1959: the year that the press cameras became dethroned, defunct, defunded

[Les Sarile]

I grew up in the era that it's not whether you win or loose but how you play the game. You shake hands with your opponent win or loose. A ridiculous ideology these days I'm sure . . .

 

[Down Under]

if memory still serves me right, no newspaper photographer in Canada was using 35mm in the 1960s. As an 18 year old trainee journalist in New Brunswick (not New Jersey, the other one) in 1965, Like Ansel Adams then (and now in my case) I was then quite small and rather slight of build (sigh) and I couldn't comfortably carry and use a big camera. So I made do with a compact and more portable Yashica D TLR - my entire press kit consisted of the camera, a lens hood, a yellow filter and a few rolls of Verichrome Pan or Ansco Versapan - and often handed in partly used rolls of Verichrome Pan to the office darkroom for processing. We didn't worry about wasting film back then, a 120 roll cost 50 Canadian cents and I bought mine in 20-roll bricks for C$10 less 10 percent discount for cash. Yes, the good old days.

The staff photogs (there were two) had Speed Graphics. The senior photog, a bear of a man, had a 3-1/4 by 4-4/14 inch (was this the old 'quarter plate'?0 shooter and one lens and a few cut film and plate backs. The backup lensman had a 4x5 with two lenses and two roll film backs and thought himself a real swell. Both were amused when I turned up with my TLR but quickly saw the advantage in shooting small and quickly. That year the managing editor approved the purchase of an early Mamiya TLR (probably a C22) which I often used, it was more bulky than I liked but produced very fine negatives and 'looked professional' so I started using it to shoot weddings, again in B&W. In this day and age imagine turning up at a wedding with one camera and one lens! In fact I was greatly ahead of the game with my Yashica as a backup. In 1967 I moved to a smaller newspaper for more experience and better money as a reporter-editor and the very young (I think he was all of 17 and still in high school) staff shooter had a Mamiya Press (or were these called Mamiya Universal?), again with a cut film back. He was super economical and would often shoot only one image of any event we attended, so I usually shot a few backups with my Rollei to cover us if disaster struck in the darkroom, as it regularly did. In those long ago days we processed everything in Kodak Dektol 1:1 at whatever temperature we thought best (cooler in summer,hotter in winter) and I became adept at producing a finished if still damp print for the newspaper scanner in just under one hour. Ancient times indeed!

Fast-forward five years to Toronto, 1970. As a promotions officer in national TV media I often squired new photogs on sets for promo shoots. TLRs were still the rage, mostly Mamiyas, and now and then a veteran used a Gaphic. It wasn't until 1972 that I saw the first SLRs in action. One lens man for the Toronto Star had a Nikon and his counterpart at the Globe and Mail a Pentax Spotmatic. I had a glamorpuss Rollei 3.5E and in 1974 I got a then state-of-the-art Nikkormat EL with a 50 f/2, both of which I often used for TV stills. The production crews and many actors were greatly interested in my two cameras and often borrowed them to shoot their own on-set images. I do wonder what happened to all the B&W negatives I took of many TV shows which are now media history - are they in some dusty filing cabinet in a back room in Toronto?

By the late '60s those heavy Speed and Crown Graphic cameras were all ending up in local pawn shops but we regarded them as door-props and nobody wanted them. Even in the early '80s when I was living in New Mexico the hock shops in Santa Fe and Albuquerque all had several old press kits in their back rooms and a decent one could be picked up for $100 or sometimes less - they often also had one or two huge old US Air Force aerial cameras with (as we now know) fantastic lenses going for much less than a C-note.

Now in my 70s, retired from journalism long ago for a career in architecture. Still have th eRollei and several Nikkormats (ELs and FT2s), also many (too many) others.

Now in this digital age it all reads like so much ancient history. Nowadays I'm finding a Nikon D800 with two lenses rather a burden to carry in my backpack. Time passes, things change.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure when the Vancouver Sun started using Nikon Fs - when I worked in their darkrooms in the 1970s they had recently replaced most of their Fs with F2s.

 

[David Lyga]

I grew up in the era that it's not whether you win or loose but how you play the game. You shake hands with your opponent win or loose. A ridiculous ideology these days I'm sure . . .

