Pentax digital DSLR K-x Camera, and Pentax 35 mm ZX-M film camera below. The K-x has a Vivitar 200 mm zoom lens afixed to it, which was originally for a Pentax M-X 35 mm film camera. It's stock zoom lens is next to it.
I really like cameras. Anyone who has looked around any of my blogs knows that. Our Holscher's Hub blog is pretty much nothing other than photographs, with rare exception. And we have dedicated blogs to photographic topics alone.
Churches of the West is a blog that we do just based on photos of churches we run into traveling about.
Courthouses of the West does the same for courthouses.
Painted Bricks was our very first blog, and it was originally dedicated solely to the painted sides of Casper Wyoming buildings, although it has since branched out to include buildings that interest us that way anywhere.
Railhead addresses solely things associated with railroads, a blog I started as I thought the old station in Newcastle Wyoming was interesting.
Some Gave All features mostly war memorials, although a few other memorials are also included.
So, we clearly like to take photos. And, while we make no pretensions to being the greatest photographers of all time, or any time, or anywhere, we like cameras a lot too.
Cameras are something that I like and use all the time that have undergone a stunning change in recent years. I suppose they've been continually evolving for a long time, but I didn't really appreciate it until the digital camera evolution.
I learned to take photographs in a junior high school class with a 35 mm Argus C3 camera. This model of camera was amazingly common, and we had one at home from my father's youth. It says something that a camera my father had before he went into the Air Force was still a basic introductory camera later. It says even more when you realize that the C3 was a camera that was introduced in 1939. The camera itself was made into the 1950s, but it kept on being used as an introductory film camera for at least twenty years thereafter.
Argus C3.
Soon thereafter I went to a Pentax M-V 35mm SLR camera. I knew very well that "single lens reflex" cameras were superior to rangefinder cameras, and my father usually shot film with a Zeiss Contaflex SLR that he obtained while in the USAF. I always thought that camera a super camera, but it really wasn't as user friendly as the Pentax. In that era, Pentax cameras were everywhere, and my introduction to them was really accidental as my father got me the camera as a gift. It was an entry level SLR, but it was such a good camera that it held its own for about 20 years until it was damaged when I forgot that it was on the gun wall of my pickup truck and drove off. It still works, but it has never been quite the same thereafter.
The M-V featured an automatic light sensor, which was a really nice addition to the camera as opposed to the C-3 or Contaflex. With those older cameras, you needed a light meter to really set the camera accurately, although my father was so good with the Contaflex that he often didn't bother with the light meter, as he knew the light ranges and camera settings by heart. I'd learned how to use a light meter in school, but I frankly forgot how pretty quickly once I had the M-V, as I really didn't need it. Otherwise, however, with the M-V the photographer set the lens settings manually. The camera came with a stock 50mm lens, but as Pentax's used, and still use, the revolutionary Pentax bayonet mount, switching to another lens just took (and takes) seconds to accomplish. With screw mounts on other cameras the process was much more cumbersome.
My wife replaced that camera after I damaged it with a second Pentax 35mm film camera, a newer Pentax ZX-M with many automatic features. Sticking with Pentax was important to me as I had a really nice Vivitar telephoto lens for the first Pentax, and of course one lens will fit any other with the same mount. That camera also came with a really nice telephoto lens of its own. And the new automatic settings were shockingly automatic, as it chose nearly ever setting, and focused, all on is own unless a person chose manual settings, which you could do. I loved the camera (and I still like it). However, soon thereafter the digital revolution was upon us.
Digital cameras came into our house with a compact Canon that my wife wanted. While only a compact camera, it was soon doing yeoman's work as a camera and being used for more photos than anything else. Soon I found myself borrowing it, where formally I would have taken by Pentax 35mm. That old Canon compact digital camera is now fairly long in the tooth, but I still carry it with me on trips. As its compact, and still works, I can pack it easily while traveling for work, and I very frequently do. As it doesn't work perfectly anymore, however, we've replaced it for my wife with a Canon SX-230 compact, which for a compact camera is an absolutely super camera. I'd prefer a Pentax compact as they make a nice all weather one (which may be flagged under the Ricoh name now) but the Canon SX-230 is a heck of a compact camera.
