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

[AgX]

Germany, due to it’s size, tech industry, economic level, reputation for rationality and rigorousness, central placement etc. has had “luck” in being able to be the technological and human factors/ergonomics standard setter, where other big countries that might be said to have the same technological level like England and France has not to the same degree.

I do not share your view. Germany was in a very bad economical situation. Private consumption was practically limited by government restrictions on resources. Cameras were made mostly for export and were, beyond box cameras, expensive for the average Germans.
From german perspective there was much more offer for private consumption in France (this explains why german occupational soldiers went so much shopping in France as they were able to get products long time not seen on the german market).

Of course one can argue that the french offer in cameras was limited (there were more french cameras than likely known at Apug) and that the French would have to resort to imports, with respective tax deterrence. One would have to look at the actual price situation, and that argument would apply on Graflexes too.

German press photographers changed to smaller formats already in a period of resurrection from an economic crisis (that hit Germany especially hard). I do not see them as privileged compared to other countries.
Nor do I see France in general as less technicall evolved than Germany.



However, the main question in this thread should be why the most advanced country in the World, technically and in consumption, clinged so long to these "outdated" cameras.

 

[guangong]

The elephant in the room was the Leica M3 and Rolleiflex before Nikon arrived. My late friend Bernie Boston, dean of White House photographers, used Leicas to photograph every president from Truman to Slick Willie.

 

[Helge]

I do not share your view. Germany was in a very bad economical situation. Private consumption was practically limited by government restrictions on resources. Cameras were made mostly for export and were, beyond box cameras, expensive for the average Germans.
From german perspective there was much more offer for private consumption in France (this explains why german occupational soldiers went so much shopping in France as they were able to get products long time not seen on the german market).

Of course one can argue that the french offer in cameras was limited (there were more french cameras than likely known at Apug) and that the French would have to resort to imports, with respective tax deterrence. One would have to look at the actual price situation, and that argument would apply on Graflexes too.

German press photographers changed to smaller formats already in a period of resurrection from an economic crisis (that hit Germany especially hard). I do not see them as privileged compared to other countries.
Nor do I see France in general as less technicall evolved than Germany.



However, the main question in this thread should be why the most advanced country in the World, technically and in consumption, clinged so long to these "outdated" cameras.

Germany (of course back in time we’d be talking German states) has always had an ability to transcend trouble, political and economical and uphold a high level of proficiency and pride in good product.
That has been true for hundreds of years.

Before the war there was relatively good economics due to the bubble the Nazies had inflated. After the war there was the Wirtschaftswunder and in the fifties and sixties west Germany was in full swing with regards to consumer technology, of course with sharp competition from the Japanese, but still.

One reason the US was so happy with the large format press camera might have to do with the infrastructure of the printing press and how it dealt with photos.
Also remember that printing photos big, as with billboard adds and posters was much more prevalent in the US.
This is where large format would still have a big advantage.

 

[Dennis-B]

Besides the obvious reasons relating to photo-centric journalism, there is the "devil you know" relating to equipment. While the 4x5 Speed Graphics are frequently shown using 4x5 film holders, Graflex had created Graphic Rollfilm backs and film packs which greatly sped up the picture making process. The "press photographer" knew his/her equipment very well. The Speed Graphic, in its later versions, ditched the focal plane shutter, and used only leaf shutters, good to 1/400 second, along with flash sync for bulbs and electronic.

I worked in another department at the Courier Journal in Louisville, but I was friendly with the staff photographers. In the mid-60's, there were already lots of Nikons in use, and still a lot of Speed Graphics, although they tended to sit on the shelves of the department. Later on, I did some stringer work in the suburbs using a Nikkormat.

Giving the Speed Graphic its due, there were thousands of great photographs taken with it, and the photographers knew how to grab that one-time shot by training and anticipation.

 

[AgX]

Billboards are typically seen under same viewing angle as a large print. And the photographs needed for billboards were not made by press photographers anyway.

Concerning Germany, one argument by Linhof to again sell their clunky cameras to press photographers were colour front pages, for which they claimed a necessity to use LF. Furthermore they marketed their cameras as one-for-all-jobs (think of a plant photographer, doing an exploded view in the morning, a colour report in the plant in the afternoon and a CEO portrait in the evening). But Linhof LF cameras for sure were rare for press photographers (still figures of shares at all markets would be most interesting...)

