Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

With old color prints (or slides, non-Kodachrome in particular) there's a lot of fading relative to B&W of the equivalent era.

There was definitely a period, when there were really crappy cameras (e.g. Instamatics) for the mass market which were far crappier than any random smartphone these days. And there were really good, often (West) German-made, cameras. I'd have to look up exactly when the good Japanese cameras came along.

View on HN

I'd say they started getting into their swing in the 1950s, if my father's Yashica-A twin-lens reflex is any indication. That camera produced absolutely gorgeous shots in square format on 120 roll film.

The square format TLRs were an interesting format, My high school had an ancient one and I think I shot a roll of film once for fun and giggles. Never owned one. As I recall, Rolleiflex were the kings in that category.

They are still (and although not twin reflex, Hasselblad are of course king of the medium format). And the prices of used gear reflect that.

I own some several Japanese medium format and love the photos they take.

Rollies are ok (I have one :) but for TLRs, the thing to have is the Mamiya 330C. Great viewfinder, optional prism, and interchangeable lenses. I have one and have used it quite a lot. Lovely photos, but heavy camera. OTOH, completely indestructable. You could pound nails with the thing.

I own a Yashica, and bought a 330C to supplement it, but decided the weight was just unmanageable. Very cool camera, and if I ever worked in a studio I'm sure I would have appreciated it, but too much for me in the field.

I seem to recall that ergonomically it was a bit iffy too, but that may have just been the fact that I was more familiar with the Yashica.

Agree (because I own a few Yashica twin reflexes) but those weren't the cameras normies like my family were using. If only....

Crappy cameras; smaller format films (e.g. Kodak Disc); weird hues from color photos taken in fluorescent and other non-natural light; inconsistent dyes among manufacturers (compare Fuji film to Kodachrome); an inherently lower resolution in color film. These all combine to make color photos of that era tend to look worse than b/w.

I'd also speculate that because color film on average is less sensitive to light than b/w film, it led to more blurry photos at the time, especially when taken by the many amateur photographers with their cheap cameras.

Yeah, there was a period when color photography was enabled for the plebes with really crappy cameras and film formats--I had even forgotten about the Kodak Disc. So a lot of stuff that survives from that general era in shoeboxes looks almost uniquely horrible. There were Brownies and the like before but they were still a lot less widespread.

Nikon wasn't exactly consumer gear, but they popularized single lens reflex cameras in the late 1960s.

Even a decade later, I as a high school student really into photography wasn't getting a Nikon. Started with my dad's Pony and then Retina and then used a Konica system through university and beyond until it was stolen in a break-in.

I feel like the Canon AE/1 and less expensive SLR's broke down that barrier (Minolta, etc.).

I understand they were either the first, or at least very early, to take standard cinema film (35mm) and run with it. Were the press some of the early adopters? (Tired of lugging their monstrous Graflex cameras around.)

No, that was Leitz (Leica). Nikon didn’t start making cameras at all until 1948. Their first cameras were rangefinders, sort of a cross between a Contax and a Leica. They were very good (some of my very favorite cameras), but not super popular.

Their first SLR, the Nikon F, came out in 1959 and quickly became a sensation with professionals. They’re built like tanks, and still very usable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com