Journalism's divisive ride to '35'

David Lyga · Dec 6, 2014

Holdouts are oftentimes fueled by a passion synergized by fear buoyed by a false sense of objectivity.

By the mid-1930s, 35mm had been proven as a viable contender for high quality photography; unceasing and obdurate demands by Hollywood for greater optics and film integrity assured continuance of that quest. If so, then why was the last newspaper to ditch LF in favor of 35mm not to be witnessed until 1971 (I think in Alaska)?

During the 1950s and early 1960s many, maybe most, newspapers still used 4 X 5. Why? 35mm's added flexibility, speed, both in terms of sensitivity (due to shorter focal lengths allowing more depth of field) and physical mobility seem to be two factors which should have caused (indeed, forced) pre-War newspapers to jump at the unfolding opportunity.

Instead, specious argument after argument posited that much would be lost by using 'less serious' Leicas and Contaxes, as they harbored the lowly, small format. The inherent limits for newsprint to render adequate resolution and contrast should have immediately quashed that misguided theory even though films in that era were not as good as today's emulsions. For newsworthy purposes they were more than adequate.

In retrospect, all of this lack of honest pragmatism and common sense seems, at least to me, to be a bit of a mystery when the facts are so evident. In fact, this very mindset caused me to buy a Minolta Autocord CDS as my first real camera back in 1966 when I was 16. I was 'afraid' of the inferiority of 35. I am wiser now. - David Lyga

frank · Dec 6, 2014

For me, medium format is ideal. It offers the benefit of larger negs, with the convenience of roll film. 35mm is more portable and offers faster lenses, so I use that as well.

elekm · Dec 6, 2014

David, when I worked in Pittsburgh (with the Post-Gazette), one of the fellows there had started as a general assignment reporter in the 1970s with a small daily in Indiana.

One of his weekly assignments in the fall/winter was to shoot high school sports. He was given a Rolleiflex with a bulb flash. He was told to simply set the lens at f/8 and get the best shot that he could - the fellows in the darkroom would take care of cropping the photo.

One of the staff photographers from a competing paper shot all high school sports with a Speed Graphic - football, basketball, wrestling. I think he also shot all news assignments.

The fellow was a bit of a cliche: Overcoat, hat and cigar, walking the sidelines, popping off a shot and ejecting the used flashbulb onto the grass. Retrieving another bulb from his bag, he jammed it into the socket. Flip the film holder, and he was ready for the next shot.

I suppose he was very comfortable shooting Speed Graphics and probably felt that 10 great shots were better than coming back with 180 shots, which then had to be contact printed and inspected with a loupe.

Today, photographers are taking hundreds of shots each day. Everything is documented. Nothing is discarded. Photographers spend hours captioning each photo, which is then electronically cataloged and archived. Some might return years after the original date for some purpose. Most will simply be archived and never used again.

Sim2 · Dec 6, 2014

With regard to "mobility" - perhaps it is easier to "make a hole" for oneself in a crowd with a Graflex rather than a Leica. If you can't get a good view of the incident maybe it doesn't matter how good the equipment is.

Having seen some 5x4's of English cricket (think baseball but slower!) from the '60s and how sharp they were, although they may often have to be cropped massively to get a clean print of the batter, would the equivalent Nikon or Leica 600mm of the day have been better. Debatable I know however, I know which side of the fence I would come down on. Cricket as an example is quite suitable as the access points where pictures can be taken from are pretty much the same distance from the subject then as now, unlike motor racing for instance.

Also, is it not thought that as the format gets smaller the tolerances get less? Not all newspaper or agency darkroom processes were run within close tolerances.

Interesting subject though!

Sirius Glass · Dec 6, 2014

The swing from press cameras to 35mm went through Rolleis and Hasselblads briefly. The big change to 35mm was an unintended side effect of the Viet Nam War. As a result of soldiers returning from Viet Nam, the US was flooded with Nikons, especially the Nikon Fs.

pdeeh · Dec 6, 2014

David Lyga said:
Holdouts are oftentimes fueled by a passion synergized by fear buoyed by a false sense of objectivity.