 

[AgX]

There is the "devil you know" relating to equipment. While the 4x5 Speed Graphics are frequently shown using 4x5 film holders, Graflex had created Graphic Rollfilm backs and film packs which greatly sped up the picture making process. The "press photographer" knew his/her equipment very well.
Giving the Speed Graphic its due, there were thousands of great photographs taken with it, and the photographers knew how to grab that one-time shot by training and anticipation.

That photographers learned how to handle the shortcomings of a camera does not make the camera better.

Why using a Graflex with rollfilm back and bulb flash if one can use a Rolleiflex with electronic flash?

(As seen at press events with american photographers attending too. I admit though the extra-weight of the flash generator.)

 

[Dennis-B]

That photographers learned how to handle the shortcomings of a camera does not make the camera better.

Why using a Graflex with rollfilm back and bulb flash if one can use a Rolleiflex with electronic flash?

(As seen at press events with american photographers attending too. I admit though the extra-weight of the flash generator.)

No disagreement as to the Speed Graphic and where it stood in relation to technology, and press photographers did use Rollieflexes and electronic flash; there were some in use at the Courier Journal. My comment was only to denote that practical photographers didn't leap to the 35mm format in droves. Like most professionals, they tended to stay with what worked, until it didn't. In that respect photographers were no different than the scribes who continued to use manual typewriters into the 70's. Other professions tend to use tools that are reliable well after new technology has arrived. Carpenters used extension cords and electric drills, saws, and the like, well after battery driven models were available; and given the NiCad technology of the time, who could blame them? 510 volt batteries were reliable, and could be replaced fairly easily. NiCads in electronic flashes had the same memory issues. I used a Honeywell Strobonar 700 for years, and learned how to solder my own battery packs with the sub-C cells.

 

[AgX]

Then why photographers in other parts of the world changed earlier, even much earlier? They too (with the exception of Germany) could have gone on with their big cameras.


I hope I do not come over as the arrogant European. I rather see myself as the ignorant European since long time finding no convincing explanation for the american-way on this matter.

 

[Paul Howell]

Another thought, as a working PJ I was not making a ton of money, gear came out of my pocket, I labored on with the kit I had as long as I could. I was able to trade up to a F3 as my employer paid for 1/2 of it, one of reason I didn't buy a Pentax LX, otherwise I would hung on the F2 much longer. The F2 was the first 35mm I bought new, my other cameras were used, all I could afford.

 

[BrianShaw]

That photographers learned how to handle the shortcomings of a camera does not make the camera better.

Why using a Graflex with rollfilm back and bulb flash if one can use a Rolleiflex with electronic flash?

(As seen at press events with american photographers attending too. I admit though the extra-weight of the flash generator.)

Using a “better camera” does not necessarily yield better images.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I think the transition to smaller formats has more to do with the quality of film available than anything else. As the grain in film became smaller as film became more advanced, the advantage of a larger format was reduced. In some ways too the larger DOF at the same f-stop was an advantage as well. Professional photographers usually are reluctant to change as well is likely why this didn't happen faster.

 

[AgX]

Thus american films were worse than european films? Or Americans more demanding than Europeans?

 

[David Lyga]

However I disagree with the OP it was the Korean war so 1950 that was the beginning of the end of the Press camera and the Nikon Rangefinder cameras and more particularly their lenses. Also to a lesser extent the Canon rangefinders.

Ian

I really cannot argue here; perhaps I should have said the 'final death blow', instead. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

David, you are looking at this topic from a US perspective. The US however with their Graflexes look ancient from a european perspective.

With the Leica as 35mm camera and modern MF cameras not only becoming a commercial success but also a change took place already in the 30s over here. Already in the mid-30s in Germany the majority of german press photographers used 35mm or MF cameras. The end to any dispute on this came, likely unknown to most here, by a regulation by the Ministry of Propaganda in Germany in 1937 that prescribed the use of a 35mm or MF camera as prerequisite to get accredited as german press photographer. To my understanding the idea was to create "vivid" photographs for a vivid movement/country.

Concerning official regulations you get the same picture if you compare US and german official camera outfits for military photographers.




To what extent this change went beyond Germany and spread over Europe there may be discussion, especially with the division between Britain and continental Europe. But I must think hard to remember seeing a Graflex in historic press events on this side of the Atlantic.

This is a VERY interesting and revealing comment. 35mm was actually VERY slow to develop a major following in the US. I well remember in the 1950s that MOST people used roll film cameras, and those cameras were, for the most part, junk. This extended even into the early 60s.

