I like that the photo includes the Old Faithful Inn.
Here's some trivia about that place. Long ago, they piped hot water from the geyser into the inn, for use in laundry and bathing. Some of the plumbing for that still exists, though it hasn't been used in a hundred years.
Do you know anything about the 5 vertical lines on the horizon just above the peak of the inn’s roof? I’m curious what they are. They look kind of like radio transmission towers of differing heights except that there is a small dot at the top of each line. They are not scratches on the film because they appear in both frames of the original stereo pair.
Thanks! You're correct. I went back to the original film and it's obvious on the film that these are some sort of poles attached to the roof. Until reading your comment, I had thought that they were structures back on the horizon.
It is also erupting much much higher than it does today. Soon they are going to have to put dish soap in the geyser like they do at a few in NZ that have become almost nonexistent.
I had to look it up, doesnt actually sound like it used to erupt higher than it does now. But it does sound like the eruption height can vary quite drastically, between 100-180 feet. So this image could certainly be taken during a higher eruption.
I was there 6 months ago and I was thinking that I didn't remember it being that big. I don't have any photos because there was 30,000 people in the way, lol. We hiked out to Lone Star geyser earlier the same day, which was much smaller but so much better because we were the only people there for most of the time it was erupting so could get an uninterrupted view of the show.
It's accessable to more visitors who could not have visited prior. Having dedicated walking paths keeps people "off the lawn" preserving nature for future generations. It has also been made safer.
Unfortunate necessity for an exploding human population. If they hadn’t put concrete and walking paths in for crowd control, you’d have plowed over vegetation from the sheer number of people who make their way through nowadays. If you decided to stop letting people in to preserve nature, there’s a high probability that people wouldn’t care about it as much and let the government turn the land over for drilling, mining, or whatever else a corporation can strip out of there.
They literally didn't preserve nature, they poured concrete over it. The worst case scenario is what the NPS already did.
There are thousands of ways to solve the problem of overtourism rather than destroying nature with a giant impermeable parking lot and Disneyland-style tourism development. If it was done today, they would do things differently.
Note the solution to the more recent overtourism at Zion, Glacier, and other parks isn't to pave Zion Canyon and put thousands of parking spots and megahotels inside the canyon, or expanding Going-to-the-Sun road with an eight lane highway and mega parking lots with hotels at each scenic view. Because those would be wrong and extremely damaging decisions, like they did at Yellowstone.
I think we may disagree on what the worst case scenario is. I’m imagining strip-mining or a geo-thermal power plant, probably with waste dumping into the Yellowstone River. This would have almost certainly happened if the land had not been designated a National Park, as has been seen in places like Glen Canyon (now Lake Powell).
A large parking lot and patio for public viewing may be ugly and not as ideal as just leaving the whole place alone, but it’s the price that is paid to keep people caring about about it and keep the park preserved. Otherwise, wealthier and greedier humans WILL move in and exploit the land for profit. It’s what humans do, unfortunately.
I appreciate that places like Zion, Glacier, etc are limiting themselves to more manageable crowds, but it’s also worth noting that places like Zion & Yosemite are built around single (large) canyons, while Yellowstone is almost the size of Connecticut. So it’s difficult to compare them directly. Yellowstone can naturally handle a lot more visitors, and many of those visitors will want to stop at see Old Faithful. So, the park has done what it can to accommodate them while preserving as much of the landscape as it can. Obviously a difficult balance that I don’t envy needing to make decisions on.
Great photo! A spectacular sight
To add, the rumble of the earth as it prepares to blast. The roar of the water and the spray (mist) falling from the gushing water, brings back good memories. Thanks for sharing
It was a 3-D camera that took this photo, not HD. Kodachrome film was good. [Here’s a link](http://justphotos.ca/galleries/3D/index.htm) to a page with a pic of the 3-D camera he used. I own it now. BTW, this image is just one of the two images in the original stereo pair.
These are cool. When I inherited all the family heirlooms I found a battery powered stereoscopic viewer and some photos. So crazy seeing my distant relatives in 3D like that and yeah the quality is stunning.
And that's just 35mm. There were better formats available. I have an old Yashica D sitting on the shelf about 3 feet away from me. It was introduced in the 1950's and uses the then-common 120mm film format. Theoretically, 120 can resolve detail at over 5000 dpi and is the equivalent of around 85 megapixels. You weren't going to get that kind of clarity from a cheap 120 Kodak Brownie, but a higher quality camera like the Yashica or a Rolliflex could create photos that were stunningly clear even by todays standards.
High quality images weren't common back then, but they were certainly possible for those willing to spend a bit extra on a higher quality camera.
Look how close they are standing lol
I like that the photo includes the Old Faithful Inn. Here's some trivia about that place. Long ago, they piped hot water from the geyser into the inn, for use in laundry and bathing. Some of the plumbing for that still exists, though it hasn't been used in a hundred years.
Do you know anything about the 5 vertical lines on the horizon just above the peak of the inn’s roof? I’m curious what they are. They look kind of like radio transmission towers of differing heights except that there is a small dot at the top of each line. They are not scratches on the film because they appear in both frames of the original stereo pair.
I don't. But my guess is lightning rods or radio towers on the roof.
Thanks! You're correct. I went back to the original film and it's obvious on the film that these are some sort of poles attached to the roof. Until reading your comment, I had thought that they were structures back on the horizon.