Well, anyhow, because of the first Canon, I finally yielded to a digital camera, but only because Pentax introduced its digital DSLR.
It seems that everywhere you go, of course, you see Canons, which have managed to take over the SLR world now that digital cameras dominate. But Pentax's are unique in a couple of ways and retain my loyalty, in spite of the massive decline in their market share in the US. For one thing, Pentax's will still take the old lens.
That's right. Unlike a Canon, I can still mount my old telephoto lens. Indeed, any Pentax digital SLR will take any lens made for a Pentax bayonet mount. Any. And they all work with them.
You do have to know how to use them on a digital camera.. If they're really old, with no internal automatic features, you have to set the camera and camera lens setting to manual, and know how to set the lens settings. But you had to do the same thing with the lens of that vintage on the 35mms of that era, you just do it differently. They will, however, work. The one throwback to the old era, if you do that, that you must adjust to is that you theoretically are back to the era in which you had to use a light meter, and I have downloaded a light meter on my cell phone that takes care of that. Having said that, to my surprise, like my father, I've gotten to where I really don't use the light meter much, as you pretty much have the settings memorized anyhow.
Cow elk, photograph taken with a Vivitar 200mm lens on a Pentax K-x DSLR. This lens was made in an era when nobody even dreamed of a digital camera and the elk was so far off it was barely visible without the lens.
When using a later film lens, such as the 80mm zoom lens my second Pentax film camera came with, you can use more of the automatic settings but you have to focus the lens manually, which is no big deal.
Indoor photograph with a 80mm zoom lens, taken without flash, with a Pentax K-x digital camera. The lens was made for a late Pentax 35mm film SLR.
Of course, with the fully automatic lens it came with, and a really good film card, it takes spectacular photographs.
Haleakalā, Maui, Hawaii. Pentax K-x with standard lens.
A second feature of the Pentax is that its an all weather camera. That's a big plus to an outdoor photographer. They're as tough as nails and they don't care about rain or snow. This isn't true of every DSLR. That matters to me.
Having a really good photo card turns out to be a must, as at first I was actually a bit disappointed with the quality of the photos the camera took at first, with a standard computer card. My son repeatedly told me to get a better card, and when I finally did, I was stunned. The colors are so vivid, it reminds me of the reaction people had to Kodachrome in that they may be more vivid than real life.
Lions, photographed through glass, at the Denver Zoo. Shoot, this was sort of late winter, early spring. Were the colors really that vivid?
Kodacolor 35 mm slide photograph of Wake Island, from about 1954 or so, taken with a Zeiss. Vivid images, but you were limited to a roll of about 24 photos.
But I can live with that.
But what a change in photograph this revolution has brought. For one thing, the former need to load film every 24 or 35 shots is gone. That's was a stunning development at first, and for a long time about every 24 shots it would dawn on me. Indeed, I've had one singular occasion when I nearly filled up the photo card, but on that occasion I'd taken hundreds and hundreds of photographs over a period of days, including some video images. I bought a second card, but I never loaded it. I have no idea how many photos I actually had, but it was a pile of photos.
A byproduct, of that, is that you can take a lot of bad photos. That may sound odd, but with film, you really picked your shots. You took a lot fewer photos, but you made sure they counted. I've found that my photographic skills have actually declined somewhat since I started shooting digital, because I can waste shots. I've recently undertake to address that, but it's hard to avoid in some ways.
Something that is increasingly hard for users of digital cameras to appreciate is that all film cameras, good or bad, were slaves of film and therefore of film development. Generally, with a 35mm camera, you took about 24 shots and then loaded a new role of film. At that point, you had two options, those being to have the film developed (by far the most common option) or to develop it yourself, if you had the equipment.
When I was learning how to use a 35mm camera I also learned how to develop black and white film, which isn't all that hard. Still, it wasn't instant. Developing film involved unloading the film, in a dark room, into a developing canister and filling the canister with developing solution. After the solution was in the canister for the appropriate amount of time, you washed the film with distilled water, took it out of the canister, and let it dry. Thereafter you put the negatives in a devise that was essentially a projector and projected the image onto photo paper, which was essentially another type of film. You then washed that image in another solution, and hung it to dry.
