Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A Shiny Black 1949 Cadillac

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:29:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:

http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
768x520 91.3 Kb

The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!

I really took my time on preparing this picture for scanning. It was in
sad shape. During the first couple of years that he had his 35mm
camera, he took the transparencies out of their original cardboard
mounts and remounted them in glass mountings. The big problem was that
dirt and dust got trapped between the film and the glass covers, so just
putting the slide in my scanner produced a picture with MANY spots on
it. I decided to carefully remove the transparency from it's mounting,
clean it, and scan it bare without a mounting. It came out fantastic!

I have put the original transparency in a photo grade envelope and will
be storing it in a safe place. I am not going to be remounting it
because I don't intend to ever run these old pictures through a slide
projector again. It's just too much wear and tear. This picture was
very faded and color-shifted with a reddish-yellow cast. My father was
always one to be looking for a bargain and in the beginning, purchased
some off-brand "Ansco" film. This seemed to fade almost immediately. I
used some of the special processing capabilities of my Nikon Collscan to
eliminate the color shift and have a scan that is pretty close to what
the transparency must have looked like in the beginning. After the
first year or so, he switched to Kodachrome and stuck with it from then
on. None of the Kodachrome pictures show this fading.

I'm not planning on doing this to all of his pictures this way, only
certain special ones, because it is so time consuming. But the results
are really great!

It really brings back memories. At the time this picture was taken, I
was only three and a half years old.

My original scan is 3327 x 2234 pixels and is 8.13 Mb in size.

Gary

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the
trip.
The above tagline is number 263 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Edstrom wrote:
> I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm
> transparencies
> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949
> Cadillac:
>
> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>
> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>
> I really took my time on preparing this picture for scanning.

<snip interesting story>

> It really brings back memories. At the time this picture was taken,
> I
> was only three and a half years old.
>
> My original scan is 3327 x 2234 pixels and is 8.13 Mb in size.
>

If you don't mind this thing being in circulation for the remainder
of history, you might post it at alt.binaries.pictures.autos. Those
guys really appreciate this kind of thing, and would be very happy to
add it to their collections.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gary Edstrom" <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com...
>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>

Gary,

Want scanner are you using. I have a lot of old photos and slides that I'd
like to achieve and I'm looking for scanner suggestions.

--

Rob
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 4, 2005 7:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Edstrom wrote:
> I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>
> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!


Holy Kaleidoscope Batman! The background shows two white houses w/red
slate roofs, another light blue & matching roof, and a grey house with
matching roof. The neighborhood association minions must be pissing all
over themselves. :) 


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:29:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:

>http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC01­21R1A.JPG

I love looking at old pics and that's certainly a great one.
Now what you should do is go to that place and take the pic today.
July 4, 2005 8:07:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You may want to consider scanning at a higher dpi for archiving your family
pictures.
You can always downsize for printing or other purposes but if the data is
not there in the original scan you cannot recreate that data.
I would suggest scanning at 2000-2400 dpi yielding a a file size of
18-24mbs. Save in a lossless format like tiff. CD and DVD storage is cheap.
Many moons ago (actually 7 or 8 years, which is 3 centuries in computer
time) when I had the first HP film scanner, not understanding anything about
file sizes and hampered by then limits of storage I undersized many, many
scans and have since repeated much of that work.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:07:59 GMT, "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>You may want to consider scanning at a higher dpi for archiving your family
>pictures.
>You can always downsize for printing or other purposes but if the data is
>not there in the original scan you cannot recreate that data.
>I would suggest scanning at 2000-2400 dpi yielding a a file size of
>18-24mbs. Save in a lossless format like tiff. CD and DVD storage is cheap.
>Many moons ago (actually 7 or 8 years, which is 3 centuries in computer
>time) when I had the first HP film scanner, not understanding anything about
>file sizes and hampered by then limits of storage I undersized many, many
>scans and have since repeated much of that work.

The image WAS scanned at 2400 dpi. I saved it as a highest qualty JPEG.
Thus the size of my original scan: 3327 x 2234 pixels 8.13 Mb. I have
done a lot of comparison work with my 20D digital camera between RAW
files and the hightest quality JPEG and my eye can not see the slightest
bit of difference. That is why I am saving my scans as highest quality
JPEG.

