Times have changed... would you be a photographer 100 years ago? (Page 5): The camera used to take the picture I posted today at 11:33:50 eventually became mine, and I used it for a...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The camera used to take the picture I posted today at 11:33:50 eventually became mine, and I used it for a number of years, mostly with B&W film, using professional development and printing. Unfortunately, I accidentally left it behind when we moved in 2003. It was a typical Kodak box camera of the time, which I largely used without the flash attachment. I most likely would have used a Kodak box camera in 1920 in exactly the same way.

Imagemine Loc: St. Louis USA

Leitz wrote:

100 years ago photographers had to be able to think and visualise. Today it's mostly point and shoot, and photoshop it.

Disagree ! You still have to have the proper composition & content and angle

aardq

I would have been taking pictures with a Brownie, but would not have been a "photographer' as such. Once, and if, I was able to move to a different, and a "real" camera, I would have done so.

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

aardq wrote:

I would have been taking pictures with a Brownie, but would not have been a "photographer' as such. Once, and if, I was able to move to a different, and a "real" camera, I would have done so.

I once had a Brownie, too - a Brownie Holiday- it might take six months to finish that roll of 127 film... think there were twelve exposures. Once the film was developed- another month or two- subjects were forgotten or of no importance and, it seemed the images had little or no connection with my memory of the events and thus I was a late bloomer. Even in high school, I rarely took a photograph... However, my mother, one day, shared with me a photo album she had from her days as a WAC in Fairbanks, AK during WWII. I was impressed with the images- and would one day photograph those same subjects- but was more impressed of how much those images meant to her. Those half brown and faded prints were her memories and they were wonderful. Most images in that album she did not take, but that doesn't matter... whoever was responsible created a legacy that, I hope, creates for them as much goodwill as my mother enjoyed. Photography, it seems, has much potential...

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

fuminous wrote:

So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?

Could be. My grandfather was, though not professionally. He picked up a camera to help with his work as a physicist, but soon was taking pictures for their own sake. I have some glass plates he took of my grandmother on their honeymoon in 1914.

kgma

I have a lot of photographs from the late 1800's of my family and their homes in Michigan. One is of my great grandparents dressed up in their grandparents clothes in front of their homestead log cabin. These were taken by family members in the 1800's. I have pictures of my grandmother at age 3; if alive, she'd be 126 now, so they were taken in 1894. My mother wasn't a "photographer," but always had a camera with her. So, I guess it's in the blood.

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

htbrown wrote:

Could be. My grandfather was, though not professionally. He picked up a camera to help with his work as a physicist, but soon was taking pictures for their own sake. I have some glass plates he took of my grandmother on their honeymoon in 1914.

That is so cool!! I'll presume the images are not "scandalous" - being an a honeymoon and all... but what a treasure. Once-upon-a-time when doing copy and repair work, I'd see images of folks three, four, five generations in the past and look for similarities- dominant genes- noses, shoulders, eyes, shape of a face... to me it was fascinating... and I wasted much time in speculation but, that was OK, too..

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Definitely.

Many advantages to getting a photo education from RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology) in the 1960's. I set "hot type" for my own book. Worked with 4x5 studio view cameras as well as roll and cassette cameras. Dye transfer printing. Color separations. Made my own gum bichromate light sensitive emulsion for pictures. Pinhole camera shots. Tone separations with graphic arts films. And much more. A very broad and rich learning experience. I enjoyed it all. I would do it all again, if I could. The cost? About the same as a new Corvette, for each year of the education - $6500/year.

Wish I could have a similar education with the technology of today.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

aardq wrote:

I would have been taking pictures with a Brownie, but would not have been a "photographer' as such. Once, and if, I was able to move to a different, and a "real" camera, I would have done so.

The camera does not make the photographer. You do not need to adjust aperture or/and shutter speed. You could take perfectly fine photos then - only your possibilities would be narrowed some, but you still could still think about how your photo was composed and not just point and shoot.

Harry13

So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?[/quote]

Not unless I could take a 35mm back with me. <g>

Back in the '60s I bought a different camera because a friend had one and liked it. We were both taking pics in a theatre. After a week I gave it away (I couldn't in good conscience sell a camera that I really disliked.) I can't even remember what it was but I found it to be clumsy after my 35mm.

