Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Those are large format images, which sure makes a big difference. It's actually a reminder of how far we've come, because we can produce images of similar technical quality with cameras that are vastly smaller and significantly less expensive.

+1! I didn't shoot 8x10 back in the 70's because I liked the weight of the kit or the cost of each frame.

RBM Photo wrote:
The photos all come from Shorpy.com, I've been following Shorpy for years and it is a wonderful resource for vintage photography.

They come from the Library of Congress

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I'd also like to see how many of those shots didn't turn out or weren't as great, as well as some of the printing that went on to create the image we see.

Since the images were shot on Kodachrome, would there have been prints?  If you were shooting a transparency, wouldn't you have to get everything you want with a single click?

aquarelle wrote:

Since the images were shot on Kodachrome, would there have been prints?  If you were shooting a transparency, wouldn't you have to get everything you want with a single click?

Oh sure, prints were certainly possible.  The prints you can (or could) make from slide film are the most gorgeous color prints possible.  You'll never find a digital print that replicates it.

He certainly captured the frame in a single click, although I'm sure he bracketed his shots and doubled up.

AJScalzitti wrote:
70 years ago a camera was just a light tight box that held the lens and film.  That is all it took really and the person who can "see" the image.  These days we make the mechanics of it easier but it's still about the person in front of and behind the black box that matter.

the Leica and the Rollie are more than 70 years old, as are many other fine cameras.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Oh sure, prints were certainly possible.  The prints you can (or could) make from slide film are the most gorgeous color prints possible.  You'll never find a digital print that replicates it.

He certainly captured the frame in a single click, although I'm sure he bracketed his shots and doubled up.

This. I use to shoot chrome 4x5. The clarity on print and on chrome is incredible.

Paramour Productions wrote:
I suppose I'm not sure why anyone would think cameras are worse or better?  For certain applications they are, as they have more features, but unless you're shooting action, most are the same.

As another poster said, it's just a light tight box.

In many aspects, cameras have gotten somewhat worse when you look at all the variables, especially when it comes to prints.  More convenient for the masses, but that's about it.

Ditto to this. And I'll also add. Digital cameras have a shutter life compared to those old film cameras that we can still use to this day.

"light tight box." makes me think of when I use to shoot pin hole photography with a tin cookie can. fun stuff.

End of the Road Studio wrote:
I still use "old" film cameras.  Some are 80+ years old, some of the lenses are older.

For examples of a master of the color print see:

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/porter/

Like so many other processes, dye transfer is gone. If you ever have the chance go see some of the original prints he made.

How many of us now a days actually go to galleries and look at original prints?

Our discussions on this and other forums use digital imagery to support our point of view.  Those of use still using film have to convert the film image to digital to display it on the web.  What's missing is the opportunity to study the subtle qualities of the "physical" print.

I'm one of those that do go to galleries. We have a lot of them here. Plus, being an art major, majoring in photography, I had to frequent the galleries. Those were some fun times during my first two years.

I've been blessed to see some of the most well known photographers film prints as well as not so well known fine arts photographers, local foreign and from other States.

AJScalzitti wrote:
it's still about the person in front of and behind the black box that matter.

This would be the main point. It's not the camera at all. Large format with lens made of a limited set of glass types and only a single layer coating from a hand calculated formula didn't produce very high resolution nor contrast.

Kodachrome has a very narrow exposure latitude and very low speed (ASA 6). There were no LCD screens, no reasonably accurate light meters (1/2 stops for full range deflection? dream on) and no polaroid. With the amount of light required for large format and the expense of the Kodachrome, I seriously doubt that there were many sheets exposed.

What the images show is a very competent craftsman that knows very well how to use the tools available. You over expose old Kodachrome by 1/3 stop and you loose the saturation. Under expose it by 1/3 and the colors get a bit muddy and shadows are black. The early 60s formulation got better and increased the speed to a whopping ASA 25.

