Re: studio cameras circa 1950s

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Jack Fulton wrote:> It is interesting that the
"reality" of that time has been usurped,
> or superseded, by the notion of the camera 'lying' due to bias of the
> photographer. Digital has now aided in what one might call interpretation of
> reality. Reality will become a modality seen as a fictional truth, or, in
> other words, interpretation of an event might actually be more interesting
> than a record of it. One might say this is illustration but it won't be that
> either.

I'm not so sure thoughts of the camera *lying* cause lack of interest --
from here it looks like news media just lost interest. For example, we had
some serious -- even ominous-- events here in NYC during the Republican
convention of 2004, and charges may be forthcoming (slowly slowly) of
police perjury and evidence tampering, not to mention preventive detention
of thousands... Of course in itself offtopic... But a propos use of
photographs in news media, I recently had occasion to research coverage of
those events (and we do think if it could happen in NY it could happen
anywhere, tho that may just be our NY chauvinism).

It turns out that none of the 3 major US news weeklies (Time, Newsweek or
US News & World Report) printed a WORD or picture of coverage of any of it
(except for a one-page photo collage in Newsweek)... They simply said "see
our website". So the main news camera of *magazines* today may be the
video camera -- and probably more interested in "lifestyle" photos than
hard news. (The daily papers still do news photos but... mostly black &
white?)

However, that's not REALLY why I'm writing, which is to say, those
touching words by Sir Walter Scott, once known even by congressmen, are
essentially unknown today, or not known by even literate folks I've
mentioned them to... Which makes the next version, what took their place,
not properly understood, either... As in,

Breathes there a lass
with soul so dead
she never let Photoshop go to her head...

And continues with stanzas about running every filter on the file at 3 AM,
etc.etc. (I once had the rest of it somewhere.)

cheers,

Judy

> Anyway, I'm wandering off tangent and will finish with the Sir Walter
> Scott poem the House on Un-American Activities tacked on to a report from a
> conference on world peace in 1949.
> Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
> Who never to himself hath said,
> This is my own, my native land!
> Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd
> As home his footsteps he hath turn'd,
> From wandering on a foreign strand?
> If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
> For him no minstrel raptures swell;
> High though his titles, proud his name,
> Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,--
> Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
> The wretch, concentred all in self,
> Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
> And, doubly dying, shall go down
> To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
> Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung.
> --Scott
>
> Yes, passion. That is what is lacking today. Maybe it is a reflection
> of the loss of the 35mm camera to the digital one and the discontinuance of
> b/w silver-gelatin papers (virtually).
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Jack is right as usual. I had, actually have, a few photojournalist
>> friends. The Speed Graphic was used until the 1960s. The format was mostly
>> 4 x 5 although there were some 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and
>> 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 models. Century Graphics were also used. These were
>> essentialy identical in all ways to the Speed Graphic but without the
>> focal plane shutter. B & H also made a 4 x 5 Press Camera which was
>> popular and less expensive. The most popular film was Kodax Tri-X 4 x 5
>> sheet film.
>> Plate holders, which held two sheets of film were used until the film pack
>> was invented. The film pack was used with a film pack adapter which fit on
>> the back of the Speed Graphic . I think it held 12 sheets of film. You put
>> the film pack in the adapter and pulled out the first tab and tore it off.
>> Then you pulled out the dark slide and made the first exposure. Then you
>> put the dark slide back in and pulled the second tab. Pulled the dark slide
>> and made the second exposure, etc.,etc.
>> Thuis was faster than plate holders and took up less room. Flashguns for
>> these cameras originally used large bulbs which were about the size of a 60
>> watt light bulb and bulky. Later the miniatute
>> "Press 25" bulb was developed. It was a little smaller than a small egg.
>> Press photogs carried a pocket full of Press 25s in their left jacket
>> pocket and a few film packs in their right jacket pocket.
>> Jack describes the "sports finder" which was often used but the cameras had
>> and optical finder as well as a range finder. Using this system a good
>> press photographer could shoot a lot of film pretty fast but not, of course
>> as fast as with the 35 mm camera with motor drive; however, it did have the
>> advantage of a large negative. Some modern 35 mm films are supposed to have
>> the resolution of the old 4 x 5 films but, I doubt it. It is also
>> interesting that the old flash bulbs put out more light than the modern
>> strobes.
>>
>> Bob Schramm
>> Check out my web page at:
>
Received on 06/02/06-04:27:34 PM Z