On the other hand, Europe was ahead of the US as far as using feasible, concise methods of image recording. Actually, I am rather stunned to find out from AgX that it was a 'requirement', as early as the late 30s, for German newspapers to use 35mm film. Actually, the image quality was not so bad with the films of that era. Remember, one could use slower films and not suffer slower shutter speeds as a result, because the increased depth of field would allow smaller apertures and faster shutter speeds.

I have to say that, given the availability of 35mm since the early thirties, I do not know why the US held off for so long. The evidence was there, but was not duly adopted (or even accepted) by those in the know. I wonder how much the embargoes against Germany and Japan played into this reluctance, because the USA was not prepared to cover the bases with its own camera productions.Yet, even after WWII, there was rather slow acceptance. I think that the brain power of the US was at fault here. Commonsense did not prevail.

As a child, I do remember two things which were very often stated: 1) 35mm film is inferior to larger format and cannot be considered up to par and 2) the first Japanese cameras to enter the US market in the early fifties had to be advertised as 'imported'. I remember tremendous hatred towards the Japanese during that era. Their name was ignominious and remained that way until, really, the early 60s. This had such an effect upon me that, to this day, I really wonder about overall US integrity and its claims of being worthy, worldwide supporters of "Liberty". I do not remember ANY hatred towards the Germans, however, Their imports were welcomed. - David Lyga

 

[AgX]

It was not required to use 35mm cameras, but either 35mm or medium format. In any case nothing bigger.

But your hint at import policies is interesting. Concerning the japanese Leica clones, there may also come into play patent issues.

 

[Les Sarile]

I think that the brain power of the US was at fault here. Commonsense did not prevail. - David Lyga

Maybe you're applying very broad strokes here after having started with a relatively narrow premise . . .

 

[Cholentpot]

This is a VERY interesting and revealing comment. 35mm was actually VERY slow to develop a major following in the US. I well remember in the 1950s that MOST people used roll film cameras, and those cameras were, for the most part, junk. This extended even into the early 60s.

On the other hand, Europe was ahead of the US as far as using feasible, concise methods of image recording. Actually, I am rather stunned to find out from AgX that it was a 'requirement', as early as the late 30s, for German newspapers to use 35mm film. Actually, the image quality was not so bad with the films of that era. Remember, one could use slower films and not suffer slower shutter speeds as a result, because the increased depth of field would allow smaller apertures and faster shutter speeds.

I have to say that, given the availability of 35mm since the early thirties, I do not know why the US held off for so long. The evidence was there, but was not duly adopted (or even accepted) by those in the know. I wonder how much the embargoes against Germany and Japan played into this reluctance, because the USA was not prepared to cover the bases with its own camera productions.Yet, even after WWII, there was rather slow acceptance. I think that the brain power of the US was at fault here. Commonsense did not prevail.

As a child, I do remember two things which were very often stated: 1) 35mm film is inferior to larger format and cannot be considered up to par and 2) the first Japanese cameras to enter the US market in the early fifties had to be advertised as 'imported'. I remember tremendous hatred towards the Japanese during that era. Their name was ignominious and remained that way until, really, the early 60s. This had such an effect upon me that, to this day, I really wonder about overall US integrity and its claims of being worthy, worldwide supporters of "Liberty". I do not remember ANY hatred towards the Germans, however, Their imports were welcomed. - David Lyga

My grandfather would be appalled by my German cameras.

Kodak did not push 35mm film as far as I know, they pushed 120, 127, 110, 126 etc and etc. They didn't make a 35mm camera from the early 60's until the 80's. Kodak being the largest of the large pushed other formats in the USA.

 

[Dennis-B]

Then why photographers in other parts of the world changed earlier, even much earlier? They too (with the exception of Germany) could have gone on with their big cameras.


I hope I do not come over as the arrogant European. I rather see myself as the ignorant European since long time finding no convincing explanation for the american-way on this matter.

No, not at all. I'm far from extolling the virtues of the Speed Graphic-type cameras. The British had their versions of the Speed Graphic, as well. Graflex, as well as Busch, both had aluminum chassis press cameras in an attempt to lighten the photographer's load. Rangefinders, zone focusing, and sports finders were all add-ons to provide more flexibility. Photographers also preset their focus points and "f/11 and be there" was the mantra of the day. TLR's did have their limits - I've used a Yashica D upside down to get over-the-head shots, not easy, but doable. Not everyone had prism finders, and waist level was viewing was severely limiting, along with parallax issues at times.