A rather beautiful summation of the position of many film users in their relationship with digital photography, perhaps especially at APUG.

summicron1 · Dec 6, 2014

inertia is a big factor, as is the cost of changing. If your newspaper has a shelf full of graflexes, the owner may be reluctant to buy you a new box full of those newfangled leicas. The cost of trying to do the constant equipment upgrading necessitated by modern digital technology is a significant factor in making newspapers today fiscally difficult to support.

there are stories of editors insisting that their photogs use speed graphics and the photographers, in a moment of clarity, realizing that the editor only sees the final print, and so taking their personal Leicas on assignment and handing in the result with no problem.

benjiboy · Dec 6, 2014

Most of my cameras were made in the 1980's and have been owned by me since then, they have been professionally service if required and will most probably outlast me. Buying newer equipment is no guarantee of reliability since in recent years the idea of "planned obsolescence" has taken hold of so much of manufacturing industry and the technology moves on so fast that it will be outdated in a very short time so there's no need to build in a way that will last long, Very few if the new cameras produces today will still be around in thirty or forty years most of them will be in the landfill

Truzi · Dec 6, 2014

Not quite what you are talking about, but after my undergrad I worked part-time for a small weekly paper - not a photojournalist, but I occasionally took photos when covering certain things (like grand openings). They had a little consumer-grade auto-everything 35mm point-and-shoot.

I was used to cheaper and more straightforward 35mm P&S cameras. The paper's camera was fine for posed photos, but I missed some shots because it was so hard to turn off the red-eye reduction, and because of the lag between button press and shutter action even when red-eye reduction was off.

Even when 35mm was the norm for newspaper photography, this did not translate into the best decisions.

BradS · Dec 6, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
.... The big change to 35mm was an unintended side effect of the Viet Nam War. As a result of soldiers returning from Viet Nam, the US was flooded with Nikons, especially the Nikon Fs.

and, I think, Pentax Spotmatics.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 6, 2014

David Lyga said:
Holdouts are oftentimes fueled by a passion synergized by fear buoyed by a false sense of objectivity.

By the mid-1930s, 35mm had been proven as a viable contender for high quality photography; unceasing and obdurate demands by Hollywood for greater optics and film integrity assured continuance of that quest. If so, then why was the last newspaper to ditch LF in favor of 35mm not to be witnessed until 1971 (I think in Alaska)?

During the 1950s and early 1960s many, maybe most, newspapers still used 4 X 5. Why? 35mm's added flexibility, speed, both in terms of sensitivity (due to shorter focal lengths allowing more depth of field) and physical mobility seem to be two factors which should have caused (indeed, forced) pre-War newspapers to jump at the unfolding opportunity.

Instead, specious argument after argument posited that much would be lost by using 'less serious' Leicas and Contaxes, as they harbored the lowly, small format. The inherent limits for newsprint to render adequate resolution and contrast should have immediately quashed that misguided theory even though films in that era were not as good as today's emulsions. For newsworthy purposes they were more than adequate.

In retrospect, all of this lack of honest pragmatism and common sense seems, at least to me, to be a bit of a mystery when the facts are so evident. In fact, this very mindset caused me to buy a Minolta Autocord CDS as my first real camera back in 1966 when I was 16. I was 'afraid' of the inferiority of 35. I am wiser now. - David Lyga

I have a friend who builds and restores guideboats and wood-canvas canoes. He once said "If the American Indians had had West System epoxy and fiberglass, that's what they'd have built canoes with".

Theo Sulphate · Dec 6, 2014

elekm said:
One of the staff photographers from a competing paper shot all high school sports with a Speed Graphic - football, basketball, wrestling. I think he also shot all news assignments.

The fellow was a bit of a cliche: Overcoat, hat and cigar, walking the sidelines, popping off a shot and ejecting the used flashbulb onto the grass. Retrieving another bulb from his bag, he jammed it into the socket. Flip the film holder, and he was ready for the next shot.

One thing I've always wondered about: did news photographers store their 4x5 holders in oversize coat pockets or what? Did they use Grafmatics a lot?

mopar_guy · Dec 6, 2014

Theo Sulphate said:
One thing I've always wondered about: did news photographers store their 4x5 holders in oversize coat pockets or what? Did they use Grafmatics a lot?

Newspapers used a lot of Filmpacks. You got 16 shots with about the same size as one double sided sheet film holder.

Arklatexian · Dec 7, 2014

David Lyga said:
Holdouts are oftentimes fueled by a passion synergized by fear buoyed by a false sense of objectivity.

By the mid-1930s, 35mm had been proven as a viable contender for high quality photography; unceasing and obdurate demands by Hollywood for greater optics and film integrity assured continuance of that quest. If so, then why was the last newspaper to ditch LF in favor of 35mm not to be witnessed until 1971 (I think in Alaska)?

During the 1950s and early 1960s many, maybe most, newspapers still used 4 X 5. Why? 35mm's added flexibility, speed, both in terms of sensitivity (due to shorter focal lengths allowing more depth of field) and physical mobility seem to be two factors which should have caused (indeed, forced) pre-War newspapers to jump at the unfolding opportunity.