Gary

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
Everybody repeat after me: "We are all individuals."
The above tagline is number 152 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gary Edstrom" <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gunic1piiq91eia9gb4kjjoti0jdnl0rp2@4ax.com...
> Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.
>
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:07:59 GMT, "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You may want to consider scanning at a higher dpi for archiving your
>>family
>>pictures.
>>You can always downsize for printing or other purposes but if the data is
>>not there in the original scan you cannot recreate that data.
>>I would suggest scanning at 2000-2400 dpi yielding a a file size of
>>18-24mbs. Save in a lossless format like tiff. CD and DVD storage is
>>cheap.
>>Many moons ago (actually 7 or 8 years, which is 3 centuries in computer
>>time) when I had the first HP film scanner, not understanding anything
>>about
>>file sizes and hampered by then limits of storage I undersized many, many
>>scans and have since repeated much of that work.
>
> The image WAS scanned at 2400 dpi. I saved it as a highest qualty JPEG.
> Thus the size of my original scan: 3327 x 2234 pixels 8.13 Mb. I have
> done a lot of comparison work with my 20D digital camera between RAW
> files and the hightest quality JPEG and my eye can not see the slightest
> bit of difference. That is why I am saving my scans as highest quality
> JPEG.
>
> Gary

You won't appreciate the difference between RAW-converted tiffs and jpegs
until you need to do color corection, or highlight/shadow recovery. These
are the areas where converted 16 bit RAW files really shine.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:56:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:16:25 GMT, Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.
>
>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:07:59 GMT, "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>You may want to consider scanning at a higher dpi for archiving your family
>>pictures.
>>You can always downsize for printing or other purposes but if the data is
>>not there in the original scan you cannot recreate that data.
>>I would suggest scanning at 2000-2400 dpi yielding a a file size of
>>18-24mbs. Save in a lossless format like tiff. CD and DVD storage is cheap.
>>Many moons ago (actually 7 or 8 years, which is 3 centuries in computer
>>time) when I had the first HP film scanner, not understanding anything about
>>file sizes and hampered by then limits of storage I undersized many, many
>>scans and have since repeated much of that work.
>
>The image WAS scanned at 2400 dpi. I saved it as a highest qualty JPEG.
>Thus the size of my original scan: 3327 x 2234 pixels 8.13 Mb. I have
>done a lot of comparison work with my 20D digital camera between RAW
>files and the hightest quality JPEG and my eye can not see the slightest
>bit of difference. That is why I am saving my scans as highest quality
>JPEG.

I should also add the scanner can go up to 3600 dpi. But I considered
the source of the pictures I was scanning. My father used an Argus C-3
in those days. This was not a high-end camera. If you looked at even
the best photos critically, you would see that the point of best focus
was still just very slightly soft. For this reason, I didn't feel that
it was necessary to go any higher than 2400 dpi. The same can be said
for my choice of saving them as high quality JPEG instead of TIFF.
There just isn't much more to be gained.

Gary

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
You may be a redneck if your coffee table used to be a cable
spool.
The above tagline is number 532 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 9:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:08:57 -0400, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Want scanner are you using. I have a lot of old photos and slides that I'd
>like to achieve and I'm looking for scanner suggestions.

It's a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED. It's the top of their line:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&produ...

There are other scanners that cost less but still do a great job.

Gary

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
Friends help you move; real friends help you move bodies.
The above tagline is number 164 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
July 4, 2005 9:19:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:29:28 GMT, Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
>http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>768x520 91.3 Kb
>
>The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>
>I really took my time on preparing this picture for scanning. It was in
>sad shape. During the first couple of years that he had his 35mm
>camera, he took the transparencies out of their original cardboard
>mounts and remounted them in glass mountings. The big problem was that
>dirt and dust got trapped between the film and the glass covers, so just
>putting the slide in my scanner produced a picture with MANY spots on
>it. I decided to carefully remove the transparency from it's mounting,
>clean it, and scan it bare without a mounting. It came out fantastic!
>
>I have put the original transparency in a photo grade envelope and will
>be storing it in a safe place. I am not going to be remounting it
>because I don't intend to ever run these old pictures through a slide
>projector again. It's just too much wear and tear. This picture was
>very faded and color-shifted with a reddish-yellow cast. My father was
>always one to be looking for a bargain and in the beginning, purchased