You dare to call something sane, ridiculous? Consider yourself noble, not merely lucky, that you escaped the entitlement syndrome, lack of manners, and general inconsideration towards one's fellow human. Consider yourself noble that you can tell the difference between the twain. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

if memory still serves me right, no newspaper photographer in Canada was using 35mm in the 1960s. As an 18 year old trainee journalist in New Brunswick (not New Jersey, the other one) in 1965, Like Ansel Adams then (and now in my case) I was then quite small and rather slight of build (sigh) and I couldn't comfortably carry and use a big camera. So I made do with a compact and more portable Yashica D TLR - my entire press kit consisted of the camera, a lens hood, a yellow filter and a few rolls of Verichrome Pan or Ansco Versapan - and often handed in partly used rolls of Verichrome Pan to the office darkroom for processing. We didn't worry about wasting film back then, a 120 roll cost 50 Canadian cents and I bought mine in 20-roll bricks for C$10 less 10 percent discount for cash. Yes, the good old days.

The staff photogs (there were two) had Speed Graphics. The senior photog, a bear of a man, had a 3-1/4 by 4-4/14 inch (was this the old 'quarter plate'?0 shooter and one lens and a few cut film and plate backs. The backup lensman had a 4x5 with two lenses and two roll film backs and thought himself a real swell. Both were amused when I turned up with my TLR but quickly saw the advantage in shooting small and quickly. That year the managing editor approved the purchase of an early Mamiya TLR (probably a C22) which I often used, it was more bulky than I liked but produced very fine negatives and 'looked professional' so I started using it to shoot weddings, again in B&W. In this day and age imagine turning up at a wedding with one camera and one lens! In fact I was greatly ahead of the game with my Yashica as a backup. In 1967 I moved to a smaller newspaper for more experience and better money as a reporter-editor and the very young (I think he was all of 17 and still in high school) staff shooter had a Mamiya Press (or were these called Mamiya Universal?), again with a cut film back. He was super economical and would often shoot only one image of any event we attended, so I usually shot a few backups with my Rollei to cover us if disaster struck in the darkroom, as it regularly did. In those long ago days we processed everything in Kodak Dektol 1:1 at whatever temperature we thought best (cooler in summer,hotter in winter) and I became adept at producing a finished if still damp print for the newspaper scanner in just under one hour. Ancient times indeed!

Fast-forward five years to Toronto, 1970. As a promotions officer in national TV media I often squired new photogs on sets for promo shoots. TLRs were still the rage, mostly Mamiyas, and now and then a veteran used a Gaphic. It wasn't until 1972 that I saw the first SLRs in action. One lens man for the Toronto Star had a Nikon and his counterpart at the Globe and Mail a Pentax Spotmatic. I had a glamorpuss Rollei 3.5E and in 1974 I got a then state-of-the-art Nikkormat EL with a 50 f/2, both of which I often used for TV stills. The production crews and many actors were greatly interested in my two cameras and often borrowed them to shoot their own on-set images. I do wonder what happened to all the B&W negatives I took of many TV shows which are now media history - are they in some dusty filing cabinet in a back room in Toronto?

By the late '60s those heavy Speed and Crown Graphic cameras were all ending up in local pawn shops but we regarded them as door-props and nobody wanted them. Even in the early '80s when I was living in New Mexico the hock shops in Santa Fe and Albuquerque all had several old press kits in their back rooms and a decent one could be picked up for $100 or sometimes less - they often also had one or two huge old US Air Force aerial cameras with (as we now know) fantastic lenses going for much less than a C-note.

Now in my 70s, retired from journalism long ago for a career in architecture. Still have th eRollei and several Nikkormats (ELs and FT2s), also many (too many) others.

Now in this digital age it all reads like so much ancient history. Nowadays I'm finding a Nikon D800 with two lenses rather a burden to carry in my backpack. Time passes, things change.