Large format is much more forgiving with resolution and detail. At those distances and depth of field, the amount of light and the skill of the setup with the subjects is astounding when you consider that there were only 1-2 sheets exposed per image.

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:
Also the colors are more typical of the era and a good job has been done in preserving the negative. Thats probably the most intriguing- how well preserved since colors fade away and no digital technology was there. PS Love how the photographer used the edge lighting six pics down. Another testament that light is photography.

I guess, from a few other posts, some newbies have no concept of color reversal film, Kodachrome and color processes. Kodachrome is a reversal film, no negative. The film is processed, re-exposed, the dyes coupled to the silver grains, then the silver is removed. The final positive you get is the same film you exposed in the camera.

Colors do not "fade". The dyes that filter and reflect the light change. Kodachrome, Cibachrome, Technicolor, dye transfer and many other color processes ensure stable colors over time.

End of the Road Studio wrote:
I still use "old" film cameras.  Some are 80+ years old, some of the lenses are older.

For examples of a master of the color print see:

http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/porter/

Like so many other processes, dye transfer is gone. If you ever have the chance go see some of the original prints he made.

How many of us now a days actually go to galleries and look at original prints?

Our discussions on this and other forums use digital imagery to support our point of view.  Those of use still using film have to convert the film image to digital to display it on the web.  What's missing is the opportunity to study the subtle qualities of the "physical" print.

Legacys 7 wrote:
I'm one of those that do go to galleries. We have a lot of them here. Plus, being an art major, majoring in photography, I had to frequent the galleries. Those were some fun times during my first two years.

I've been blessed to see some of the most well known photographers film prints as well as not so well known fine arts photographers, local foreign and from other States.

I'm one of those who sells original prints in galleries, so yes, I look at them all the time.  Museums as well. 

The print is still the product.  The main complaint I hear from gallery owners regarding new photographers is not that they're shooting digital (although there are still those who feel that way in many markets), but that they don't know how to craft a fine art print.  Even if a gallery likes the subject matter, if the printing is not up to par, they will pass.

Do I worry about how a print looks when shooting batteries for my commercial work?  Not at all, other than how it will reproduce in a catalog of advertisement, but honestly, that's mostly out of my hands once I deliver the final file.

But for *MY* work?  Work that I intend to exhibit and sell?  The print is everything.

Erik Ballew wrote:
I also happen to think that a lot of the Civil War Photographers did a damn good job!!

On a side note my Grandmother was 20 years old and building battleships for the Navy.

My granddad was Jewish and had to flee to Spain. When the Americans landed in the south of Europe he joined the US army and showed them the way to Berlin. After that he returned back to his family in Holland.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I'd also like to see how many of those shots didn't turn out or weren't as great, as well as some of the printing that went on to create the image we see.

Plus as others have said, I love my speed graphic but I wouldn't want to shoot everything with it - what a pain in the butt! Not to mention flash bulbs!



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

There was a time that large format was the only choice. Metering isn't hard at all. But I think that many don't pay much attention to it like they use to due to the convenience of digital. I come from the film era before the digital scene came into play. I'd learned how to expose negative and positive film, dark room etc. This was before my school years. During my school years, digital was starting to go but wasn't mainstream yet. This meant that we still had to learn from shooting film.

Film makes you think about the exposure before shooting off random shots. You meter it and go from there.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I'd also like to see how many of those shots didn't turn out or weren't as great, as well as some of the printing that went on to create the image we see.

Plus as others have said, I love my speed graphic but I wouldn't want to shoot everything with it - what a pain in the butt! Not to mention flash bulbs!



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

There was a time that large format was the only choice. Metering isn't hard at all. But I think that many don't pay much attention to it like they use to due to the convenience of digital. I come from the film era before the digital scene came into play. I'd learned how to expose negative and positive film, dark room etc. This was before my school years. During my school years, digital was starting to go but wasn't mainstream yet. This meant that we still had to learn from shooting film.

Film makes you think about the exposure before shooting off random shots. You meter it and go from there.