I wish you still had the car.
Nice photo... just wonder where was this photo taken?
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:19:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gary Edstrom" <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com...
>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>
> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>
> I really took my time on preparing this picture for scanning. It was in
> sad shape. During the first couple of years that he had his 35mm
> camera, he took the transparencies out of their original cardboard
> mounts and remounted them in glass mountings. The big problem was that

A very nice slice of Americana, and a very good job with the color
restoration. I would take it a step further and burn in the overly bright
background, and perhaps separately boost separation a little in the paint
job. Bump down the gamma a little to tame the background houses, and a bit
of an S-curve for the center.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:14:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.

On 4 Jul 2005 14:28:38 -0700, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:

>>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>>and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
>>http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC01­21R1A.JPG
>
>I love looking at old pics and that's certainly a great one.
>Now what you should do is go to that place and take the pic today.

Here is what the spot looks like today:
http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/Q0010917A.JPG

Yep...It lies under a big mound of dirt at an overpass. The place was
taken in 1966 for a freeway. That bridge support you see marks where
the house stood.

Gary

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
You may be a redneck if you hammer bottle caps into the frame of
your front door to make it look nice.
The above tagline is number 514 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:23:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com>,
gedstrom@pacbell.net says...
> I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>
> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>
>
>
The Cadillac pictured is a 1948, not 1949.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:27:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:19:38 -0500, Rob wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:29:28 GMT, Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>>and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>>
>>http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>>768x520 91.3 Kb
>>
>>The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>> [snip]
>
>I wish you still had the car.
>Nice photo... just wonder where was this photo taken?

In Glendale, California, locate the intersection of the 2 & 134
freeways. Go about a quarter mile north of the intersection on the 2
and then go down about 30 feet. That's where our house stood until it
was taken in 1966 by the freeway. It lies about at the bridge support
in this picture: http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/Q0010917A.JPG

Gary

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a
mistake when you make it again.
The above tagline is number 156 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 6:06:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gary Edstrom" <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:cmdjc111e1h35kfc7fgtjvs3krv6ltcvhj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:19:38 -0500, Rob wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:29:28 GMT, Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>>>and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>>>
>>>http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>>>768x520 91.3 Kb
>>>
>>>The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>>> [snip]
>>
>>I wish you still had the car.
>>Nice photo... just wonder where was this photo taken?
>
> In Glendale, California, locate the intersection of the 2 & 134
> freeways. Go about a quarter mile north of the intersection on the 2
> and then go down about 30 feet. That's where our house stood until it
> was taken in 1966 by the freeway. It lies about at the bridge support
> in this picture: http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/Q0010917A.JPG
>
> Gary

Hot dang!
I KNEW I recognized that odd-shaped roof on the church, or whatever that
building is!
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 6:13:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jdwtpmd" <dwtpmd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3380d68bfc33c2989680@news.verizon.net...
> In article <celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com>,
> gedstrom@pacbell.net says...
>> I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>>
>> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>>
>> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>>
>>
>>
> The Cadillac pictured is a 1948, not 1949.

How can you tell the difference?
Here's the '49:
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad49s.htm
....and here's the '49:
http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad48s.htm

The '49 got a new engine, but what's the tip-off externally?
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 5:06:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Note: Courtesy copy of this followup sent to author via email.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:19:42 GMT, "Boat" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Gary Edstrom" <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com...
>>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>>
>> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>>
>> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>>
>
>A very nice slice of Americana, and a very good job with the color
>restoration. I would take it a step further and burn in the overly bright
>background, and perhaps separately boost separation a little in the paint
>job. Bump down the gamma a little to tame the background houses, and a bit
>of an S-curve for the center.

I may go back some day and re scan it. But my present goal is to have
backup copies of every important slide in my father's collection.
Currently, there are no duplicates. If we had a fire, we would lose
them for good.

There are around 4,500 slides in his collection, so trying to scan each
and every one of them is out of the question. So I am only scanning
pictures that have personal meaning, such as pictures of family members,
where we lived, cars we owned, etc. I can do 5 at a time and try to do
a batch of 5 every day after I get home from work. From start to
finish, a batch may take me a half hour. Once I have backup copies of
every important slide, I may go back and try to get more artistic on
some of the scans.