This is a very interesting time capsule which you have gleefully and intelligently presented for all of us to benefit from. Thank you. But, you were paying too much for the 120 Verichrome Pan. Back then,the Canadian dollar was worth 95 US cents (Bretton Woods exchange rates were still dominant with the USD and CND being almost at a par) and I was paying only 43 US cents for the same roll. But, still it was cheap (even back then) and we knew that there was no major problem with buying more than adequate amounts of film. Today, one thinks hard about each inch which one uses. It is both quaint and true that if you used the same Canadian coins to buy film today that you had used back in 1965, you would STILL be paying about the same Canadian 50 cents. (Canada retained 80% silver in its coins until 1967.)

The death of the Graphic (et al) was a celebratory event, except for the dire holdouts who could not fathom the "technological change". However, even they came around, with time, and what the 35mm SLR has done for photography in making it easier, more flexible, more interchangeable ... well, books could be written about that 'acculturation'. - David Lyga

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Given the production numbers, it could very well be all of the above!
According to https://www.cameraquest.com/canonflx.htm, there were 17,000 Canonflex produced compared to 862,000 Nikon Fs.

Thanks for the link, it was a very interesting read!

Something else. In the late 50s Canon was doing really well with its rangefinder sales....

Thank you for the very detailed information!

 

[alanrockwood]

Here's a thought, not specifically on photojournalism, but on film formats in general.

Here's my theory of why 35mm came to dominate the photography world until displaced by digital cameras. My idea is that 35mm was, approximately speaking, the smallest format that was capable of producing very good to excellent 8x10 prints. That, combined with the fact that it was less expensive to make photos on a per-shot basis than larger formats.

 

[Les Sarile]

Here is an ad in Dec 1960 Modern Photography magazine for portable processing kit . . .

 

[cjbecker]

if memory still serves me right, no newspaper photographer in Canada was using 35mm in the 1960s. As an 18 year old trainee journalist in New Brunswick (not New Jersey, the other one) in 1965, Like Ansel Adams then (and now in my case) I was then quite small and rather slight of build (sigh) and I couldn't comfortably carry and use a big camera. So I made do with a compact and more portable Yashica D TLR - my entire press kit consisted of the camera, a lens hood, a yellow filter and a few rolls of Verichrome Pan or Ansco Versapan - and often handed in partly used rolls of Verichrome Pan to the office darkroom for processing. We didn't worry about wasting film back then, a 120 roll cost 50 Canadian cents and I bought mine in 20-roll bricks for C$10 less 10 percent discount for cash. Yes, the good old days.

The staff photogs (there were two) had Speed Graphics. The senior photog, a bear of a man, had a 3-1/4 by 4-4/14 inch (was this the old 'quarter plate'?0 shooter and one lens and a few cut film and plate backs. The backup lensman had a 4x5 with two lenses and two roll film backs and thought himself a real swell. Both were amused when I turned up with my TLR but quickly saw the advantage in shooting small and quickly. That year the managing editor approved the purchase of an early Mamiya TLR (probably a C22) which I often used, it was more bulky than I liked but produced very fine negatives and 'looked professional' so I started using it to shoot weddings, again in B&W. In this day and age imagine turning up at a wedding with one camera and one lens! In fact I was greatly ahead of the game with my Yashica as a backup. In 1967 I moved to a smaller newspaper for more experience and better money as a reporter-editor and the very young (I think he was all of 17 and still in high school) staff shooter had a Mamiya Press (or were these called Mamiya Universal?), again with a cut film back. He was super economical and would often shoot only one image of any event we attended, so I usually shot a few backups with my Rollei to cover us if disaster struck in the darkroom, as it regularly did. In those long ago days we processed everything in Kodak Dektol 1:1 at whatever temperature we thought best (cooler in summer,hotter in winter) and I became adept at producing a finished if still damp print for the newspaper scanner in just under one hour. Ancient times indeed!

Fast-forward five years to Toronto, 1970. As a promotions officer in national TV media I often squired new photogs on sets for promo shoots. TLRs were still the rage, mostly Mamiyas, and now and then a veteran used a Gaphic. It wasn't until 1972 that I saw the first SLRs in action. One lens man for the Toronto Star had a Nikon and his counterpart at the Globe and Mail a Pentax Spotmatic. I had a glamorpuss Rollei 3.5E and in 1974 I got a then state-of-the-art Nikkormat EL with a 50 f/2, both of which I often used for TV stills. The production crews and many actors were greatly interested in my two cameras and often borrowed them to shoot their own on-set images. I do wonder what happened to all the B&W negatives I took of many TV shows which are now media history - are they in some dusty filing cabinet in a back room in Toronto?