Depending upon how skilled a person was at this, there was actually a lot that could be done to the film in the developing stage. Beyond that, there was a lot that could be done at the point where you printed an image onto the paper, including choosing different types of paper. All this went into deciding what sort of image you would ultimately produce.
Of course, part of what determined what sort of image you produced depended upon what sort of film you had chosen, which also varied. Not only was there a choice between black and white, but between different grades of light sensitivity of the film. Generally, the less light sensitive it was, the "grainer" it was. The finer the grain, the more light sensitive. With black and white film, you could go all the way down to 60 ASA, fairly easily, which was a film that was not very light sensitive and good for any brightness, although fairly rarely used. 100 ASA was more common. For mixed indoor and outdoor, 400 ASA was common, but not anything much higher than that. Once you got up to high ASA film, like 600 or 1000 ASA, you were probably limiting yourself to indoor photography.
Something that is increasingly hard for users of digital cameras to appreciate is that all film cameras, good or bad, were slaves of film and therefore of film development. Generally, with a 35mm camera, you took about 24 shots and then loaded a new role of film. At that point, you had two options, those being to have the film developed (by far the most common option) or to develop it yourself, if you had the equipment.
When I was learning how to use a 35mm camera I also learned how to develop black and white film, which isn't all that hard. Still, it wasn't instant. Developing film involved unloading the film, in a dark room, into a developing canister and filling the canister with developing solution. After the solution was in the canister for the appropriate amount of time, you washed the film with distilled water, took it out of the canister, and let it dry. Thereafter you put the negatives in a devise that was essentially a projector and projected the image onto photo paper, which was essentially another type of film. You then washed that image in another solution, and hung it to dry.
Depending upon how skilled a person was at this, there was actually a lot that could be done to the film in the developing stage. Beyond that, there was a lot that could be done at the point where you printed an image onto the paper, including choosing different types of paper. All this went into deciding what sort of image you would ultimately produce.
Of course, part of what determined what sort of image you produced depended upon what sort of film you had chosen, which also varied. Not only was there a choice between black and white, but between different grades of light sensitivity of the film. Generally, the less light sensitive it was, the "grainer" it was. The finer the grain, the more light sensitive. With black and white film, you could go all the way down to 60 ASA, fairly easily, which was a film that was not very light sensitive and good for any brightness, although fairly rarely used. 100 ASA was more common. For mixed indoor and outdoor, 400 ASA was common, but not anything much higher than that. Once you got up to high ASA film, like 600 or 1000 ASA, you were probably limiting yourself to indoor photography.
Photograph of NCHS football player, 1980 Oil Bowl, probably taken with 300 ASA film and developed and printed by author.
This described the process for black and white film. For color film, which I've never developed myself, the process was similar, if somewhat more complicated.
Most people didn't develop their own film of course, they took it to a place that developed film. When I was young, this meant that the film here was shipped to Denver and came back in about a week. Later, we had a selection of one hour film developers. Knowing how film was developed, the one hour concept always bothered me a bit, but generally it was pretty good. Later, places like Walmart and Walgreen's had developing centers, and at least here the Walgreen's still does. Still, unlike digital photography, you ended up with a set of prints or slides. Now, in contrast, you can view your images instantly, but you still can't handle them instantly. If you are going to handle them, you still have to print them somehow.
This all presumes, of course, that you weren't shooting a Polaroid Land Camera. Polaroids dispensed with the film developing step by using a special sort of photo paper that was loaded directly into the camera, and which only took a few minutes to develop after the photo was taken, and the paper removed from the camera. The process changed over the years, but for many years the photographer held the paper tight between a couple of steel plates for a few minutes and then the photo was ready to view. This allowed the photo to be viewed immediately, but the process sacrificed quality for speed. Now, I know that some will maintain that some really fine photos could be taken with a Polaroid, and while I know doubt would agree that a few eccentric people probably developed the talent for taking really nice photos with Polaroids, they'd be a distinct minority as the camera was really marketed for snap shots, which was generally fine with the user. Probably more home photos and photos of children were taken with Polaroids then anything else. Sadly, the Polaroid photo tends to fade very rapidly, so many of those photos are fading away. My mother had a Polaroid camera for many years.
