You are 114% absolutely correctum!

You are absolutely correct!

But of course, always nice to sit back and listen to early history. It’s a real pleasant time and see how they did things, it’s impressive how those things are easy for us today, but back then it was hard work, trial and error if you will.

Absolutely!!😊

100% this my go to channel after dealing with shitty people the whole day at work

What I am saying. Think Father Browne would've?

The jesuit responsible...?

The reality of such is unfortunate.

They say it was way narrow than the movie, in fact Cameron had to wide it

I want to believe there are photos, we just haven't found them yet.

Time flies when you're having fun

My thoughts exactly.

agree

Mike Brady is a treasure. His enthusiasm, his delivery, makes our common love of all things Titanic, personal. Mike Brady will forever be a part of my lifelong passion for Titanic. I have been reading and watching all things Titanic all my life, and I will be 70 very shortly. Thank you, Mike, for all your knowledge, research, and exacting science of ships, and especially Titanic.

OurFriendMikeBradyFromOceanLinerDesigns* 👍

It's so cool seeing a notification of video I know I will enjoy and then being able to let it be known. Isn't the internet amazing? Thanks Mike Brady!

I have both loved and researched Titanic for the last 35 years of my life and I still learn new things every day, and while Mike is much younger than I am, he has helped with that very thing. That's what he loves to do, and I genuinely appreciate him for his efforts.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I have always dreamed of this very thing. For me, who has spent nights on the RMS Queen Mary in Long Beach, CA on my honeymoon back in 2007, I have ALWAYS wondered what it would've been like to have seen Titanic in person. Especially before the days of the huge gigantic ocean liners. Back when Lusitania and Mauretania were the largest liners of the world at 34,000 tons, Olympic and Titanic were 45,000 tons, over 100 feet longer than Cunard's great speed queens, and so much more luxurious than their competitors. Titanic was unfortunately taken before she could really shine and show her true glamor. I have always been very passionate about Titanic.

Few days ago I met someone in Belfast who's grandma saw Titanic launch and leave for Belfast. She told me her grandma said the ship was huge and many people were extremely proud and excited for the ship, and devastated when the ship sank.

Have you used Eastman Double X?

Any thoughts on that adjusted photo of the men near the rudder? To me, it looks like a double exposure where the photographer asked the guy in the middle to move from a spot further to the right and then scratched out the ghost image from the first exposure. It reminds me of those famous "ghost" and "spirit" photos that were in fashion in the early 1900s.

@@elisabethmontegna5412 I’m doubtful of your theory because of mainly one reason why. At 18:11 you’ll see that the “deleted” man appears to be much taller than the man further to the stern. The position of his arm also indicates to me he was much taller, as his arm seems to be facing downward as opposed to the man who remains in the photo, whose arm is in a slightly upward position from his shoulder. This is just my observation and of course I may be mistaken. Cheers 🍻🍻🇦🇺😊👌

I'm curious how much it would cost to reproduce these types of images with that same equipment now. I love photography but never studied it. I kinda wish I had. Still time though! :)

"I will always prefer silver print film to digital any day." You do realize that right now, you're viewing a digital "print" on your device. Those "soft grey's with all the details" can be, fortunately or not, more than adequately reproduced digitally. I've been an amateur photographer since the age of 19 (now 79), and although I initially resisted digital photography, after the relative maturation of the digital process along with the software, and after I learned to "process" it, it became very obvious to me, of the superiority of digital - from the superior resolution (sharpness), to the far superior selection of color gamut - never mind the ability to correct lens distortion, and correct color, contrast, tonality, hue, and saturation, whether it be black and white or color. All in all, to reproduce reality to a far more accurate degree than possible with the analog technique. And I assume that the representation of reality is what you're ultimately aiming for - in which case, the discussion of black and white photography itself is a moot point - unless you have somehow inherited monochromatic vision. These days, a representation of a black and white print is very easy with software; indeed, with digitization, it's also easy to produce variants of a "black and white" tonality such as sepia, or cyanotype, selenium, etc. A relatively common criticism of digital prints these days is that they are too sharp, too vibrant, in other words, too perfect. That's easy to correct- we can digitally "degrade" the image to mimic an analogue one. I would challenge you to discern the difference between a series of photographs initially produced by one method or the other - particularly when you view them on a digital device. Having said the foregoing, I can appreciate an analogue print as much as most photographers or art critics, but I believe that the reason that black and white photographs are highly valued these days is the same as most other items which have been relegated to the past; they are rare, and becoming rarer and just like any art form, get collected to a large part, as a method for investing and preserving financial wealth. These items have no inherent value except for their rarity!

And I've never seen those photos of other ships having their boilers and smokestacks installed. 😮

You never slow down and stop being a student. Unless your a dullard from canada and your all dried out and worn out from doing nothing at age 40.

If you know where to look, you can find other photos the Olympic and Britannic's builder's models, and taken at different angles.

@@Starshipsforever I'll have to look that up.

Hell yes, and with pencil, paper and slide rules no less

Success is built on many failures.

Oh yes, Every time when I watch any picture of the engine

Unbelievable precision. Massive undertaking!!! One inch off and it doesn't work. Can't believe how almost futuristic and modern this build was. Overwhelming and astonishing! These men where geniuses.

They must not be too genius, form over function only made it a luxury fish house.

I noticed the grubby carpet !

Or waiting to start a night shift at work. Great couple of videos he has uploaded this week

He dresses like a 75 year old aristocrat, not a young fella at all! 😂

@@UsyksmashedFurytopieces Nothing wrong with dressing uniquely if one pleases.

Aside from ASA, the biggest contributor to image sharpness was the very great area of the emulsion surface be it on film or glass plate. A plate was on the order of 4x5 or 12x12” compared to the approximately 1x1” area of 35mm film. Or, more startling, the area of a cell phone camera….0.1x0.1”. Even a relatively poor lens can pack a lot of detail into a large area.

BTW….on top of the slower films (lower ASA numbers) of earlier times, bigger film area requires a longer focal length lens. That means that low f stops require a large diameter lens which in turn means high cost. So, unless the lens is huge and hugely expensive, the light falling on the film will be of lower intensity. Therfore exposurses were long. Therfore cameras were set up on tripods. Therefore taking a photo was time consuming and not easy. So, the best way to get a lot of photos of the Titanic would be to haul the thing up to the surface and then click away with modern digital cameras and cell phones. After a couple thousand photos, cut the cables and let it plop back to the bottom. It won’t be easy but it’s easier than draining the Atlantic.

Maybe why launches are done the way they are.

The beauty of large glass negatives