By the late '60s those heavy Speed and Crown Graphic cameras were all ending up in local pawn shops but we regarded them as door-props and nobody wanted them. Even in the early '80s when I was living in New Mexico the hock shops in Santa Fe and Albuquerque all had several old press kits in their back rooms and a decent one could be picked up for $100 or sometimes less - they often also had one or two huge old US Air Force aerial cameras with (as we now know) fantastic lenses going for much less than a C-note.

Now in my 70s, retired from journalism long ago for a career in architecture. Still have th eRollei and several Nikkormats (ELs and FT2s), also many (too many) others.

Now in this digital age it all reads like so much ancient history. Nowadays I'm finding a Nikon D800 with two lenses rather a burden to carry in my backpack. Time passes, things change.

Very interesting read, thank you.

 

[Cholentpot]

if memory still serves me right, no newspaper photographer in Canada was using 35mm in the 1960s. As an 18 year old trainee journalist in New Brunswick (not New Jersey, the other one) in 1965, Like Ansel Adams then (and now in my case) I was then quite small and rather slight of build (sigh) and I couldn't comfortably carry and use a big camera. So I made do with a compact and more portable Yashica D TLR - my entire press kit consisted of the camera, a lens hood, a yellow filter and a few rolls of Verichrome Pan or Ansco Versapan - and often handed in partly used rolls of Verichrome Pan to the office darkroom for processing. We didn't worry about wasting film back then, a 120 roll cost 50 Canadian cents and I bought mine in 20-roll bricks for C$10 less 10 percent discount for cash. Yes, the good old days.

The staff photogs (there were two) had Speed Graphics. The senior photog, a bear of a man, had a 3-1/4 by 4-4/14 inch (was this the old 'quarter plate'?0 shooter and one lens and a few cut film and plate backs. The backup lensman had a 4x5 with two lenses and two roll film backs and thought himself a real swell. Both were amused when I turned up with my TLR but quickly saw the advantage in shooting small and quickly. That year the managing editor approved the purchase of an early Mamiya TLR (probably a C22) which I often used, it was more bulky than I liked but produced very fine negatives and 'looked professional' so I started using it to shoot weddings, again in B&W. In this day and age imagine turning up at a wedding with one camera and one lens! In fact I was greatly ahead of the game with my Yashica as a backup. In 1967 I moved to a smaller newspaper for more experience and better money as a reporter-editor and the very young (I think he was all of 17 and still in high school) staff shooter had a Mamiya Press (or were these called Mamiya Universal?), again with a cut film back. He was super economical and would often shoot only one image of any event we attended, so I usually shot a few backups with my Rollei to cover us if disaster struck in the darkroom, as it regularly did. In those long ago days we processed everything in Kodak Dektol 1:1 at whatever temperature we thought best (cooler in summer,hotter in winter) and I became adept at producing a finished if still damp print for the newspaper scanner in just under one hour. Ancient times indeed!

Fast-forward five years to Toronto, 1970. As a promotions officer in national TV media I often squired new photogs on sets for promo shoots. TLRs were still the rage, mostly Mamiyas, and now and then a veteran used a Gaphic. It wasn't until 1972 that I saw the first SLRs in action. One lens man for the Toronto Star had a Nikon and his counterpart at the Globe and Mail a Pentax Spotmatic. I had a glamorpuss Rollei 3.5E and in 1974 I got a then state-of-the-art Nikkormat EL with a 50 f/2, both of which I often used for TV stills. The production crews and many actors were greatly interested in my two cameras and often borrowed them to shoot their own on-set images. I do wonder what happened to all the B&W negatives I took of many TV shows which are now media history - are they in some dusty filing cabinet in a back room in Toronto?

By the late '60s those heavy Speed and Crown Graphic cameras were all ending up in local pawn shops but we regarded them as door-props and nobody wanted them. Even in the early '80s when I was living in New Mexico the hock shops in Santa Fe and Albuquerque all had several old press kits in their back rooms and a decent one could be picked up for $100 or sometimes less - they often also had one or two huge old US Air Force aerial cameras with (as we now know) fantastic lenses going for much less than a C-note.