Harry13

>The camera does not make the photographer

Yeah, that's why my old friend pro Charlie Harbutt shot a Leica.

It might not have made him but it sure helped! Harry

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

rehess wrote:

The camera does not make the photographer.

A good photographer can take a good photo with any camera, but a good camera sure makes it easier. On the other hand, a photographer who doesn't know the craft cannot be saved by the finest of cameras.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

htbrown wrote:

A good photographer can take a good photo with any camera, but a good camera sure makes it easier. On the other hand, a photographer who doesn't know the craft cannot be saved by the finest of cameras.

Certainly. We learn both from changing what we can change and by being unable to change other things.

My first two cameras were box cameras. I learned much about composition - even today I often will spend thirty minutes playing with composition options - and trying to fit what was often a rectangular. peg into a square hole.

Then - over ten years - I had two rangefinder cameras. I had use of the rectangular frames they provided, and could control all three legs of the “exposure triangle”. I learned about the “triangle” ..... but over and over again the 45mm lens hindered me - either I needed to back up, but couldn’t, or the subject was no bigger than a speck in my viewfinder.

Finally I got an SLR camera and could pick a focal length that met my needs.

DoriguzziPA

Definitely!

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

fuminous wrote:

How many of us today would be enthusiastic photographers 100 years ago?

I ask because of reading, "Photographic Amusements, Including A Description of a Number of Novel Effects Obtainable with the Camera" by- Walter E. Woodbury, - Revised and Enlarged by Frank R. Fraprie-Ninth Edition- 1922 Copyright- 1896... and admit to a good bit of smugness when discussed is the hilarity of having the photographer- or others- appear to be shaking hands with themselves or flouting the laws of time and space. But, I also must allow a good bit of respect for these early shutterbugs given the difficulty of doing such things IN CAMERA!. Even a simple silhouette image becomes a major undertaking when background, reflectors- position of the window... lots of things must be considered...

There are fun things, too: "Photo in a Bottle" - that is, photographic emulsion being sloshed about to coat the interior of a bottle, letting it dry and taping a negative to the bottle's exterior then, heading into sunshine with a finger up the bottle's orifice so it can be turned for an even exposure. Simply pour developer, stop and fixer into the bottle for processing. And, "electric photographs" - various metal objects (coins a favorite) placed on a dry plate and passing a current "exposes" the silver halides without visible light..

One novelty offered is having an image of your favorite scenic, or perhaps Uncle Fred, that reveals itself only when its temperature reaches whatever temperature hog fat liquifies and turns transparent. I suppose, if the image was a bit risqué', it would be a hoot in some Wisconsin ice fishing shack. Regardless, instruction for making this delightful, "Disappearing Photograph" is provided and the materials list includes: white wax, hog lard, a strip of "gold beater's skin" and strong glue. Not mentioned is the point at which lard turns rancid... No doubt this novelty is best suited for cooler regions.

How 'bout "Post Mortem" photographs... First, have a negative of the departed one; either provided by the family or, taken yourself. Then, mix together various amounts of, "... bichromate of ammonia, albumen, grape sugar, bichromate of potash, honey..." plus other ingredients which combined and gently heated over a spirit lamp, and, while still warm, is applied evenly to a glass plate, which, when dry, is ready to be exposed. Place the glass plate and afore mentioned negative onto a printing frame and expose to the sun for two to five minutes. Next, remove the negative and place the exposed plate in a dark, damp place to absorb moisture. When the plate becomes tacky, evenly dust over it the cremated remains of the departed one (the guy in the negative)... which will, " ... adhere to the parts unexposed to light, and a portrait is obtained composed entirely of the person it represents, or rather what is left of him." But wait! There's more!! "When fully developed the excess of powder is dusted off and the film coated with collodion. It is then well washed to remove the bichromate salt. The film can, if desired, be detached and transferred to ivory, wood, or any other support."
For me... all I can imagine is something along the line of Elvis on black velvet...

So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?

How many of us today would be enthusiastic photogr... (show quote)

Since I started photography 55 years ago, I was almost there.
8x10 and 11x14 studio cameras, instructions on how to shoot with flash powder, cases of 50B flashbulbs to shoot architectural interiors, processing Agfacolor prints in open trays, running an E3 processing machine, press photos with Hasselblad cameras, Linhof 4x5 AeroTechnika in Bell 47G helicopter. Yes, I'd do it again.