Now this is what you call a useless shot

In the days of film cameras I being a true Yorkshire man totally ignored the instructions that came with the 35mm film which read something like the following. Insert cassette into camera connect film to wind on spool and sprocket close camera wind on four times clicking shutter in between to make sure film is correctly loaded.
For me, it was under the bed covers to prevent light from getting on the film, connect the film to the wind on spool and sprocket wind on once but don’t press the shutter, this was going to be my first shot. Now turn the rewind lever until tight to make sure the film is securely on the wind on spool and your ready to go. Sometimes you could be lucky depending on the film and get 42 shots off a 36 exp film, but most times it was somewhere between 39½ to 40½. Which was a bonus with slide film as you paid up front for the film and the processing, so 40 for the cost of 36 made me very happy.

Not quite sure what happened to the above shot, it was quite dark and it looks like the film didn’t move on between shots for some reason but worst of all that black smudge on the right sure looks like a finger to me.

On the 2nd January I posted on site a shot of a Bristol Omnibus Leyland Titan which had been contributed along with copy by Chris Hebbron with the following comment:
Not the best of shots wish I could get the photo clearer, but ‘sharpening’ the photo brings other un-pleasantries like ‘noise’ don’t mind if you don’t use it.
By the 10th January that shot had had twenty seven comments with a total word count of 3766, so it just goes to show what you think is a bad shot may be viewed differently by others.

But I must admit the above shot is absolutely useless, unless I were to run a competition called ‘Identify these Vehicles’, if you can.

———

09/02/11 – 05:55

If you had called this photo a ‘collage’, everyone would have been impressed!
Otherwise, you could call it a guessing game!
Although no expert, are some of the buses of Ribble origin? And I’m intrigued by the Atlantean? closeup, which has Leyland on the front display. Is that really its destination or was it a demonstrator?

Chris Hebbron

You are right about the Ribble looking vehicles but they were not owned by them at the time and yes the destination of the Atlantean was Leyland but it was no demonstrator. Peter

———

09/02/11 – 10:04

Would I be right in thinking that the "misty" Atlantean with LEYLAND on the destination blind is one of Fishwick’s most interesting and reputable fleet ??

Chris Youhill

———

09/02/11 – 10:26

The Atlantean is a Fishwick lowbridge number, the majority of the Ribbles look like rebuilds with Alexander bodies built for Leyland to Leyland designs. The rear view? Is it a Burlingham – or possibly even a late Brush?

David Oldfield

You are both right about the Atlantean, one of the ex Ribbles has appeared on this sight before and the rear view is of a Fishwicks. Peter

———

09/02/11 – 18:37

The ex-Ribble TDs look like they belong to Turner’s of Chorley – given the nature of this image it’s difficult to tell if there were several of them or several photos of the same one! The rear end at first made me think of Bolton but is without an upper cream band and is more likely to be a Ribble lowbridge PD2, although the ECK batch had the number blind higher up. It may be another Turner’s vehicle, of course!

David Beilby

Yes it was Turners of Chorley and there was two of them one of the shots was both of them together facing right the one facing left is on the shot of the Atlantean I think. Peter