Yes! I was mystified as well when I saw the insert in the LA Times with some of his photographs. I am frequently amazed at the high quality of photography and cinematography a hundred years ago (both technical and aesthetic) when I see restored or undamaged work the way it looked when it was current. I just wish they had been more honest about the fact that the messy artifacts were an aesthetic choice, not simply the result of using 100 year old equipment.

Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
Agreed, not sure what the guy was trying to prove. The quality of good photos from 100+ years ago was amazing, and even 100-year-old movie footage is still fine if properly restored and seen as it was originally rather then n-th generation copies.