The Kodak 35 RF is a neat little camera, but why did the Americans and the Soviets make such ugly looking cameras at that time?
Wait they went from 4x5's to 35mm's? That's quite a shift... Was this common?
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Some went first to medium format TLRs, but most jumped at the chance to use something that was a lot more portable.
But was this that enlarging technology got advanced and the 4x5 detail was no longer needed?
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
4 x 5 detail was essentially wasted in the process used to put the photographs on to newsprint - have you ever looked closely at the half-tones used in old newsprint photos.
As 35mm cameras and lenses and systems became common, and 35mm film was improved, the smaller format was quickly recognized as being much more appropriate for deadline sensitive work.
4 x 5 detail was essentially wasted in the process used to put the photographs on to newsprint - have you ever looked closely at the half-tones used in old newsprint photos.
As 35mm cameras and lenses and systems became common, and 35mm film was improved, the smaller format was quickly recognized as being much more appropriate for deadline sensitive work.
This is why news photographers used Dektol. It was quick, grainy, and unsharp. Used for 3 mins. (1:3) or 7 mins. (1:7) with Super XX film and a quick wash and dry in Alcohol and they had a printable negative for the newspaper.
There is another thread here on Dektol as a film developer. I wish this could be crossed over with that!
PE
In the late 1970s I had a summer job working as a darkroom technician for the Vancouver Sun newspaper.
By then, all of the photographers were using 35mm cameras. The "standard issue" cameras were Nikon F's, although a few photographers shot something else (Leicas and Pentax and in one case Konica, IIRC).
No medium format or large format at all.
As part of my job, I used to fill the quieter times by printing to fulfil print orders that would come in from members of the public. The Sun had a huge negative archive, and anyone could, for a fee, obtain a print from anything in the archive.
The one and only print I have ever done from a large format negative was as a result of one of those orders. The Chief photographer at the Sun was essentially the department manage by then, but he had taken many many shots for the newspaper. Probably most famously, he had shot the iconic photo of Bannister and Landy during the "Miracle Mile" at the 1954 Empire Games in Vancouver - the first ever mile race where two or more racers ran a sub 4:00 minute mile.
So someone ordered a print from that negative - approximately 25 years after the fact - and I did the print on the single remaining enlarger there that was set up for 4x5.
I distinctly remember one of the older photographers there seeing me with the print, and saying something like "Is Charlie still riding on those laurels".
Here is an image of that front page: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/features/bc150ed/runner.html
The print looked pretty good, but even then the grain and "tonality" of that 25 year old negative (processed to meet a deadline) meant that it didn't look much better than a print done at that time from a then current 35mm negative.
And the 35mm films available today (including the so called "traditional" 400 ISO films) are definitely improved from the films that were available in the 1970s.
Thanks Matt, very interesting, yea that's a terrible picture, shocking anyone would want a print of that by todays standards but I guess it was news, now people want to see Miley syric's (No idea how to spell her name) crotch shot, man how times have changed... really makes me wonder.
Also PE why "unsharp" I've never honestly understood the sharp/unsharp thing, why is it beneficial to "unsharpen" something?
This is why news photographers used Dektol. It was quick, grainy, and unsharp. Used for 3 mins. (1:3) or 7 mins. (1:7) with Super XX film and a quick wash and dry in Alcohol and they had a printable negative for the newspaper.
There is another thread here on Dektol as a film developer. I wish this could be crossed over with that!
PE
'Been there, done that'. My first couple of years (57- 59) as a photographer for the University of Michigan student newspaper (Michigan Daily) when on a tight deadline, I occasionally tray processed a 4X5 sheet in a tray of Dektol and printed the negative wet. Newspaper reproduction was via a Fairchild Scan-A-Sizer.
When Google searching for "Fairchild Scan-A-Sizer", I came across this interesting article describing newspaper photography in 1957. Sarasota Herald-Tribune "Pictures Play Major Role In Growth of Newspapers" at http://bit.ly/WFJ819
You may need to reduce the magnification and scroll around the page to see all the articles.
What I found interesting is that if you read both articles it basically says you can develop a piece of film AND print it with enough time left to spend 15-20 minutes with the engraving machine... Meaning the develop and print process could be a MAX of 15 minutes... Such BS... OR those news guys were insane! No wonder they used alcohol to dry it quick, didn't seem to have time to even clear the film! LOL printing right from a wet neg makes a lot of sense from this timeframe schedule lol. I'm sure the newspaper wants to just sound impressive and "wow" the audience but c'mon! Lol
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
15 minutes would be a rush, but doable in the day.
30 minutes would be fairly common.
The quickest I ever had to develop and print something from a roll was one hour - while they held the presses.
Our "rush" at Cape Canaveral was on the order of 15 mins. to 1/2 hour. When doing real intelligence work in SEA, our rush was literally in and out the door. Some negs were still tacky.
PE
OK so THAT's pressure... had to one up Matt didn't you Ron? haha
I think that you will note that the Cape work was newspaper work and the times matched what Matt gave.
And the other times, as Matt says, were hardly ordinary.
PE
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?