As I scan the pictures, I have been noting which ones I might like to
come back too to do a better scan. I would like to assemble a couple of
photo albums for my niece and nephew.

Gary Edstrom

--
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
Today's English Grammar Rule: Never use no double negatives.
The above tagline is number 447 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 6:35:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neat stuff!

I scanned some old Kodachromes for a friend a few years ago. They were from
the years 1939-1943. Some included the 1939 World's Fair. Kodachromes are
truely archival as the colors looked accurate and remaned bold after all the
years. Kodachrome film was intoduced in the mid 30's so it was new medium
for photogs back then.
John

"Gary Edstrom" <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com...
>I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>
> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>
> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>
> I really took my time on preparing this picture for scanning. It was in
> sad shape. During the first couple of years that he had his 35mm
> camera, he took the transparencies out of their original cardboard
> mounts and remounted them in glass mountings. The big problem was that
> dirt and dust got trapped between the film and the glass covers, so just
> putting the slide in my scanner produced a picture with MANY spots on
> it. I decided to carefully remove the transparency from it's mounting,
> clean it, and scan it bare without a mounting. It came out fantastic!
>
> I have put the original transparency in a photo grade envelope and will
> be storing it in a safe place. I am not going to be remounting it
> because I don't intend to ever run these old pictures through a slide
> projector again. It's just too much wear and tear. This picture was
> very faded and color-shifted with a reddish-yellow cast. My father was
> always one to be looking for a bargain and in the beginning, purchased
> some off-brand "Ansco" film. This seemed to fade almost immediately. I
> used some of the special processing capabilities of my Nikon Collscan to
> eliminate the color shift and have a scan that is pretty close to what
> the transparency must have looked like in the beginning. After the
> first year or so, he switched to Kodachrome and stuck with it from then
> on. None of the Kodachrome pictures show this fading.
>
> I'm not planning on doing this to all of his pictures this way, only
> certain special ones, because it is so time consuming. But the results
> are really great!
>
> It really brings back memories. At the time this picture was taken, I
> was only three and a half years old.
>
> My original scan is 3327 x 2234 pixels and is 8.13 Mb in size.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net>
> Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway
> If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the
> trip.
> The above tagline is number 263 in a series of 547. Collect them all!
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 7:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 02:13:31 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"jdwtpmd" <dwtpmd@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d3380d68bfc33c2989680@news.verizon.net...
>> In article <celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com>,
>> gedstrom@pacbell.net says...
>>> I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>>> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949 Cadillac:
>>>
>>> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>>> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>>>
>>> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The Cadillac pictured is a 1948, not 1949.
>
>How can you tell the difference?
>Here's the '49:
>http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad49s.htm
>...and here's the '49:
>http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad48s.htm
>
>The '49 got a new engine, but what's the tip-off externally?
>

Look between the headlights and the bumper - outboard of the parking
lights.
The 49 extended the chrome around the curve into the fender.
I'm sure there are other differences, too.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 7:48:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:o v1mc158o0rv8bkhd4vn9n1suf6q8e81t8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 02:13:31 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jdwtpmd" <dwtpmd@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d3380d68bfc33c2989680@news.verizon.net...
>>> In article <celic1lf4ukcr2g5g2498nk4e2lgk3vj75@4ax.com>,
>>> gedstrom@pacbell.net says...
>>>> I have been going through more of my father's old 35mm transparencies
>>>> and scanning them into my computer. Here's a picture his 1949
>>>> Cadillac:
>>>>
>>>> http://gbe.dynip.com/misc/RC0121R1A.JPG
>>>> 768x520 91.3 Kb
>>>>
>>>> The picture was taken in May 1952...Over 53 years ago!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The Cadillac pictured is a 1948, not 1949.
>>
>>How can you tell the difference?
>>Here's the '49:
>>http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad49s.htm
>>...and here's the '49:
>>http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad48s.htm
>>
>>The '49 got a new engine, but what's the tip-off externally?
>>
>
> Look between the headlights and the bumper - outboard of the parking
> lights.
> The 49 extended the chrome around the curve into the fender.
> I'm sure there are other differences, too.

Ah. Thanks, Bill.
!