Kodak was a second rate photographic company under George Eastman. The Edward Anthony Co. was Georges compatation, but pretty boy Edward got bored and left the photography world due apparently to boredom. George's big save was that he 'guaranteed' the quality of his film product and came up with a number reference for the films speed (so you had a stating point for the film's sensitivity*).

After George the businessman committed suicide in his office, a power grab by E. Mess saw it turned into the innovative powerhouse that it became.

*Speed of the film was a big deal in the early history of photography. An excellent example of this is the first Leica camera, it was used by Dr. Ernst Leitz and the guy who built the first camera as an exposure device, Oskar Barnack** to establish the sensitivity of the 'nickelodeon' film (a product of Eastman Kodak) they used to make historic (home movies) in Northern German. So this could help in getting started, but there was no real functional system in place. Along came Mees, the scientific/engineer and created a system. He sent several of his technical staff off in the middle of the summer with their families to 'vacation' at the sea shore. The fathers used a fixed aperture (called a Water House Stop) it was what is now f-16 to take pictures of themselves standing in front of the camera and the variable was the shutter speed. The scene was "calibrated" by a system of determining the candle out put and applied to a device that was the measure for the volume of foot candle. This device was then taken back tyo Kodak and thus a reference was established for the illumination of any scene AT SEA LEVEL and IN SUMMER with no more that 20% to 30% cloud cover.

Now of course this would never work, but what Mees wanted was a device that was calibrated for a specific set of conditions. That is what he wanted and needed, a way to measure against a standard for each batch of film being made. Now the genius. He had on staff two musicians who were vary bright boys, Hurter and Driffield who became famous for the H&D curves, that was to be densitometry. Now Hurter and Driffield were to be renown for the science of statists, but to get this statists to work they need to have a way of generating perfectly predictable numbers. That was what film and exposure/development gave them. The old infamous Bell Curve is the product of the H&D curve, it is exposure.

For photography, the product was predictable and repeatable exposure, that was what is still used today, The Rule of 16. (Note, why f 16? Look at the history, Dads on the beach taking photos at sea level in summer!). Now, the sun is out BUT you go up to a certain usable elevation, 10,000 feet (where pines grow but Aspen trees stop growing! Imagine that!). where people natural live without getting oxygen deprivation. Well , weirdly enough you GAIN one stop of light (Actually, you get 2/3 stop of light, but it's close enough, it gets even weirder, stay tuned).

Then, in WINTER you LOOSE one stop of light (Remember that weird thing, it is really but 2/3 stop of light! And you though that water being the only liquid that freezes from the top down!).

The highest point on earth is mount Everest, (again another 2/3 stop gain, a single stop of light is close enough), but then you don't do well up there without supplemental oxygen unless you a native and even then you need an assist. But remember that "History" thing? Only balloonists and guys flying were just coming into existence and no one kew that you would not last long with out some extra oxygen assist. Always keep in mind where you are in history and what people know. But basically, when your messing around in an airplane at 20,000 feet taking a snap out the plane window, you will gain 1 1/2 stop of light (2/3 plus 2/3 = 1.5 or 1 1/2). Oddly enough, after about 20 thousand feet da sunlight stays about the same even in space!

Yes, there is more but this is not a book, so TTFN. (Ta Ta For Now).

** Oskar Barnack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Barnack

When I went to the RF system I got the RP for full frame (I don't do a lot of full frame.), simplified but not stunted and takes good pictures.
Then I got the R7 (R equivalent of 7DII) for my bird photography, and it is Excellent+.

I still have EFs= 5Div, 7DII, 80D, 90D. I will be thinning the herd, starting with the 90D. I may get rid of all the EFs, unless someone in the family wants one. All my EF lenses work on the RF bodies with the adapters, I have two.

I have been thinking just now (dangerous habit to get into) and maybe this year I will just get rid of all the EF bodies, some of my EF lenses-the ones I also have in RF and upgrade the RP to one of the higher end RF bodies. Should I keep the 5Div as a backup? Or maybe give it to our daughter. Jasmine has been using a T2i since it was her 2012 High School Graduation gift. Now she is a Pediatric Resident and mostly uses her cell phone. After residency, her life will not be so hectic and she might get back into photography as a hobby.

That will leave me using R7, a high-end RF FF and Sony RX10iv with my two adapters (one is the control ring model) and a pile of mixed EF lenses and my RF lenses. I also have 3 older bridge cameras I got from Good Will for $20 each=one in my car, one in my wife's car, one in the lock box on my street legal mobility scooter. Be out and about when suddenly a picture opportunity pops up-I have "a camera", besides my almost antique Panasonic ZS6 that lives in my shirt or jacket pocket full time.

Then there is my Wife's Canon SX50, now a few models behind but still a great bridge camera.

I think I need to make a cup of coffee and read or watch TV before I make some camera dealer a new millionaire. I am not going out photographing in the chilly rain today.

In this case "creativity" is being suggested as one of the differences between a good photo and a snapshot (a photo taken with little or no pre-planning or pre-visualisation). Creativity is certainly one of the main ingredients and there's an element of truth in suggesting that too much automation is not conducive to the shooter developing his/her creativity.

But there is an up side to cameras that make it easy for us to get technically good shots. For those of us who do want to develop and become good photographers and not just snapshooters, freedom from distractions is a big bonus. A camera that's easy to operate will help us to concentrate on the stuff that does matter, from spotting opportunities in the first place to the process of getting good composition, catching the decisive moment etc.

There have always been snapshooters and there will always be people who want to become good at their craft. Phones and P&S cameras have made it easy for snapshooters to take an interest in photography, but just because we're outnumbered by them, that doesn't mean that we (the people who want to become better at photography) are a dying breed.

The best thing that we can do is to carry on providing a good example (and good examples of good photos). Every time we discuss the right or best approach there's a chance that a learner will have some of it rub off on them. Automation may encourage laziness but it doesn't have to be a creativity killer, and it's up to us to provide evidence of the benefits of developing creativity.

It would be a mistake to despair when seeing the proliferation of snapshots, because they provide examples of what's lacking in a photo, and anyone who's interested in learning can look at them and work out what could have been done better. We can learn from both good and bad examples if we're willing to make the effort to try to understand what works and what doesn't work and why. Good cameras help with that learning process by reducing the distractions and by making it easier for us to get successful shots.