08-19-09 – Living History

“Living History”… hmmmm. Is it safe to assume that the subject of the photo doesn’t actually have to be alive?

Okay, question. Would it be cheating (sort of) to use a natural thing, i.e., rocks, trees, really old peat bogs, or are you going more for man-made things such as houses, cars, gravestones, etc. Or, does anything count so long as its more than 100 years old? I have a couple of ideas, but I’ll need to redo some shots (bad angles and such, or not as good as I want), and I’m just curious.

Okay. I won’t post the peat bog then. It was actually a suggestion by a friend (already went there and have some pictures), but you make a good point that the top of the peat probably wouldn’t be 100 years old. I’m actually not sure where the oldest peat is and in a lot of places in that bog it’s 17 feet thick. But that’s okay. I did some cemetery shots today (had to do them twice because of water on the lens) that I think are kind of cool. I also have some of a couple of different houses that are definitely 100+ years old, though they look great because they’re kept up nicely.

Ooohh, I just remembered some pictures that *might* work and definitely would be living history. I’ll go check up on that right now.
Edit: Nevermind. Apparently Leonard’s Mill was incorporated in 1960 on the site of actual remains but they rebuilt it with authentic reconstruction. Whoops. Oh well.

I was leaning towards anything over 100 years old. Rocks and [old enough] trees would be fine. Peat bogs would be kind of iffy, though, because even if the bogs have been around more than 100 years, the vast majority of the content of your photo (eg, the peat) would not be.

Any other opinions?

/wanted to leave it open-ish to allow for things like trees and great-great-grandmothers.

That just made my search a whole lot easier.I live in redwood tree country. Most but not all of the old buildings and stuff in this town was trashed in 1964 during a tsunami.

Would anyone be kind enough to do an OBO for me? I’m in a bit of a pickle computer-wise. Thanks in advance!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3833923249_ebc9cacaa9_o.jpg
– Marblehead Lighthouse – 1822

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/3833925929_c372ec843f.jpg
– Spiegel Grove: Home of President Rutherford B. Hayes – 1846

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/3833923353_75d3e49c4c_o.jpg
– Side Cut canal locks on the Erie Canal – 1842

Should all be posted here if there are any problems.

Thanks again. Hope to be back next week!

I can post them for you.

Are we allowed to use something younger than 100 years old to represent something older?
Yes this is for an incredibly stupid idea.

I wouldn’t think that would qualify, but can think of several things it could apply to and might see an argument for it. I’d defer to orionid on it, though.

So you would think something like this would be stretching the rules of the contest too far?

With the blocks, I’d say only if they’re over 100 years. But I do like the humor of the intent, regardless.

As far as the costume, I figure as long as you include text to specify that it’s the costume and not the model that is the focus, or compose the photo to say as such without words, it’s all good.