There were also the "baby Graphics" in 3x4 (nominal) formats. Let's also not forget that Graflex, Mamiya, and Koni Omega all had their versions of a "modern" press camera, for those who needed 120/220-sized images. They had a very short product life, but are in the evolution. Even with improved films for 35mm, the adage "bigger is better" still applied, giving the medium format "a dog in the fight".

As to newspapers, the photo-engraving process wasn't completely reliant on 4x5 input. Any format could be used, but 4x5 was a "standard" and yielded the best results. Conversion to half-tone wasn't nearly so degrading to 4x5 as it was 35mm. And yes, film grain got finer for faster films, so faster ISO's yielded better images.

Photography as any technology generally follows Moore's Law, periodically, improvements double and costs halve. But, by the mid-60's, as Julius Caesar famously said "Alea Iacta Est".

 

[David Lyga]

In fact, my first 'real' camera was purchased in 1966 and was the Minolta Autocord CDS. I was not about to get something 'inferior' using 35mm film. (Another reason was that I could not afford the very expensive SLR, either!!!)

In fact, I will be bold enough to say that the ONLY time medium format is superior to 35mm is when it is using a film that is the same speed, or slower, than used with 35mm. A medium format with Tri-X performs NO BETTER than a 35mm with TMAX 100, I will not venture into the realm of sheet film, which outdistances us all as far as image quality is concerned, but at a hefty price, dollar-wise and technical-wise. - David Lyga

 

[Helge]

Billboards are typically seen under same viewing angle as a large print. And the photographs needed for billboards were not made by press photographers anyway.

I was thinking large news billboards and posters on stations and newspaper and magazine sellers for example.

Another reason no one has really touched on, is America’s love and preference for anything big. Automatically equating it with better.
That might also be a factor.
No male press photographer wants to be seen with smaller equipment than the rest.

 

[David Lyga]

My grandfather would be appalled by my German cameras.

Kodak did not push 35mm film as far as I know, they pushed 120, 127, 110, 126 etc and etc. They didn't make a 35mm camera from the early 60's until the 80's. Kodak being the largest of the large pushed other formats in the USA.

Again, you hit the nail of the head. I did not even KNOW that 35mm film existed until I was about 12. The obsession with roll film was pervasive, nationwide. - David Lyga

 

[AgX]

Kodak did not push 35mm film as far as I know, they pushed 120, 127, 110, 126 etc and etc. They didn't make a 35mm camera from the early 60's until the 80's. Kodak being the largest of the large pushed other formats in the USA.

The film manufacturer... another interesting aspect. New to me.

 

[David Lyga]

I was thinking large news billboards and posters on stations and newspaper and magazine sellers for example.

Another reason no one has really touched on, is America’s love and preference for anything big. Automatically equating it with better.
That might also be a factor.
No male press photographer wants to be seen with smaller equipment than the rest.

I will go even further (if the mods allow) and state that a tiny camera was equated with a tiny penis. The obsession, conflated with the 'bigger is better' fallacy is what guided US thought throughout my childhood, - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

In 1959 I was three years old, so I can't pass on any first hand observations on this.
But I would note that it was in 1961 when Kodak decided that there was sufficient demand to support a Western Canada lab to develop Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide and movie film - all of it 135/828 or narrower.
That tells me that there were a lot of roll film (and movie) cameras out there.
And the infrastructure to support them.
If you are talking about main stream journalism, you are talking about an industry that, at that time, was relatively highly unionized (the newspapers at least) with craft unions that were extremely territorial. It was also inherently quite conservative. Format changes would have met with a lot of resistance.

 

[DWThomas]

My own 40 years or so of working career left me with a sense that here in the US we were pretty hung up on reluctance to change anything that seemed to work -- "That's the way we have always done it." That was no doubt fostered at least partly by corporate bean counters and the increasing focus on short term profits, and partly to a (blind) belief in (mythical) "exceptionalism." (And the situation certainly has not gotten better!)

Heh, in college in a steel mill town in eastern Pennsylvania, circa 1961, we had some co-op students from India who were taking courses and working at the mill. We got to know a few of them pretty well and after several months we learned that they really liked and were impressed with the university, but "we have far more modern steel mills in India!"

But hey, the slow demise of 4x5 made it possible for me to pick up a 4x5 B&J Press in the mid 1960s for next to nothing so I could make Kodalith negatives to do small photo-etched circuit boards.