Instead, specious argument after argument posited that much would be lost by using 'less serious' Leicas and Contaxes, as they harbored the lowly, small format. The inherent limits for newsprint to render adequate resolution and contrast should have immediately quashed that misguided theory even though films in that era were not as good as today's emulsions. For newsworthy purposes they were more than adequate.

In retrospect, all of this lack of honest pragmatism and common sense seems, at least to me, to be a bit of a mystery when the facts are so evident. In fact, this very mindset caused me to buy a Minolta Autocord CDS as my first real camera back in 1966 when I was 16. I was 'afraid' of the inferiority of 35. I am wiser now. - David Lyga

Don't overlook the subjects that those newspaper photographers photographed. I have heard more than one person make the statement back in the 60s and 70s that they felt the use of the big cameras denoted a more serious photographer. It was the amateurs who taught the professionals how to use medium format and 35mm, not the other way around........Regards

250swb · Dec 7, 2014

David Lyga said:
In retrospect, all of this lack of honest pragmatism and common sense seems, at least to me, to be a bit of a mystery when the facts are so evident.

I think your facts are clouded in the romanticism of HCB and the black frame around the image.

Common sense was that a large negative could be cropped many ways to fit the front page and still maintain a reasonable reproduction quality. Newspapers have never been a place for photographers who carefully composed an image and expected it to be printed exactly that way. It was the higher quality (and cheaper) lenses and cameras that became available in the 60's that brought forward 35mm, but even so the images were cropped to fit the space. Now look at modern reproductions of Weegee's large format images and you see the composition is 'somewhere within the frame', not at the edges of the frame. This was intentional to allow for cropping, not an artistic affectation or an accident.

I think your are looking at the history of cameras rather than looking at the history of photography, a subtle difference sometimes, but the crux of the matter here.

Steve

mdarnton · Dec 7, 2014

I suspect most of the inertia was external. I remember magazines that wouldn't take 35mm, and often when I would show up with a small camera my contacts would directly question my choice of camera. I once shot an ad for a newspaper--the interior of a hardware store or something similar, with my Olympus XA, and the store owner called the editor to complain that the ed hadn't sent his real photographer. It's much the same as now, where, believe it or not, I still get demands for photos "at 300dpi", as if that was some indicator of quality below which they couldn't possibly accept, when really a 300dpi specification is totally irrelevant to quality ("How big of an image do you need?" "300dpi." "Yes, but how BIG?" ) It's still as hopeless as it was in 2001. But 300 is a really big number, isn't it!

The studio I started in, he shot everything with an 8x10 Agfa-Ansco view. The customers never knew that on the back he was shooting split 5x7 (that is, 3-1/2x5) and he didn't want them to know. He shot weddings on 4x5 film packs, but later, around 1975, switched to roll film and color (!). He did it, however, by fitting a roll back to his 4x5 press camera, and a 90mm lens on the front. He said that way they still thought they were getting a real photographer. When I started shooting weddings, I bought a Century Graphic, on the same principle--it looked really cool, and was much more impressive than a Rollei or Mamiya, for instance. Customers were happy.

250SWB--Your hostility at our attempting to be skillful in what we do and get it right in the initial vision and execution rather than try to bail out incompetence in the darkroom is amusing.

Paul Howell · Dec 7, 2014

A driving force in the move to smaller formats, 4X5 to MF then 35mm and to digital is cost, 35mm is lot cheaper to buy and process, than 4X5 or MF. Digital is even cheaper. Another factor is that editors liked getting 36 shots to chose from rather than 1 or 2, or even 12 from a roll of MF. With modern cameras the editor may get 100s of shots.

250swb · Dec 7, 2014

mdarnton said:
250SWB--Your hostility at our attempting to be skillful in what we do and get it right in the initial vision and execution rather than try to bail out incompetence in the darkroom is amusing.

'Our'? Your condescending amusement perhaps illustrates working in other aspects of the media, but not in the realm of the threads topic.

I was a Press photographer working freelance for the British nationals, and I can tell you it doesn't matter what sort of skill the photographer puts into a picture, it is rare day when an un-cropped picture gets onto a front page. I also think you have a quaint idea that the Picture Editor's job is just to sit with his feet on the desk. In the real world of journalism after the picture comes out of the darkroom perfectly presented it is out of the photographers hands what then happens to it. So not hostility, reality.

