Gadgets or Image - which is more important to us?

Phil V said:
Sadly I’m a bit anal:
I’m constantly frustrated that posts aren’t correctly ‘categorised’ :police: I report images posted in discussion sections, but beyond that I just have to live with the sloppy posting habits of others.
Click to expand...

Yep, and we thank you for that Phil... sadly, the 3-4 staff that are around don't always have time to browse through every bit of the forum for mis-postings.
 
Mr Badger said:
I thought 120 became the most popular size from around the 1930s, with 127 beginning to fizzle out from then onwards? I still have an old Agfa folding camera which used 116 (a larger version of 120 roll film), which apparently could still be bought until the early 1980s. Shame as I'd always fancied trying that camera and 116 film for sheer negative size (2 1/2 inch x 4 1/4 inch) alone. I know I could get a converter kit for it to use 120, but it was the size of the negative I wanted to see.
Click to expand...

The 20's and 30's was a time of massive change and progress. Though It would be hard to celebrate any format as the most popular.
Keen amateurs were still mainly using Glass plate. but probably had one of the latest film cameras for family snaps.
Since 1914, and the advent of the Leica, some fashion leaders had taken up the use of this highly expensive novelty, but it had yet to find serious use among many "Real" photographers. The progress towards 35 mm was steady, rather than spectacular, through the 30's and 40's. In the mid 50's we were still not allowed to use 35mm at my photographic college. Though one of our class had a Leica. The Rollieflex ruled the professional film world, with the Hasselblad closing up fast.
 
The 8x10" format actually had a crop factor of at least 2 :D
It really is difficult to talk about a true fullframe in the plate camera and sheet film Era. First there were no means of enlarging so photos was taken with a format matching the size of the end product. Some of the widely used formats were also way bigger than 8x10" though Theis format has become the best compromise between real-estate, image quality and size and handling of the camera and sheets
 
soeren said:
The 8x10" format actually had a crop factor of at least 2 :D
It really is difficult to talk about a true fullframe in the plate camera and sheet film Era. First there were no means of enlarging so photos was taken with a format matching the size of the end product. Some of the widely used formats were also way bigger than 8x10" though Theis format has become the best compromise between real-estate, image quality and size and handling of the camera and sheets
Click to expand...

Enlargers for plates were plentiful. I have owned two that could cope with 10x8.
It is true that sizes over 10x8 was more difficult But a modified horizontal Graphics camera could cope with negatives up to 30x40.
In the early days Portraits were usually taken in the print size required by the customer. This made pencil retouching of the negative far easier.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Enlargers for plates were plentiful. I have owned two that could cope with 10x8.
It is true that sizes over 10x8 was more difficult But a modified horizontal Graphics camera could cope with negatives up to 30x40.
In the early days Portraits were usually taken in the print size required by the customer. This made pencil retouching of the negative far easier.
Click to expand...
The early positive materials were uv sensitive and not sensitive to white light as we knew it later. The only way of reproduction was contact copying
 
Fraser Euan White said:
This question is more for the enthusiast than the pro as i full understand why a feature on a new release of camera may make their job and 'keeper rate' much better
Click to expand...

It's really not only a pro vs enthusiast thing. I sometimes suspect that the average pro can't actually afford the latest gear (even if they wanted it....), whereas an enthusiast who may have just retired and be on a big pension may have more money than they know what to do with, and can afford all the latest gear. That is my observation in the bird photography world anyway.

Bythesea said:
Got to be the image. Without that why bother even owning a camera?
Click to expand...

Some people, it is quite clear, prefer the ins and outs of choosing, discussing and learning to use new kit, and the images, I fear, come second......

Raymond Lin said:
suit
Click to expand...

A what.......;):eek::thinking:
 
35mm was pretty much considered "miniature" or sub-miniature until relatively recently - press photography was on 5x4 until the mid-60's when film manufacturing technology improved enough that 120 6cmx6cm was good enough for publication - then eventually 35mm gained acceptance for more demanding stuff - though it;d previously been useful in niche applications like war reportage photography where the subminiature format had logistical advantages.

so, from the 1887 to 1960's the larger formats ruled the roost, then maybe 1965-1995 until the launch of the first generation pro digitals was 35mm's time at the top.

as you say Jeremy, the full/crop frame description has come in with digital...
 
ian-83 said:
I've come to the decision that as an amateur/enthusiast with no earnings coming from photography if one wishes to either invest in the latest gear or swap systems and indulge some money into there hobby why should anyone say otherwise. Got to treat yourself sometimes.
Click to expand...
That's fine, as long as one bears in mind that it's consumerism, not photography, at that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top