Now in my 70s, retired from journalism long ago for a career in architecture. Still have th eRollei and several Nikkormats (ELs and FT2s), also many (too many) others.

Now in this digital age it all reads like so much ancient history. Nowadays I'm finding a Nikon D800 with two lenses rather a burden to carry in my backpack. Time passes, things change.

Love these old war stories.

There's really no more PJ jobs. They're gone. A working stiff like me makes due as a hired gun.

 

[AgX]

osmooze, thank you for that interesting hindsight.
But why did you cover weddings for your local newspaper, or rather why wanted they such photos? Celebrities? But you seem to have done so regularly.

 

[AgX]

A aspect that has not come up so far:

The late 50's (or the late 60's for osmooze) were the times for american press photographers to change to smaller format.
But this also meant a change to SLR*, when in Europe the much earlier started Leica remained in use next to SLR's/TLR'S.




*We have not established yet what share the SLR Gaflex had in those years.

 

[AgX]

Here is an ad in Dec 1960 Modern Photography magazine for portable processing kit . . .

The text says to use it "for your regular camera - 35mm, reflex or box." The kit seemingly was not intrended for press photographers solely, inspite of what the photo may imply.

 

[Les Sarile]

The text says to use it "for your regular camera - 35mm, reflex or box." The kit seemingly was not intrended for press photographers solely, inspite of what the photo may imply.

Intended solely for pros never even crossed my mind really although I'm not sure how many amateurs would use something like this? It just reminded me of a magazine article about the pro photogs covering of Pres. Nixon's trip to China in 1972 where they would shoot and process on the spot for quick news turnaround.

 

[guangong]

This is how the story is always told... buit it does not make any sence, nor did I find any proof of this.
With the unconditional surrender of Germany the victorious Allies took all german patents as reperation. Thus to their own benefit. The exact way it was handled may have differed, at least in some cases the patents were sold. Anyway, to give this prey to your major enemy Japan makes no sense at all. With the political change during the postwar years however this may have changed with the intent of building a economical strong Japan as bulwark against communism.

That is exactly the point. First the need to rebuild the Japanese economy, just as the Marshal Plan assisted in rebuilding the European economy. Furthermore, MacArthur was an astute leader who crafted an occupation that began the transformation of Japanese society. In prewar Japan the people had to scrap and kowtow to their betters even more than in prewar Europe. (There was a reason descenders of German immigrants make up the largest demographic in USA. Also explains why neither Germany or Japan were able to gain any traction with German or Japanese immigrants.) Personally, I have found that many Japanese individuals still express admiration for the General.
Back to original point. We really need someone to research the assertion: despite confiscation of patents by allies, did German industry still recognize patents within Germany? I agree that story needs verification.
Age, you keep everybody on their toes. I always appreciate your comments.

 

[Dennis-B]

That is exactly the point. First the need to rebuild the Japanese economy, just as the Marshal Plan assisted in rebuilding the European economy. Furthermore, MacArthur was an astute leader who crafted an occupation that began the transformation of Japanese society. In prewar Japan the people had to scrap and kowtow to their betters even more than in prewar Europe. (There was a reason descenders of German immigrants make up the largest demographic in USA. Also explains why neither Germany or Japan were able to gain any traction with German or Japanese immigrants.) Personally, I have found that many Japanese individuals still express admiration for the General.
Back to original point. We really need someone to research the assertion: despite confiscation of patents by allies, did German industry still recognize patents within Germany? I agree that story needs verification.
Age, you keep everybody on their toes. I always appreciate your comments.

One needs to give credit to the German people for the rebuilding of their post-WWII economy. The Marshall Plan doled out money to governments, not individuals. By going from government-to-government it allowed money to be used as political fodder for governments who had less-than-honorable intentions. Germany, on the other hand, began its recovery before any Marshall Plan money was disbursed. According to Ludwig Gerhard, a German economic minister, the allocations, controls over wages and prices, were abandoned in favor of capitalism. To contrast, England's economy, which turned Socialist at the end of the war, lagged Germany's recovery for well over a decade, despite receiving far more Marshal Plan funds than Germany. As mentioned, General MacArthur's enlightened leadership, including the adoption of a constitutional government did wonders for Japan's economy.

