As others have noted....photography has little to do with the equipment. Very nice photos from a camera that would be laughed at today...
The Kodak 1 has shown me that although 99,? % of photographs the last 100+ years have been rectangular. This need not be so.Squares are not even natures piece of cake. Somebody just discovered a square on Mars in a landform and it caused a stir. Square is rare. In nature.With 36Mpix sensors why not have a round image to start with? Then we can decide later on whether we want a triangular, square, rectangular-portrait, rectangular-landscape or round image! Workarounds to become a "round person":I recently stumbled upon a "round image generator" in PTGui. How do you like the result? http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6268509557/photos/2696210/my-garden-pond-w-fisheye In fact I could just mount APS-C lenses on the full frame Nikon D800 and get round images, sort of.
The dynamic range on that first image is dreadful. Highlights completely blown. Have you seen the noise at 100% crop. Also back focussing. What the hell is Kodak playing at. Do they not read these forums. I for one will be selling up and switching to water colours.
Images from a past that's hard to even imagine. Not to spoil the fun but people should know that George Eastman stole the process for coating light sensitive emulsion onto flexible film (and was eventually sued) and he positioned his office so he could monitor female employee's taking bathroom breaks. Yes there was Dickensian side of life back then that was was not recorded on these toys for the rich.
I'm not say it's not true but "and he positioned his office so he could monitor female employee's taking bathroom breaks." is a statement you should backup with actual facts from at least 2 sources.
Life was really hard back then? What a revelation.
Geez no enlargement view?These old images hold much more detail than shown here due to the large negative (glasplate) size.
Once again DPReview covers a low-end consumer mobile camera, the type that is ruining photography. Photography should be about specs and expensive equipment and a tripod. Cameras like this put photography into the hands of anyone, and more dangerously, into the hands of the un-trained.
Oh sure, the smaller size of this camera is a convenience, but if you are serious about your photography you should be taking a Nikon DSLR everywhere you go. The lens on this thing is obviously some mass-market junk glass, and how do you focus? DPReview needs to stop covering these mobile photography trends that just demean all of the obscure technical knowledge we have toiled to acquire and memorize.
Unacceptably blown-out highlights, gimmicky circular crops (I remember when those become available in a recent Wordpress build) and cheesy sepia Instagram-style filters. This is not real photography!
/sarcasm, and I'm talking to you smartphone/P&S haters
I always though Eastman was looking in a viewfinder in this photo (first on the page). Enjoy many of the other images as well.
(I hope the content down the right side does not offend anyone. Definitely some NSFW. And for the rest, I don't speak Spanish).
Impressive, given the simplicity of such cameras. I really ask myself how these early users composed their images so well with not any sort of viewfinder.
they did their calculation before they took the shot...in my opinion, general users had better understanding in optics than general users today. have you seen people with pro-DSLR and turn on AUTO mode? i am sure you have~~~
You're only seeing successful pictures. The bad ones (of which there were many) are long gone.
Circular Lenses and Rectangular Photoshttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34346469
people are happier back then
This always has been the excuse of the unhappy ones. Happiness is is the result of a person's hard work to become happy. It is not about a time or place.
So true, Hubert.
Happiness is a choice. You can be happy now.
These are nicer than many shots taken by people these days with huge DSLRs.
Edit - thank god for jeans & T's
Accounting for inflation in USD it'd be about $600 today.
Also, it cost $10 to process the film, and reload the camera with a fresh roll.
That would be ~$237.00, in constant dollars.
Thanks for these calculations. It puts the whole thing into a different perspective.
awesome, those cheapies give real insight in how things we re
These photos nicely capture that period in time; many are wonderful.
Also, based on pg. 37 of the instruction booklet, being able to use an orange safelight for film reloading implies the film being used is orthochromatic: greatly sensitive to blue and green, less sensitive to yellow and orange, and not at all sensitive to red.
Gold award winner!
#6 Perfect use of the circular format. :D
Amazing. Wonderful, and pretty damn good quality!
I love seeing the times before the 50s
I enjoyed those very much
Fun - we are just discussing round sensor in the science forum. Methinks that DPReview crew do read that forum :-)
What's easier, a person in 1880 pointing box and shooting, or one of the 95% today, using their camera and not even knowing how to turn off the flash when it isn't needed?
Buy a Kodak 1. No flash at all, nor batteries.
And how is it going to be 123 years from now?
I expect that only a small percentage of today's digital files will have survived. These will be in institutions or the few households where a dedicated family member backed up and re-backed files.
I expect many of today's images to survive. Photos now circle the globe instantly and are shared and saved in countless duplications on an endless number of computers, phones, dvds, memory cards and so on. As long as we don't completely forget the technology used to read the media, these leftovers will be around for quite a while.
I picture the story of a person finding an SD card wedged in a crack somewhere in an old attic in the year 2113, and finding an interesting surprise when they are able to access the data.
Did you see the article about what a pain it was to pull the images off of analog tapes from moon photographs from a satellite from the 1960's? In 100 years very few people would even know what a SD card was for and the hardware used to read it would also be 100 years old (long gone) with no way to interface the hardware to whatever systems they would have then if they wanted to.
It's easy to forget how difficult photography was in 1888. Consider, for example, these recommendations extracted from the manual of the Kodak 1:
"The Kodak cannot be used in open air (out-of-doors) unless the Sun is Very Bright.""The Kodak cannot be used to photograph Race Horses, going at a fast gait, nor Express Trains in motion…""The Sun should shine directly upon the object.""Photograph the sunny side.""Do not attempt to Photograph the shady side.""The Sun should be at back of Operator, or over his shoulder - never in front of him."etc.
Excerpt from http://www.cameramanuals.org/kodak_pdf/kodak_manual_1888.pdf
This manual is simply amazing !
Thank you for sharing,
Wow. Photogs had to be disciplined. Sure not like that today, unless you don't want to be mediocre.
Crikey. Even developing 35mm colour negatives is a breeze compared to the process describe in that guide.
Kodak 1 was over a century ahead of its time. I can't see a viewfinder anywhere,so it was a true "point and shoot", like most popular cams today.
Where is the LCD screen? I must be missing it.
The word "screen" was used differently back in those days..
this portrait is stunning even if taken today:
I dunno, that's a really blown out hot spot on the book. (jk)
it may be interesting to introduce some cinema cameras because we are on the way to all motion picture (still is more something transit and minor).
Before this camera, photography was in the hands of the wealthy and the masses were excluded. This camera democratised photography, and changed everything.100 years later, the iphone and smart phones have done much the same thing on a far larger scale in a world where the population is now many times larger and photography had, by the onset of the 21st century again become a pursuit for the middle classes.Makes one think.
not the same thing at all. An iphone costs around €500, plus the super-expensive 2-year datapacket which is another €800...hardly a camera for the paupers, is it?
My first camera was a Canon A530 which cost new about €100. It's cameras like that which helped the pauper get into digital photography.
But most people already have cell phones, and would have smart phones even if they did not evolve with cameras. Additionally, iPhones and many other smartphones can be had for free with a contract. While the overall monthly fee is high, the additional fee to the already existing cell phone fee is nominal. An iPod touch is the same as an iPhone that cannot make calls, but costs less than most point and shoots, and has no monthly contract.
I think, however, the smartphone did not bring photography to the reach of the common man. The smart phone brought photography to those not interested enough to photograph otherwise. It can be argued it brought the cost of sharing images down, which can be as expensive (if not more so) when printing (and mailing)
I agree with this bit:
"The smart phone brought photography to those not interested enough to photograph otherwise. "
It was the Kodak Instamatic, introduced in the 60's that was specifically intended to bring affordable photography to the masses. Still, even with cheaper (and even free) tools today, what has not changed is skills and technique in acquiring admirable pictures. I'm sure a filter to mimica that look can be found on InstanGram, but it still comes down to the photographer.
(Funny side note. My auto correct thinks InstaGram should be spelled "Instamatic").
"(Funny side note. My auto correct thinks InstaGram should be spelled "Instamatic")."
ha! that's a nice moment...tells a story all on its own.
Mr. Bendheim is partially correct. Most of the daguerreotypes, tintypes, etc. made during the mid to late 19th C were made by itinerant photographers and humble portrait studios not wealthy people. While not literally made by the masses, they were mostly made of the masses and were not confined to those with wealth. While the Kodak camera did place cameras in the hands of the many, photography was widespread before its introduction and was not in any way exclusive.
No - before this camera, there was dry plate photography. You didn't have to be "wealthy": to make and see your photos - you just had to be dedicated enough to learn and do your own chemical processing. