The golden age of the consumer single-lens reflex (SLR) camera was mid 1960's to about 1995, when the manufacturers' attention was distracted generally by the rise of reliable miniature electro-mechanical devices and compact and powerful chips to run them, and in particular by the promises of auto-focus, image stabilization, and digital image capture.
I cut my serious-hobbyist-teeth in the mid Sixties and remember fondly a few cameras that, in hindsight, were very high quality for reasonable price. Yashica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Miranda, Bessler and others tended to bundle, in 'consumer grade' cameras, features that even today are not available, sometimes even at any cost, on the higher end 'pro-sumer' or even the all-out 'pro' models.
My 'mechanical bodied' Minolta SRT 101 (bought in 1972, stolen in 1978) came with a sharp f1.4 52mm lens, push-button depth-of-field preview, and mirror lock-up, all situated to allow access without removing eye from viewfinder and to allow hand-held existing light photography feats that cannot be approximated today unless one lays out some very, very serious bucks and does not mind hefting a weighty top-of-the line Canon or Nikon. Serious young enthusiasts today have no idea what a really 'fast' lens is... the hegemony of autofocus and its ring-motor ghettoized the f2.0 or faster normal lens to the provence of the professional who can fork over $1500+ (that is just for the lens) and does not mind a very weighty protuberance. Other than keeping old stuff repaired and staying with film, there were not mainstream options, after 1992 or so, to sport a truly fast lens on a reasonably priced new camera... none.
Depth-of field preview has gradually crept back into the electronic bodied SLRs, from the high end down, and can be used with differing degrees of menu-scrolling and clicking difficulty. Mirror lock-up (for elimination of the camera's main vibration on long hand-held shots) is not often found even on the upper lines, nor is it just a simple flick, which is what was always needed.
I specialized in those days taking 400 speed black & white film into bars, clubs, and night-time baseball games with my friends, and coming away with very nice and usable images that captured, in a distinctly graphic and now very dated way, the atmosphere and personalities of my young adulthood. Not every shot made it- I took plenty of risks hand-holding 1/15th or even 1/8th of a second, fully open (f1.4), sometimes also flicking the mirror up as I did my breath control and shutter button 'slow squeeze.' The celebrated keepers were appreciated because they were a challenge and not assured.
Today's 20 year-old wanting to do the same with anything made since 1995 is 'S. O. L.' It will be a flash shot (there goes your atmosphere) and not entail any risks at all in the 'craft' of capturing a usable image in challenging circumstances. With their f2.8 and slower lenses, they would need to hand-hold 4x as long, fully open, as I did in a comparable setting.
Now, with my weakening 54 year-old eyes, I LIKE autofocus, but wish I had the choice for an affordable new fast manual focus lens at each of focal lengths I like. I see many situations in which I would have made an attempt at something very 'atmoshperic' or creative, 35 years ago, where today's consumer grade cameras offer no viable options at all... interior of Notre Dame by only existing light, street scene by dusk or streetlight only, unobtrusive (no flash!) candids in subdued light with a short telephoto lens...
Many of the controls I used most were effectively taken away by the masses demanding autofocus and other whistles and bells. All too few have any real idea of what was lost in the deal.
I applaud the young-turks who push themselves hard in today's Xtreme sports expanding envelopes, inventing and exercising craft, and taking risks. Truth be told, though, in my day we were practicing Xtreme photography, where one had to simultaneously do a host of things perfectly to come away with a winner... but now the craft does not ask you or even afford you opportunities to take technological chances... the hard-earned 'trophy shot' is a thing of the past.
Many today do not even know how to look at an strong photograph taken in the decades before they were born... it does not occur to them that whatever corrections were made had nothing to do with PhotoShop, or its masks, effects and filters. Aesthetics aside, it is virtually guaranteed that anyone can come out of any situation with a technically sound image... 'Nerf' photography has displaced calculated risks.
I am waiting for the day when the digital SLR will give me f2.0 or faster in a 'normal' focal length for the equivalent of 2 weeks' work at minimum wage. I am withholding full enthusiasm for the digital revolution until it restores some of the great stuff it took away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I missed photography in the 70s that you describe. I started with a Kodak Brownie in grade school. We had the film developed and then made extra copies of the prints in my father's closet amongst his shoes. Our prints were on mat paper, not glossy. Amazingly, I still have some of those prints in an album.
I took up photography again in the 80s with a Pentax (film) given to me by my husband who made sure to get me one with automatic focus to make it easier for me. He studied photography at Columbia with Jerry Uelsmann and had some classes with Bernice Abbott, Diane Arbus and others of such statue as his instructors.
However, I have found that the addition of a digital camera has really turned me into a person who enjoys photography. Every once in a while I get some really nice photos. I started with a Fujifilm Finepix camera with a Leica Lens. Fujifilm also made the first body for the first Leica digital camera. One nice feature of that first Finepix digital camera was that it was powered by AA batteries. You had to get the 1600 or higher batteries to really do the job. The camera did not have any way to zoom (and neither did my Pentax film camera). My experience with a zoom lens came from using a video camera. [In the late 70's my video experience came when I took a course at the University of Houston, Clear Lake City, where the intention was to train us so that our masters thesis could be a video instead of a dead, generally unread book. Had I finished that Masters, it would have been in psychology and my second Masters.]
Since I longed for a zoom lens, my husband picked out the Panasonic DCM FZ1 with a Leica lens 12x zoom that maintains the F stop (I think it is f2) throughout the length of the zoom. The result is that the light is not dimmed as the zoom increases. Obviously, by this time, Leica had an agreement with Panasonic for exchanging the lens in a Pany camera for Panasonic bodies on Leica cameras.
The Panasonic camera is the one I am still shooting with today. I put my photos on Flicker [http://www.flickr.com/photos/marjorie/] and SmugMug (link is on my Flickr profile).
So Brian, do you have a place where you post your photos? Have you scanned your film photos? I would love to see them. If you do not have a web presence, I recommend Flickr. I love the Flickr community of people I have developed.
By the way, I find that the less post-production I do with Printshop or Picassa, the better. It is always better to set up the situation at the time of the snap to make the best photo. I am not too enamored of Light Room, maybe because I do not have the experience using it that I have with Photoshop. I gained my Photoshop experience when I made web sites for a couple of businesses. They gave me either photos on a CD or photos to scan. Many photos were not well lighted or out of focus so I got very good at improving photos.
Post a Comment