|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 18, 2005, 5:55 AM
Post #26 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, I think you're just being a contrarian. Again.
I am deeply wounded. Deeply.
Gotta tell ya though, that compound fractured ankle pic really bothered me, down in the gizzard. Made my asshole pucker up like the end of a hotdog every time I saw it.
I don't recall reading any complaints about that one. I didn't complain because my issues with it were personal, had nothing to do with the dude or what have you. Its just, I broke my own ankle last year and by god it just bothers me to see that shot. Poor bastard.
To the color photographer dude... Jody Langford who used to have a ton of photos on this site before he was hazed out, posted many brilliant color photos from his dad's mountaineering days in the 50's in the Tetons. I was always amazed they 'climbed in color way back then.' You just get used to seeing b&w shots, it can come as a surprise the world was as vibrant in pre-photoshop days.
They just couldn't easily edit out ropes and dirt and tree branches and all those other things that 'ruin' a good fake photograph these days, lol.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ammon
Apr 18, 2005, 8:25 AM
Post #27 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 220
|
I'm WITH you Dingus!!
Classic!! Especially, the guy yawning above the victims and the other guy smoking a cig in the upper-right corner......
Looks like his leg might be broken. Sometimes its a hard day at the crags, huh?
Dingus, I also agree with most of your argument in the whole Photoshop thread (yes, I read the entire thing... nope, don't have too much time to join you guys in the discussions anymore). If it's NOT obvious.... clarify what you did.
Cheers-
|
|
|
|
|
jackhammer
Apr 18, 2005, 12:42 PM
Post #28 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 255
|
????
I give this post...4 question marks.
|
|
|
|
|
leinosaur
Apr 18, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #29 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
Dang, that WOULD hurt!
I've got two ideas on how to mollify the grumps and turn this into a remotely "useful" post:
http://www.theparrots.net/...cident-with-Dad-.jpg
A. "Spot the injury" (game) -
I see:
1. Head injury (note the blood)
2. Leg injury (presumable a fracture)
3. Possible internal injuries - if he hitt the end of that static rope with just a bowline around the waist: OUCH! Of course, we don't know if he ever hit the end, how dynamic the belay was, or really anything.
B. Critique the first aid:
I'm booked for WFR training in June, so until then, I'll just ask questions:
1. How 'bout that splint? Looks like a sloppy wrap, but BOMBER stiffener there, eh? Just happened to have that on hand?
2. Head injury - yet untreated, or does the hat serve as an ersatz bandage?
Other than that I would merely point out that whatever sub-zero's history, at least his post had a picture. Those flaming him merely kept alive a thread they found offensive without adding much to the discussion. I guess they got TROLLED! They say you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but around here I'm not so sure.
IMHO the picture is more interesting than the panties-in-a-wad grumpiness: I like to look at old pictures in general, just to see the aged styles etc. and if they're climbing-related I say they're relevant. Beats another shoe thread, eh?
I'm gonna throw in bvb's old wool-knickers picture here, for good measure. Seems as apt a time as any . . .
It's old, I like it, so there!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=11995
(spot the potential injury, anyone? critique the spotting? LOL!)
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Apr 18, 2005, 4:38 PM
Post #30 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: 2. Head injury - yet untreated, or does the hat serve as an ersatz bandage?
The blood on his face is inconsequential, if that's what you mean by "untreated". What treatment do you recommend for a true head injury in a backcountry environment, assuming for the moment that's what this is? It's intracranial pressure that kills you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it in a wilderness setting. Those folks need a hospital and an ER doc, and they need them RTFN.
Two things most W-EMTs and WFRs fear most in the backcountry-Serious abdominal and head trauma. They'll spend many hours discussing these topics in your WFR course (which is good), but in the end, the only treatment is PUHA- Pick em' up and haul ass.
But the reality is that the vast majority of folks with those sorts of injuries in a remote environment are not going to make it...
-Nubbler
|
|
|
|
|
fire-master
Deleted
Apr 18, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #31 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
As a semi-informed individual on this topic (I have WFA, so I'm half the man leinosaur will be) I can say two things about the pic:
1) The splint looks like most of the splints we made in our WFA course. You tie all kinds of cloth straps and other softness around the leg and use something rigid (often a sleeping pad) to keep the leg stable. Just judging from what I see, it looks PRETTY good.
