Re: [photo-3d] Re: in a hurry photography (caution: contains strong opinion)

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Davis wrote:
> CanterMike@xxxxxxx writes:
> 
> --- In photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx, Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxx> wrote:
[I think the attributions above are mixed up.  I apologize if I
 mis-quote anyone.]
> > They did not consider loading plates and sheet film a hassle, or
> > loading a roll film camera where film was manually threaded.
> 
> I don't know know that they didn't consider it a hassle.  If they
> didn't, then why did anyone invent roll film, or auto-loading, etc.?
> Obviously, some people thought it would be an improvement.
> 

Wet plates and glass plates were definitely a hassle.  Dry plates and
flexible film were developed to replace them.

Rollfilm was invented for motion picture cameras.  The 35mm still
camera was originally developed so that the director could get an idea
of what the scene would look like before shooting a lot of film.  A
practical enlarger didn't come along until after the 35mm still
camera.

> In the past, photographers could only shoot subjects which would be
> relatively motionless for a minute or more.  Sports photography was
> non-existent.  I think bracketing is more a form of ensure a good
> capture of a fleeting moment than it is compensation for lack of
> skill.
> 

Sports photography did exist before 35mm and rollfilm cameras.  The
4x5 Speed Graphic (which had a 1/1000 sec. focal plane shutter) was
used by many sports (and general news) photographers.  The
photographers of that time had to pay attention to the subject and
anticipate the action.

> The art is in the eye and mind of the creator.  The rest is just
> technique.
> 

However if you don't understand the technique you are going to have a
hard time creating art.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"