photographers less skilled today than in the past

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.

 

From: "Super Troll"

"Paging Mr. Witte.
Mr. Thomas Witte, please report to the front desk."

 

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.

 

They used to have horse drawn buggies also.

 

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.

 

Bob Hickey

 

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



B>

 

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?

 

Yes.....I understand that their speed doubles every 18 months.......

 

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.

 

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 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

 

But let us count the number of replies, esp. heated and/or righteously
indignant ones, over the next week......

 

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