|
|
|
|
|
by NeedMoreTea
2678 days ago
|
|
Isn't that conclusion 100% the wrong way round? If it were so difficult for photos to survive half a century wouldn't it be hard to show catches tended to bigger? After all the ancient 1950s photos of large catches have been lost through not surviving such unimaginable eons. Sorry for the tone, but seriously, by 1950s photography was not the rare and specialist thing it was in the 1910s. Sure, it might be just the unrepresentative ones that survived into modernity, but... With millions of photos being taken daily today, shouldn't it be trivial to find some examples of enormous catches among them? Yet we don't find them. Yeah, yeah, I know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Reports of 2m, 100kg cod are from history, today both size and catch has plummeted. |
|
Plus these photos have survived. My modern photo of an un notable thing probably wont survive, a picture of a notable thing probably will.