 

[Down Under]

osmooze, thank you fort that intersting hindsight.
But why did you cover weddings for your local newspaper, or rather why wanted they such photos? Celebrities? But you seem to have done soe regularly.

As a grunt news hound in 1965 I was paid C$35 for a 50-hour week. Even 55 years ago nobody could get by on that little money. I lived at home but I had a car, so I borrowed the paper's TLR to shoot weddings on my free weekends for some extra income. I thought the Mamiya made me look more 'pro' than my Yashica D.

n those heady days I charged a fixed C$50 fee for the entire shoot (four rolls of B&W film, 48 exposures, imagine!) and I did one sample 5x7 finished print on Kodak Medalist paper and contact proofs made made on the long discontinued Kodak Proof Printing paper. A few canny brides had these small prints copied at a mail order photo lab but the copy stand lights destroyed the proof images almost overnight, ha! I sold packages of 4x5 and 5x7 gift prints and 'With Thanks' photo cards with envelopes for the newlyweds to send to guests. I also sold an album of 12 8x10s on 'velvet' Medalist for C$50. At those giveaway prices I now marvel that I survived financially, but I did surprisingly well out of this sideline.

Newspaper didn't buy wedding shots. Engaged couples and newlyweds wanting a photo published bought the print from me and then paid to have it published. Occasionally I sold prints of news events and to illustrate feature articles I wrote, to my paper, all taken in my own time. I was paid C$5 per image but only C$1 extra for each additional print in a photo montage, which I thought was criminal. But it was all easy money.

I remember a Canadian Press reporter with a Leica M kit on a Canadian Armed Forces field training weekend in 1966. The older photographers with Speed Graphics were scathing of this Dinky Toy, but his images were published nationally and to my surprise they were as good as any. So the quality - and the cameras - were there.

Photo gear and darkroom supplies were far cheaper south of the border, but Canada Customs often did car searches and imposed duty on top of provincial sales tax. In 1967 I was sprung with fifty rolls of 120 film and ten boxes of Kodak eight-by-ten paper which cost me a hefty fee. Fortunately, the Customs boys didn't open the paper boxes to check for 'contraband'.

Fast forward a few decades. In 2000 most news photographers in Australia still used film cameras, Nikons and Canons. Five years later only a few diehards were still into film. The old Canon and Nikon DSLRs were very low resolution but many are still in use. As an architect, I stayed with film until 2009 when I realized my dislike for scanning was turning into outright detestation. The new Nikon D90 convinced me that prosumer digital quality was good enough for me and my clients.

The new era had finally arrived - for me, years late as usual.

 

[Dennis-B]

As a grunt news hound in 1965 I was paid C$35 for a 50-hour week. Even 55 years ago nobody could get by on that little money. I lived at home but I had a car, so I borrowed the paper's TLR to shoot weddings on my free weekends for some extra income. I thought the Mamiya made me look more 'pro' than my Yashica D.

n those heady days I charged a fixed C$50 fee for the entire shoot (four rolls of B&W film, 48 exposures, imagine!) and I did one sample 5x7 finished print on Kodak Medalist paper and contact proofs made made on the long discontinued Kodak Proof Printing paper. A few canny brides had these small prints copied at a mail order photo lab but the copy stand lights destroyed the proof images almost overnight, ha! I sold packages of 4x5 and 5x7 gift prints and 'With Thanks' photo cards with envelopes for the newlyweds to send to guests. I also sold an album of 12 8x10s on 'velvet' Medalist for C$50. At those giveaway prices I now marvel that I survived financially, but I did surprisingly well out of this sideline.

Newspaper didn't buy wedding shots. Engaged couples and newlyweds wanting a photo published bought the print from me and then paid to have it published. Occasionally I sold prints of news events and to illustrate feature articles I wrote, to my paper, all taken in my own time. I was paid C$5 per image but only C$1 extra for each additional print in a photo montage, which I thought was criminal. But it was all easy money.

