That’s funny! There was a kid in my high school photo class that used a Hasselblad. I was very envious (as was everyone else). It was on loan from his granddad- who was... in fact, a dentist.Why always dentists? What is the deep seeded hate of dentist on this website? I never knew a dentist that was also a photographer, let alone one that owned a Hasselblad.
You're a rabid anti-dentite!Your neighbor is a dentist.
My Crown Graphic is lighter than my DSLR setup. I have a bad left wrist and though using the Crown would be an issue. It's fine, I use it as a rangefinder and it's a joy to carry around. No-one calls the police on someone with a Graflex
I think so. Maybe a doctor although they usually buy Leicas.Your neighbor is a dentist.
My Crown Graphic is lighter than my DSLR setup. I have a bad left wrist and though using the Crown would be an issue. It's fine, I use it as a rangefinder and it's a joy to carry around. No-one calls the police on someone with a Graflex
They were all sent to America and sold to dentists.Over here I never heard of this dentist story. Actually in the 70's I only twice came across a photographer using a Hasselblad.
I think so. Maybe a doctor although they usually buy Leicas.
Most dentists I knew who had cameras bought Nikons with those macro lenses and circular flash strobes. They used them for taking pictures of your teeth.
The story of photography has been manufacturers offering us less film for more money. Families that started out with pictures taken on 6 x 9 box cameras, ended up with shots taken on 110 film.
If you can convince consumers that a fixed aperture, shutter speed and focused lens means the camera is "fully automatic", it's certainly good for company profits. Vintage camera advertisements aimed at the mass market sell technical deficiencies as benefits.But they all eagerly exchanged their 6x9 box cameras for 110 cameras
Are you sure they bought Nikons? I understand these were far more popular among dentists: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Yashica_Dental_Eye but then again their use was limited since the lens was fixed.
You might well be right, but do you have actual numbers to back that up?The large 6x9 box cameras were enjoyed and used by a tiny fraction of the number of people who enjoyed and used 126 and 110 and disc cameras.
And the users of the 6x9 box cameras tended to use them a lot less than the users of 126 and 110 and disc cameras - film and processing was much cheaper and often more accessible for the small camera users.
The quality differences that we observe between the formats were rarely noticed by the users of those simple cameras. Those who might notice them tended to migrate either to high end versions of the cameras that used those formats (think the Instamatic Reflex) or to different formats.
But most importantly to the subject of this thread, the role of the camera has changed now. It used to be the only way you recorded memories (other than journals and sound recorders), and the act of recording those memories was relatively infrequent, somewhat expensive, and at least slightly inconvenient. All of which made it at least a little bit special.
With cel phones and the internet, the act of recording a memory has lost almost all of its character as something "special".
If people no longer consider taking a photograph as something special, the simple cameras they used tend to end up in the trash.
A triplet certainly benefits from stopping down.How come you speak of a primitive lens? For instance except for one or two models all by Agfa had at least a Cooke triplet, the top models a Tessar type. And these cameras must have had a vast share amongst all type 110 cameras, just looking at the used market.
Maybe it is that digital or the phones now can produce decent quality photos with so much ease and they can spend more family time and they are not specifically into either that digital or that film approach but any approach that suffices? Maybe it is just so hard to give that up. My barber used to have darkroom in his place and he developed BW and E6 film as well as Process 41 not C41 he said he ha to shine a 200W bulb at the film. He also now just use digital with his Olympus gear the larger one not the current OMDs but he uses his older Olympus lenses. He still has his Minolta film scanner which he has been digitising his film.
Why always dentists? What is the deep seeded hate of dentist on this website? I never knew a dentist that was also a photographer, let alone one that owned a Hasselblad.
All the camera went to KEH which gave me lots of choices.
You're a rabid anti-dentite!
Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs. "Hey, denty!” Next thing you know you're saying they should have their own schools.
I think so. Maybe a doctor although they usually buy Leicas.
I don't think total usage numbers have ever been publicly known.You might well be right, but do you have actual numbers to back that up?
I don't think total usage numbers have ever been publicly known.
But I was indirectly involved in the photo-finishing industry during my younger years - my father was the Customer Service manager at the Western Canada Kodak lab and was the person responsible there for interactions with a large number of Kodak dealers throughout western Canada who sent customer film to that lab.
The amount of customer film - movies and slides mainly - that went through that lab between 1961 and 1983 was absolutely huge. But that amount was eventually dwarfed by the amount of print film that went to mini-labs instead.