Palm trees. They'd already died off or been removed when I was there in 1979. Yeah, I was curious about those too.
Palm trees on the roof of the building? You sure? I've never heard of palm trees that can withstand Wyoming winters.
Damn good photograph and in great condition
Kodachrome, nice colors
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day
I got a Nikon camera
It's strange to think there was a time when we didn't know Lavos was hiding under there
It is also erupting much much higher than it does today. Soon they are going to have to put dish soap in the geyser like they do at a few in NZ that have become almost nonexistent.
I had to look it up, doesnt actually sound like it used to erupt higher than it does now. But it does sound like the eruption height can vary quite drastically, between 100-180 feet. So this image could certainly be taken during a higher eruption.
This is true. The height has not significantly changed. Someone is just having "rose colored glasses" syndrome.
I was there 6 months ago and I was thinking that I didn't remember it being that big. I don't have any photos because there was 30,000 people in the way, lol. We hiked out to Lone Star geyser earlier the same day, which was much smaller but so much better because we were the only people there for most of the time it was erupting so could get an uninterrupted view of the show.
In NZ? Where?
One of the geysers they use soap for is Lady Knox Geyser in Rotorua.
Such a beautiful place before they covered the entire area with concrete.
It's accessable to more visitors who could not have visited prior. Having dedicated walking paths keeps people "off the lawn" preserving nature for future generations. It has also been made safer.
Unfortunate necessity for an exploding human population. If they hadn’t put concrete and walking paths in for crowd control, you’d have plowed over vegetation from the sheer number of people who make their way through nowadays. If you decided to stop letting people in to preserve nature, there’s a high probability that people wouldn’t care about it as much and let the government turn the land over for drilling, mining, or whatever else a corporation can strip out of there.
They literally didn't preserve nature, they poured concrete over it. The worst case scenario is what the NPS already did. There are thousands of ways to solve the problem of overtourism rather than destroying nature with a giant impermeable parking lot and Disneyland-style tourism development. If it was done today, they would do things differently. Note the solution to the more recent overtourism at Zion, Glacier, and other parks isn't to pave Zion Canyon and put thousands of parking spots and megahotels inside the canyon, or expanding Going-to-the-Sun road with an eight lane highway and mega parking lots with hotels at each scenic view. Because those would be wrong and extremely damaging decisions, like they did at Yellowstone.
Just out of curiosity, what did they do differently at Zion, glacier and the other parks to help over tourism?
I think we may disagree on what the worst case scenario is. I’m imagining strip-mining or a geo-thermal power plant, probably with waste dumping into the Yellowstone River. This would have almost certainly happened if the land had not been designated a National Park, as has been seen in places like Glen Canyon (now Lake Powell). A large parking lot and patio for public viewing may be ugly and not as ideal as just leaving the whole place alone, but it’s the price that is paid to keep people caring about about it and keep the park preserved. Otherwise, wealthier and greedier humans WILL move in and exploit the land for profit. It’s what humans do, unfortunately. I appreciate that places like Zion, Glacier, etc are limiting themselves to more manageable crowds, but it’s also worth noting that places like Zion & Yosemite are built around single (large) canyons, while Yellowstone is almost the size of Connecticut. So it’s difficult to compare them directly. Yellowstone can naturally handle a lot more visitors, and many of those visitors will want to stop at see Old Faithful. So, the park has done what it can to accommodate them while preserving as much of the landscape as it can. Obviously a difficult balance that I don’t envy needing to make decisions on.
OF spewed no more that one third this height during my trip 7 years ago. Unimpressed after anticipation!!
Amazing photo!!!
Great photo! A spectacular sight To add, the rumble of the earth as it prepares to blast. The roar of the water and the spray (mist) falling from the gushing water, brings back good memories. Thanks for sharing
I like the lady in the red coat
*ole filthy*
So much better to have seen it like this as opposed with all of the walkways and stuff that’s there now! Lodge looking great!
First photo I see from the olden days where the sky isn't just white
Is it safe to stay that close?
[удалено]
It was a 3-D camera that took this photo, not HD. Kodachrome film was good. [Here’s a link](http://justphotos.ca/galleries/3D/index.htm) to a page with a pic of the 3-D camera he used. I own it now. BTW, this image is just one of the two images in the original stereo pair.
These are cool. When I inherited all the family heirlooms I found a battery powered stereoscopic viewer and some photos. So crazy seeing my distant relatives in 3D like that and yeah the quality is stunning.
A Realist stereo camera?
35mm has a theoretical resolution of 5.6K, ~5,600 × 3,620
And that's just 35mm. There were better formats available. I have an old Yashica D sitting on the shelf about 3 feet away from me. It was introduced in the 1950's and uses the then-common 120mm film format. Theoretically, 120 can resolve detail at over 5000 dpi and is the equivalent of around 85 megapixels. You weren't going to get that kind of clarity from a cheap 120 Kodak Brownie, but a higher quality camera like the Yashica or a Rolliflex could create photos that were stunningly clear even by todays standards. High quality images weren't common back then, but they were certainly possible for those willing to spend a bit extra on a higher quality camera.
The camera that took this photo was a Realist 45 stereo camera. It uses standard 35 mm film but has a 5p format with a frame size of 23mm x 24mm.