Another aspect of the digital revolution is that now digital cameras are simply everywhere, including in our phones. Some of them take amazingly good photos, and they're all capable of taking some good photos. I was very skeptical of this at first, and indeed, didn't want to believe it, but its true, to a degree. This means that everything is getting photographed all the time, and quite a few things are getting photographed that shouldn't, and a lot of really bad photography is going on all the time. In some ways, things are a bit over familiar.
Included in this, in my view, is a trend to video every single deposition that a party takes, which some lawyers now do. I haven't really addressed video cameras here, as I like still frame cameras better, but the distinction between the two is blurred now as most "photograph" cameras will not take video, and probably most video cameras will take photos, should the user be so inclined. Anyhow, some lawyers, principally plaintiff's lawyers, now video every single deposition they take. The usability of such videos in courts is questionable, if that's the goal, and presumably it really isn't. It's probably a trial preparation tool, really, but a questionable one in my view as most witnesses do not really present the same way in front of a judge or jury as they do in a courtroom setting. Anyhow, the smallest of these cameras are now so small, they have the appearance of cell phones.
Anyhow, what a change in photography. Early in the 20th Century professional cameras were massive affairs, but the Brownie camera, an amateur, low cost, film camera had come in.
There were a wide variety of 35 mm cameras by the 1920s, and popular personal photograph got an enormous boost with the 1939 introduction of the Argus C3. Through the lens reflex cameras made their appearance in the 1920s, but it wasn't until 1949 that the prismatic SLR was introduced, sparking a revolution amongst photography enthusiasts. Nearly every serious camera maker soon introduced one, and they dominated in the serious photography market until the end of the film era. My father bought a really good SLR Zeiss camera while serving in the Air Force, and the camea was so good that he used it hte rest of his life.
Digital photography seemed likely to put a big dent in SLR cameras, and it did at first, but now they've revived, particularly in the form of Canon cameras in the US. But most of the old SLR manufacturers, save for Zeiss and Leica, which dropped out of the SLR market, still make one, and a couple of makers have entered the field who did not make film cameras. But, just as I suppose more photos were taken with Kodak disposable and compact 35mms back in the day, more now are probably taken by cell phones.
Still, what a revolution in photography, even if things remain familiar.
Originally published on June 17, 2014.Anyhow, what a change in photography. Early in the 20th Century professional cameras were massive affairs, but the Brownie camera, an amateur, low cost, film camera had come in.
Serious professional camera, early 20th Century.
Zeiss Contraflex.
Lens barrel for Contrafex, which fixed the existing lens on an extension for a telephoto effect. I never actually saw this in use, and it does strike me as difficult to use.
My father also had a Yashica 120 mm camera. These cameras used big film for a finer detailed photograph, much the way "full frame" digital cameras due today (while most people don't use full frame digital cameras, the lack of one is a source of ongoing angst for Pentax fans, as Pentax does not make a full frame DSLR, just their regular DSLR). It was a nice, if cumbersome, camera and my father used it less over the years, probably due to that. And film became very difficult to obtain.
Yashicaflex with lens caps on and viewer closed.
Viewer cover opened.
Top of camera, with viewer opened. You viewed the object through the top of the camera and saw the image reversed.
Digital photography seemed likely to put a big dent in SLR cameras, and it did at first, but now they've revived, particularly in the form of Canon cameras in the US. But most of the old SLR manufacturers, save for Zeiss and Leica, which dropped out of the SLR market, still make one, and a couple of makers have entered the field who did not make film cameras. But, just as I suppose more photos were taken with Kodak disposable and compact 35mms back in the day, more now are probably taken by cell phones.
Still, what a revolution in photography, even if things remain familiar.
Updated on June 18, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment