Over 60 years ago ...

[al olson]

I was researching through my Kodak Data Books dating from the early 50s when I realized how oriented they are to what we call large format cameras today. I scanned the covers for your enjoyment.

The following data book, 6th edition, was published in 1954. It looks like the lady is holding a Bantam camera (828 film). It could be a Medalist, but I don't think so. Back then Kodak called 828 and 35mm formats "miniature cameras."

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/camera/kodakfilms6ed.jpg

The next data book, 7th edition, was published in 1956. This looks like a forerunner to the child strollers some people use on their monster cameras today.

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/camera/kodakfilms7ed.jpg

The camera technique data book was published in 1952.

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/camera/kodakcameratechnique.jpg

... and that's the way it was.

[Ash]

I love how carefully they composed their shots, for b&w they have amazing lighting. Makes book covers of today look tack.

The first one is definitely composite, but the other two are so well set up :)

[Gem Singer]

Remembering back to the1940's, when i first became interested in photography as a teenager, almost all "professional" photographers used film based still cameras, which we refer to as large format cameras today.

The professional studio cameras shown on the Kodak catalog covers were later to become the Calumet 400 series cameras. Used by students in most American Photography schools. That camera took 4X5 sheet film. We didn't refer to it as large format in those days.

The top pro's used larger sheet film cameras in their studios. Ansel Adams was considered unique because he used an 8X10 film camera way out in the wilderness. We admired his dedication to those "huge" negatives.

Most of the photogs that I associated with in those days used 4X5 Speed Graphics. After WWII, they began to use TLR Rollieflex and Leica cameras. Speed Graphics began to loose their popularity because of their size and weight.

You can thank Fred Picker and Ron Wisner for the revival in popularity of what we now refer to as large format folding flatbed cameras. That began to take place in the late 1970's and early1980's.

[Mark Sampson]

Ansel probably took the cover photo for the first one (or maybe he just supplied the background photo and the people & cameras were composited in).

[Daniel Grenier]

That looks so old and ancient now.... And to think I was born before that ! :(

[nathanm]

Man, that '50s look is SO distinctive. I just can't put my finger on what makes it look that way. It would be quite a recipe of elements. Lighting, cameras, film, typography, paper, printing…

[Deane Johnson]

Man, that '50s look is SO distinctive. I just can't put my finger on what makes it look that way. It would be quite a recipe of elements. Lighting, cameras, film, typography, paper, printing…
As Ansel once said "isn't it amazing how much photography has advanced without improving".

[David Karp]

Thanks for this post.

I love the old Kodak books. Mine were from the 60s and 70s, and I wish I had kept them!

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Al,

the little camera is a 'Signet 35' with a 44mm/3.5 Ektar lens. Nice camera, lousy shutter.

[seawolf66]

The third book cover always made me wonder what the heck he was trying to photograph
with the camera set that way : Happy Holidays to all:

[al olson]

I am amazed that this thread is getting so many responses ... and reminiscences.

Good point, Gem, about the transition to smaller format cameras. I did news photography with a Super Graphic ca. 1958-1961. Back then editors were still insisting that you use a press camera, although a baby Speed was acceptable. I bought a Super Graphic to get the work.

A colleague convinced our editor that he could shoot with his TLR Rollei, but that was it. I don't know what difference it made because we were developing our own film in our own labs and turning in 8x10 prints (usually well cropped). I always carried a 35mm Retina IIIc as a backup and I am sure that when the editor looked at the print he couldn't tell the difference. Late in the decade the real pros were putting their money (lots of money) into the Leicas and later the Nikon (was it the S?).

I think, Nathan, that the "look" was caused by all the things you mention, but I would be inclined to think that the films had most to do with it. Back then the films were contrastier, they used more silver, and they had a narrower subject brightness range. Adams only had 7 zones in his early zone system and had to add a zero zone to extend it to the current 11.

The following image was made on Kodak Royal Pan (ASA 200), my film of choice at that time, with a Super Graphic press camera. It is a negative scan so you don't quite get the effect of the richer silver in the paper, but the high contrast is still evident. I think it still resembles the "look" of the fifties.

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/camera/elmerfudd.jpg

David, I bought all my Kodak Data Books while I was in high school and I have never thrown any of them out.

Thanks, Paul, for IDing the Signet. I had forgotten all about that little gem.

Actually, Lauren, the data book does show the layout of the camera positioned over the still life on the inner pages. The camera setup looks much the same, but I think they moved it away from the still life to get the photographer/model into the picture.

Thanks, all, for your comments.

[Brian Ellis]

I seem to recall that into the 1950s Eugene Smith had to battle with the photo editors at Life magazine to be allowed to used a 35mm camera instead of a 4x5.