photographers less skilled today than in the past

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Super Troll, Aug 30, 2004.

  1. Super Troll

    Super Troll Guest

    Notice now you need high speed 8fps digital cameras with fancy zooms to get
    sports shots when in the 1950s On the cover of Life etc.. you had great
    pictures taken on old manual wind film cameras with primes. Look at the
    olympics now they rely on hundreds of cameras lined up and remotely
    controlled to get the picture.
     
    Super Troll, Aug 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Super Troll

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Super Troll"
    "Paging Mr. Witte.
    Mr. Thomas Witte, please report to the front desk."
     
    Annika1980, Aug 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Super Troll

    Colin D Guest

    That right?

    A lot of those 1950's shots were *posed* for the cover shots, simply
    because the cameras and films could not do then what they do today.
    Ever tried shooting sports with a Speed Graphic? Manual lifted mirror,
    flash bulbs and sync at 1/25 sec, 5x4 film, a heap of double dark
    slides, shoot, push in the slide, yank the double dark slide out of the
    camera, try to remember if you need another, or if you haven't already,
    turn the dark slide over, shove it back in the camera, yank out the
    cover plate, line up the next action ... yeah, every bit as good as
    todays cameras ...

    Then, into the changing-bag, pull the films, shove them into the dev
    tank, rapid process, quick rinse, onto the wire scanner while wet, hook
    it up to the phone line and dial long-distance to your paper,
    wire-transfer the photo - real high quality, that wire transfer was -
    and your paper printed one, or if you were really lucky, two of your
    shots in grainy, liny, black and white. Yessir, every bit the equal of
    today's full-color, dynamic, high-quality shots by the page-load.

    Your post is unadulterated bollocks.

    Colin D.

    Beware the Pontificators. They are rarely Performers.
     
    Colin D, Aug 30, 2004
    #3
  4. Super Troll

    photo35744 Guest

    They used to have horse drawn buggies also.
     
    photo35744, Aug 30, 2004
    #4
  5. Super Troll

    Alan Browne Guest


    You forgot to state that it can't be done except with a superb
    rangefinder such as an M4 or M6. As trolls go you are less than
    bush league.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 30, 2004
    #5
  6. Super Troll

    Bob Hickey Guest

    Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Aug 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Super Troll

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    It should be noted that a trivial examination of the statistics will
    reveal that the athletes run much faster today.

    :)

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Aug 30, 2004
    #7
  8. I wonder, in the 1950s, did trolls have to use the upper case on their
    typewriter and do a "Jack Torrence" before shoving reams of paper through
    someone's door to achieve the same effect as flooding a newsgroup today?

    Is Ctrl-C Ctrl-V making trolls lazier? Surely with the advances in modern
    technology, modern trolls should be getting more skilled, more free to
    concentrate on composition than trivial technicalities like RSI?
     
    Martin Francis, Aug 30, 2004
    #8
  9. Yes.....I understand that their speed doubles every 18 months.......
     
    William Graham, Aug 30, 2004
    #9
  10. Super Troll

    Ted Azito Guest

    Stating that Speed Graphics have mirrors is unadulterated bollocks.
    You are confusing them with the SLR Graflex, which was used frequently
    (modified in "Big Bertha" configuration ofttimes) for sports
    photography.

    Considering what they had to work with, the quality of sports
    photography during the Graflex era was remarkable.
    Photographers-sports and otherwise-then were unquestionably more
    skilled at the basics, on the whole, than they are today.

    It's interesting to note that Wisner is making an all-wood
    camera-essentially a clone of the old Graflex-today.

    The classic manual mechanical cameras are often still the best choice
    (not always) for quality photography. They are always the best choice
    for teaching the essentials. Spadaro and others are liars, frauds,
    mountebanks, just like so many camera store salespeople. _Most_
    mechanical manual SLRs of the sixties and seventies and
    interchangeable-lens rangefinders and TLRs of the fifties and sixties
    are better cameras than _most_ of the $300-$1000 cameras sold today,
    difficult though it may be to believe.

    That's not to say I'd turn down the gift of an autofocus pro SLR-35mm
    or digital-but clearly the money would be better spent elsewhere for
    many people. I've been playing with a Mamiya 7 II and I have to say,
    it's pretty cool, even if it is new.
     
    Ted Azito, Aug 31, 2004
    #10
  11. Super Troll

    Colin D Guest

    Yeah, Ted, I know, I meant Graflex and not Graphic, I saw it the minute
    I pushed 'Send'. Big apology, alright? A typo, not bollocks.
    Sure. But they got far fewer shots. And today's pictures are more
    immediate, sharper, colorful, and have more impact than those earlier
    efforts - with the odd exception, of course. Now and then a shot would
    be caught that was really good, but usually it was luck, or fluky.
    Todays batteries of automatic electronic remote-controlled cameras
    practically guarantee shots that really capture the moment, which is
    what editors and the public demand.
    Whoops there. That's plain bullshit, Ted. Your reactionary bias is
    showing.
    You're confusing the plot here, Ted. The 'quality photography' you
    mention here isn't sports, its more likely studio or landscape or such.
    Nice, slow, methodical work, then push the shutter once, occasionally
    twice even. This thread is about sports photography. Your 'classical
    manual mechanical cameras' are useless for modern sports. It's like
    teaching somebody to drive in a 1929 Essex Super Six with a crash box,
    and then letting them loose in a modern car.
    Yep, I thought so. You're one of those 'old is good, modern is rubbish'
    reactionaries, who with missionary zeal berate anyone who dares to
    compare new with old. Your attack there on Tony Spadaro and 'others' is
    cheap and obnoxious. 'Liars, frauds, mountebanks' is a bit strong even
    for Usenet.
    I don't think anybody would turn down a gift of that nature. Yes, money
    is a consideration for many people, including me. But I would much
    rather save up and buy a new EOS300D or similar camera than a
    40-year-old manual SLR. I had a Nikon SLR - a Nikon F with a Photomic
    head, and a Nikkormat - back in the 60's and 70's. Would I want to use
    one now? No. The Nikkor f/1.4 was unusably soft wide open, and the
    clip-on meter was a royal pain to use. Manual film wind meant losing
    your framing with each wind. By today's standards, it was a clunker.

    Modern cameras have made the jump from mechanical to electronic. Modern
    lenses are designed by computer, and the programs have been refined
    continually for 30 or so years now. They really cannot be compared with
    pre-electronic era equipment.

    Whatever, you've got your views and I've got my views, and probably the
    twain will never meet.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Aug 31, 2004
    #11
  12. Colin D wrote:


    Actually, Eadweard Muybridge was doing that over 130 years ago without
    autofocus, electronics and motor drives.
    Maybe, but newbies would get more honest and objective advice from a
    Canon sales representative.
    Many of my best lenses were designed in the 1960s or earlier.
    Very few contemporary lenses can do better (I'm speaking of primes here).
    A lot of the research put into contemporary lenses is just how to make
    them CHEAPER.

    Chris
     
    Chris Loffredo, Aug 31, 2004
    #12
  13. But let us count the number of replies, esp. heated and/or righteously
    indignant ones, over the next week......
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 31, 2004
    #13
  14. Super Troll

    Mojtaba Guest

    On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:46:08 -0400, "Super Troll" <>
    wrote:

    You forgot to state: "This is not spam". People may misunderstand you!

    Mojtaba
     
    Mojtaba, Sep 1, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.