When I started working in retail camera stores, 35mm was popular, but the people who used snapshot cameras had no end of trouble with loading and rewinding film. The 126 format was incredibly popular, and 110 thereafter was in many ways more popular. Almost none of those people were willing to struggle with larger roll film cameras.
Larger film sizes are wonderful - particularly with modern films. But the mass market has never been focused mostly on image quality. It has been focused on flexibility, ease of use, speed of results and economy.
Even in the days when volumes were huge, customers were incredibly price sensitive. One of the camera counters I worked at was at a large department store. From time to time we would have sales on our photofinishing services, which were already very competitively priced (and frankly of middling quality). People would save up their films and only put them in for development when we had a sale on.
At the same time that was happening, the really high quality lab I was using was doing great work with the 120 Vericolour I was sending them, and giving me fast, pro quality results at excellent prices.
The volumes that supported most of the industry were in those 126, 110 and 135 films that snap shot amateurs were using and we were sending off for them (overnight service) for middling quality photo-finishing.
The really good quality stuff had good volumes too, but they were small in comparison.
FWIW, I've got my Dad's 110 Kodachromes and, when projected using the 110 projector, are quite nice.
“You press the button, We do the rest” was meant very literally.I don't think total usage numbers have ever been publicly known.
But I was indirectly involved in the photo-finishing industry during my younger years - my father was the Customer Service manager at the Western Canada Kodak lab and was the person responsible there for interactions with a large number of Kodak dealers throughout western Canada who sent customer film to that lab.
The amount of customer film - movies and slides mainly - that went through that lab between 1961 and 1983 was absolutely huge. But that amount was eventually dwarfed by the amount of print film that went to mini-labs instead.
When I started working in retail camera stores, 35mm was popular, but the people who used snapshot cameras had no end of trouble with loading and rewinding film. The 126 format was incredibly popular, and 110 thereafter was in many ways more popular. Almost none of those people were willing to struggle with larger roll film cameras.
Larger film sizes are wonderful - particularly with modern films. But the mass market has never been focused mostly on image quality. It has been focused on flexibility, ease of use, speed of results and economy.
Even in the days when volumes were huge, customers were incredibly price sensitive. One of the camera counters I worked at was at a large department store. From time to time we would have sales on our photofinishing services, which were already very competitively priced (and frankly of middling quality). People would save up their films and only put them in for development when we had a sale on.
At the same time that was happening, the really high quality lab I was using was doing great work with the 120 Vericolour I was sending them, and giving me fast, pro quality results at excellent prices.
The volumes that supported most of the industry were in those 126, 110 and 135 films that snap shot amateurs were using and we were sending off for them (overnight service) for middling quality photo-finishing.
The really good quality stuff had good volumes too, but they were small in comparison.
FWIW, I've got my Dad's 110 Kodachromes and, when projected using the 110 projector, are quite nice.
I don't think total usage numbers have ever been publicly known.
But I was indirectly involved in the photo-finishing industry during my younger years - my father was the Customer Service manager at the Western Canada Kodak lab and was the person responsible there for interactions with a large number of Kodak dealers throughout western Canada who sent customer film to that lab.
The amount of customer film - movies and slides mainly - that went through that lab between 1961 and 1983 was absolutely huge. But that amount was eventually dwarfed by the amount of print film that went to mini-labs instead.
When I started working in retail camera stores, 35mm was popular, but the people who used snapshot cameras had no end of trouble with loading and rewinding film. The 126 format was incredibly popular, and 110 thereafter was in many ways more popular. Almost none of those people were willing to struggle with larger roll film cameras.
Larger film sizes are wonderful - particularly with modern films. But the mass market has never been focused mostly on image quality. It has been focused on flexibility, ease of use, speed of results and economy.
Even in the days when volumes were huge, customers were incredibly price sensitive. One of the camera counters I worked at was at a large department store. From time to time we would have sales on our photofinishing services, which were already very competitively priced (and frankly of middling quality). People would save up their films and only put them in for development when we had a sale on.
At the same time that was happening, the really high quality lab I was using was doing great work with the 120 Vericolour I was sending them, and giving me fast, pro quality results at excellent prices. 5
The volumes that supported most of the industry were in those 126, 110 and 135 films that snap shot amateurs were using and we were sending off for them (overnight service) for middling quality photo-finishing.
The really good quality stuff had good volumes too, but they were small in comparison.
FWIW, I've got my Dad's 110 Kodachromes and, when projected using the 110 projector, are quite nice.
While in college I worked at camera stores in the Washington DC area in the '60s. I would show and explain a camera to a customer and if the final price was $5 too high they would leave and drive across the metropolitan area to save money [ignoring the cost of driving].
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?