I remember a Canadian Press reporter with a Leica M kit on a Canadian Armed Forces field training weekend in 1966. The older photographers with Speed Graphics were scathing of this Dinky Toy, but his images were published nationally and to my surprise they were as good as any. So the quality - and the cameras - were there.

Photo gear and darkroom supplies were far cheaper south of the border, but Canada Customs often did car searches and imposed duty on top of provincial sales tax. In 1967 I was sprung with fifty rolls of 120 film and ten boxes of Kodak eight-by-ten paper which cost me a hefty fee. Fortunately, the Customs boys didn't open the paper boxes to check for 'contraband'.

Fast forward a few decades. In 2000 most news photographers in Australia still used film cameras, Nikons and Canons. Five years later only a few diehards were still into film. The old Canon and Nikon DSLRs were very low resolution but many are still in use. As an architect, I stayed with film until 2009 when I realized my dislike for scanning was turning into outright detestation. The new Nikon D90 convinced me that prosumer digital quality was good enough for me and my clients.

The new era had finally arrived - for me, years late as usual.

I bought a used Minolta Autocord as my first 6x6 camera and did weddings for my service buddies while on active duty in the Navy. The only extravagance I indulged in was a brand new Honeywell 700 Strobonar. In 1970, I was shooting Vericolor, and I could get the film and dirt cheap processing at the Navy Exchange. The Exchange services would even special order film. My standard fee was $75 for around 20-25 prints, and around $2 for single prints for relatives. Great memories.

 

[CMoore]

Wow, this has been interesting.!

In 1975 i worked at our local news paper.... Los Gatos Times Observer...........I worked in the press room, doing inserts, changing the ink barrel, light janitorial, getting bundles ready for the paper boys, etc etc.
It was a small town, 25k people.
From what i saw, their "Photographer" used a Canon F1.

1975-1980 i went to a lot of concerts and auto races. In 1977 i had a Canon AE-1 and i ALWAYS looked to see what the pros were using.....to me it looked like 95% Nikon.
Even in the late 1970's i saw a lot of F's ...still on the prowl.

 

[guangong]

One needs to give credit to the German people for the rebuilding of their post-WWII economy. The Marshall Plan doled out money to governments, not individuals. By going from government-to-government it allowed money to be used as political fodder for governments who had less-than-honorable intentions. Germany, on the other hand, began its recovery before any Marshall Plan money was disbursed. According to Ludwig Gerhard, a German economic minister, the allocations, controls over wages and prices, were abandoned in favor of capitalism. To contrast, England's economy, which turned Socialist at the end of the war, lagged Germany's recovery for well over a decade, despite receiving far more Marshal Plan funds than Germany. As mentioned, General MacArthur's enlightened leadership, including the adoption of a constitutional government did wonders for Japan's economy.

Good observation. In 1964 I attended a scientific conference in London. They were still drinking some kind of chicle coffee substitute but could get a good cup of coffee a week later in both West and East Germany.

 

[markjwyatt]

Good observation. In 1964 I attended a scientific conference in London. They were still drinking some kind of chicle coffee substitute but could get a good cup of coffee a week later in both West and East Germany.

My understanding is WWII gave a big boost to the rooibos (South African red "tea") industry. The Brits suffered without their cup of tea. I do drink rooibos sometimes.

 

[AgX]

A aspect that has not come up so far:

The late 50's (or the late 60's for osmooze) were the times for american press photographers to change to smaller format.
But this also meant a change to SLR*, when in Europe the much earlier started Leica remained in use next to SLR's/TLR'S.




*We have not established yet what share the SLR Gaflex had in those years.

No comments on this aspect?

 

[Cholentpot]

I have my very own 'dethroned, defunct, and defunded' camera I just picked up today. I don't know much about these things and I thought I got a good deal but it does seem to be missing an integral part. Live and learn.

Maybe someone on the 'ol APUG has this part that I need for sale or to pass on to a new generation of defunct camera users.

 

[BrianShaw]

Mine gets used on a regular basis... it is still throned, funct, and funded!

 

[Cholentpot]

2x3 Graflex Century Graphic.

I think it's as obsolete as can be. I started a thread about it and users are making it sound like it's useless. I'll make it work darn it!