2) If there was indeed a head injury (it could just be blood spatters from another injury) it should be attended to in some way. A bandage to protect it of nothing else. True, you can't treat internal head trauma in the wilderness (unless you're an ancient Incan skull cutter), but you should treat the superficial wounds to prevent infection and hasten blood clotting. Also, if you have an injured patient, it does a lot to make them feel better if you give all their wouds at least some attention.
Now if I just saw a SOAPNOTE somewhere in the picture....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chauch
Apr 19, 2005, 3:37 AM
Post #34 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2005
Posts: 218
|
yea, and the guy to the left is tim robbins... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Apr 19, 2005, 3:57 AM
Post #35 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
It's obviously a bunch of drunken Irishmen, not climbers at all, who came over to support their favorite football team "the fighting angry squacking Parrots", and then who ran smack dab into a bunch of irate elderly women who took offense to their drunkeness and swearing and promptly beat them over the head with their parrosols.
The rope was what was left of the rope off area next to the field as the Irishmen were pushed off of the stands by the old women. There is no climbing gear or even backpacks in the picture.
You are welcome for the explaination. And the splint would be perfectly fine for a compound fracture, I've done worse with less thank you.
Now we should be done discussing it.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
weasel
Apr 19, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #36 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 136
|
The only input I have on this is that there's no way this is from the 50s. If someone can find ONE color photo that they can prove is from the 50s that has half this quality, I will be flabbergasted.
In fact, there aren't any 60s photos that are this good either.
Also, the people are dressed somewhat like the 80s - 90s. They don't have one piece of climbing-related gear. My guess is some poor buggar hiking and slipped where he shoulden't have.
Anyway, just my two cents.
P.S. It looks like a high-quality digital photo.
|
|
|
|
|
milk
Apr 19, 2005, 6:17 AM
Post #37 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 55
|
i dont know why you guys are whining, the average search engine is a completly viable source, as you can see from this picture of a "climbing accident" from the google image search
http://www.nostalgiaunltd.com/...iumqueenmaryC595.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Apr 19, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #38 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
Extra points for the Chuck Taylor's!
|
|
|
|
|
bigjonnyc
Apr 19, 2005, 12:41 PM
Post #40 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 369
|
I agree, this can't be the 50's, as there is only one person in the whole picture smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 19, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #41 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
what's the point of this post. yes, that would hurt. good one.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 19, 2005, 3:02 PM
Post #42 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Also, the people are dressed somewhat like the 80s - 90s.
There isn't a Nike to be seen in that shot. Button down pockets on the jackets. No goretex. And they are wearing Chucks. Chucks that have worn soles at that. A laid rope. Cotton pants.
I don't know dude, that doesn't look like the 80s or 90s to me. But whatever.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
leinosaur
Apr 19, 2005, 7:43 PM
Post #43 of 43
(7038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
google search "history of color photography"
http://www.photo.net/history/timeline
some relevant excerpts:
1936: development of Kodachrome, the first color multi-layered color film; development of Exakta, pioneering 35mm single-lens reflex (SLR) camera
World War II:
development of multi-layer color negative films
1963: first color instant film developed by Polaroid; Instamatic released by Kodak; first purpose-built underwater introduced, the Nikonos
and from further down the list:
http://histclo.hispeed.com/...oto/photo-colph.html
Color photographic processes were developed in the late 19th century, but black and white photography dominated for the first half of the 20th century. Commercial color photography appeared in the 1930s, but it was expensive and the dyes unstable. Some color negatives my father took in the 1940s had faded beyond use by the 1950s. Color snap shots did not become common until the 1960s. Kodak invented the Instamatic camera in 1963, and began the mass marketing of color film. Until then, virtually all photographs had been in black and white. In the early 1970s, sales of color film outstripped black and white and today it accounts for all but a tiny percentage of the film sold throughout the world.
So from the look of things, I'd say early-to-mid sixties? Easy to confuse early-British-invasion times with the fifties . . .
Thanks for the first aid critiques, I wasn't sure if we could squeeze something "of value" out of the flame-fest or not.
Interesting, though, how folks still want to have the last word: Hello, it's an internet forum!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