Steve

mdarnton · Dec 7, 2014

All I have to say is that if you put HCB and Weegee in the same package, you're missing something about HCB.

analoguey · Dec 7, 2014

PDH said:
A driving force in the move to smaller formats, 4X5 to MF then 35mm and to digital is cost, 35mm is lot cheaper to buy and process, than 4X5 or MF. Digital is even cheaper. Another factor is that editors liked getting 36 shots to chose from rather than 1 or 2, or even 12 from a roll of MF. With modern cameras the editor may get 100s of shots.

The picture editor has time to sift through hundreds of images each with tens of topics being available?
Or is it just a way of making the photographer a technician instead of an 'artist' or journalist?

250swb · Dec 7, 2014

mdarnton said:
All I have to say is that if you put HCB and Weegee in the same package, you're missing something about HCB.

So are you, he wasn't primarily a newspaper photographer, but his influence spread wide and his style became synonymous with the photojournalist, but not the news hound type that Weegee was. They work in different ways, yet it is the Bresson style that people always think of as photojournalism without understanding there is a whole industry aimed at getting a picture on a front page instead of fannying around looking for the decisive moment. And it is that misunderstanding that causes people to wonder things like 'why did it take so long for 35mm to become so popular in the press?'.

Steve

Sim2 · Dec 7, 2014

PDH said:
A driving force in the move to smaller formats, 4X5 to MF then 35mm and to digital is cost, 35mm is lot cheaper to buy and process, than 4X5 or MF. Digital is even cheaper. Another factor is that editors liked getting 36 shots to chose from rather than 1 or 2, or even 12 from a roll of MF. With modern cameras the editor may get 100s of shots.

Cost may be a driving force for the amateur but the cost differential between 5x4 and 35mm would have been negligible for a newspaper esp as the fixed cost of the 5x4 camera and process/print mechanism was already accounted for whereas the shift to 35mm would have required capital investment. The variable costs may well be similar as probably more film would be shot with 35mm than 5x4.

I don't think that the nature of UK newspapers and print industry, at the time, should be underestimated. They operated under a very closed shop where the guys making the decisions may well have been there for 20-30 years, man and boy, and probably if it "works" then don't fix it! To get into the closed shop one needed the support of those already there and they may be less likely to have supported a new guy with a tiny Leica threatening to overturn what they knew than the new guy prepared to work with the Graflex, or other. UK newspapers were very conservative (small c) establishments right up until Wapping.

I don't think the editors want 2, 3 or 100 shots to choose from, they just want the one that tells the story and fits the available space - looking at all the others may be because the initial pic no longer fits or confirming the decision. And best not to talk about the cost of digital...

JimCee · Dec 7, 2014

I think the transition of journalist photography from the 4x5 "Press Camera" and medium format cameras to 35mm cameras like the Leica, Nikon and Canon was based on additional factors besides the acceptable quality of the 35mm film format for newsprint publication. Certainly the advent of motordrive 35mm cameras, especially the Nikon F (but including the Leica and Canon 35mm cameras) would have been very influential in their acceptance.

In addition, the wide availability of accessory lenses of various focal lengths was certainly a factor. Finally, the smaller size of a 35mm camera, which permitted the photographer to carry a complete outfit with lenses, additional camera bodies and different film types certainly made the 35mm camera preferential to the bulky "press cameras" previously used.

Jim

ciniframe · Dec 7, 2014

Ah forget full frame 35mm, too big. If you are going to shoot a postage stamp negative go all the way and shoot half frame. Got my slim little 'no prism hump' Pen F and 4 lenses, 20/25/38/100 and all of it fits in a small bag with room for extra film (you don't need much) and a Gossen Pilot.

PS: I also have OM and M42 mount adapters for longer lenses if needed.

dynachrome · Dec 7, 2014

I must have been about 16 when I got my first medium format camera. It was a Yashica Mat 124G. I started out using mostly Verichrome Pan because it was the least expensive 120 film you could find, with the possible exception of some ORWO stuff from Freestyle. If you exposed the VP properly you could enlarge it as much as you liked. I shot for my college newspaper and illustrated the course guide one year. Most shots were done with a Konica SLR but some were shot with the Yashica. I think there was an Arizona highway magazine which required large format film years after 1971. If the film had been better the change to 35mm would probably have happened sooner than it did. My Minolta Autocord is a non-metered model. I go it in 1979 when I was tired of repairing the Yashica. The photographer for my grade school used a 4X5 camera for the 8th Grade graduation photos. While he was arranging the students some parents would sneak a few shots with their Instamatics. The photographer politely tolerated them. Six years after I graduated the younger of my two brothers graduated. I showed up with a Koni-Omega with a 58/5.6 and a Metz 403 flash. The photographer was not amused.

Journalism's divisive ride to '35'

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency