5 ms·
> It seems we traded color for quality sometime mid-Century. Absolutely. My parents have crisp B&W snapshots from their baby years in the early 60ies. They eve
by lqet 2y ago
> It seems we traded color for quality sometime mid-Century.
Absolutely. My parents have crisp B&W snapshots from their baby years in the early 60ies. They even have old B&W party snapshots from my grandparents in the 50ies, all of which look still great. Then around 1965, the snapshots become colored (not Polaroids), and the quality is... not as good. I wonder of the photographs just aged badly, or if they already looked like that 60 years ago. I also suspect that color film was much more expensive back then than B&W film, and the average consumer just bought the cheapest color films they could get.
- ghaff 2y agoWith old color prints (or slides, non-Kodachrome in particular) there's a lot of fading relative to B&W of the equivalent era. There was definitely a period, when there were really crappy cameras (e.g. Instamatics) for the mass market which were far crappier than any random smartphone these days. And there were really good, often (West) German-made, cameras. I'd have to look up exactly when the good Japanese cameras came along.
- actionfromafar 2y agoNikon wasn't exactly consumer gear, but they popularized single lens reflex cameras in the late 1960s.
- ghaff 2y agoEven a decade later, I as a high school student really into photography wasn't getting a Nikon. Started with my dad's Pony and then Retina and then used a Konica system through university and beyond until it was stolen in a break-in.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI feel like the Canon AE/1 and less expensive SLR's broke down that barrier (Minolta, etc.).
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI understand they were either the first, or at least very early, to take standard cinema film (35mm) and run with it. Were the press some of the early adopters? (Tired of lugging their monstrous Graflex cameras around.)
- armadsen 2y agoNo, that was Leitz (Leica). Nikon didn’t start making cameras at all until 1948. Their first cameras were rangefinders, sort of a cross between a Contax and a Leica. They were very good (some of my very favorite cameras), but not super popular. Their first SLR, the Nikon F, came out in 1959 and quickly became a sensation with professionals. They’re built like tanks, and still very usable.
- flyinghamster 2y agoI'd say they started getting into their swing in the 1950s, if my father's Yashica-A twin-lens reflex is any indication. That camera produced absolutely gorgeous shots in square format on 120 roll film.
- ghaff 2y agoThe square format TLRs were an interesting format, My high school had an ancient one and I think I shot a roll of film once for fun and giggles. Never owned one. As I recall, Rolleiflex were the kings in that category.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoThey are still (and although not twin reflex, Hasselblad are of course king of the medium format). And the prices of used gear reflect that. I own some several Japanese medium format and love the photos they take.
- eschneider 2y agoRollies are ok (I have one :) but for TLRs, the thing to have is the Mamiya 330C. Great viewfinder, optional prism, and interchangeable lenses. I have one and have used it quite a lot. Lovely photos, but heavy camera. OTOH, completely indestructable. You could pound nails with the thing.
- macintux 2y agoI own a Yashica, and bought a 330C to supplement it, but decided the weight was just unmanageable. Very cool camera, and if I ever worked in a studio I'm sure I would have appreciated it, but too much for me in the field. I seem to recall that ergonomically it was a bit iffy too, but that may have just been the fact that I was more familiar with the Yashica.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoAgree (because I own a few Yashica twin reflexes) but those weren't the cameras normies like my family were using. If only....
- kmoser 2y agoCrappy cameras; smaller format films (e.g. Kodak Disc); weird hues from color photos taken in fluorescent and other non-natural light; inconsistent dyes among manufacturers (compare Fuji film to Kodachrome); an inherently lower resolution in color film. These all combine to make color photos of that era tend to look worse than b/w. I'd also speculate that because color film on average is less sensitive to light than b/w film, it led to more blurry photos at the time, especially when taken by the many amateur photographers with their cheap cameras.
- ghaff 2y agoYeah, there was a period when color photography was enabled for the plebes with really crappy cameras and film formats--I had even forgotten about the Kodak Disc. So a lot of stuff that survives from that general era in shoeboxes looks almost uniquely horrible. There were Brownies and the like before but they were still a lot less widespread.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI assume too that three layers of emulsion vs. one is not going to improve quality.