Old photos of TV's

[Jeffhs]

Originally posted by Charlie
I think the flash probably washed out the picture on the CRT. Seems that the entire photo is kinda bright... as if the flash was a bit too much for that particular shot. Back then, they didn't exactly have electronic flashes that could be adjusted. Many cameras today can have the flash "turned down". Most of us here at AK probably take SEVERAL pictures of our sets operating and then choose one to post on AK. I usually find that I have to turn the flash OFF or on LOW to get a decent shot.

As far as the set in the picture, I doubt it is the "first Philco" as the seller says in the description. I think Marlin is right... it looks more like a Crosley.

Considering how expensive TV was years ago, you'd think those folks would have put it on something more fitting. Notice how much of the TV cabinet hangs over the sides. Also, would be neat to know what those kids were watching... Howdy Doody perhaps? Damn flash bulb!

Charlie,

I have a cheap Polaroid digital camera with no flash, which works great and makes good pictures as long as there's enough light on the scene you're photographing. (The only thing I don't like about my camera is it eats batteries like crazy, which is why I don't use it very often.) I've posted several of those pics here on AK (I took the pic which is my avatar with this camera; several others, mostly of my antique radios, are attached to messages I've posted in this and other AK forums such as the antique radio board), and do in fact usually take several pictures, selecting the best one to post here. Haven't done much with snapping pictures from a TV screen with the set on, though. I've tried, but even without a flash the pictures don't turn out well. I once tried to snap a pic of a scene from "The Rockford Files" on WGN with the digital camera, but the picture turned out worse than anything I've ever taken with any camera I've ever had in my life. My Vivitar 35mm film camera, which does have a very bright flash, makes better pictures in low-light situations than my Polaroid digital, probably because of the fact that the Polaroid does not have any kind of flash; in fact, the camera is so cheap ($39.50--I bought it through an ad on the Internet a couple years ago) it doesn't even have provisions for an external flash unit. Ironically, it does have a tripod socket, and I have a tripod that fits it. The pictures I take are better now than they used to be (the camera doesn't move when I press the shutter button), but I won't be taking pictures that look as good as the ones I see on other posts here until I can see my way clear to getting a decent digital camera with a flash. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a cheapskate. I just can't afford a good digital camera right now. (You guys probably have digital cameras with 3-megapixel or better resolution; I have no idea what the resolution is on mine.)

Oh well, you get what you pay for, as the saying goes.

BTW, about TV stands, I agree with your comments that those older sets (as well as modern ones, of course) would have looked better on a stand that actually fit them. My best guess is that whomever owned that particular set you mentioned just put it on whatever was available at the time, when he/she took the picture.