
While many midwestern and western log cabins were made exclusively with full round logs with rounded out notches to hold them together. A popular method in the eastern forests was to split and plane much larger diameter trees to a thickness of 4 to 8 inches by what ever the diameter was then cut tapered mortise style tabs and notches some cabins were made with trees as much as 24 inches in diameter the taper of the trees were compensated for by alternating them end for end to maintain a reasonably level stacking course, the top plates would be hand planned to level. and locked in place with wooden tenons. the stacked courses could have as much as 5 or 6 inches gap between them.
If we look closely at the trestle we can see the top course and the sleepers are pinned with diagonal rods
There are random diagonal pins through out the structure Rows 3, 6 and 12 are not just the top row.
Ralph
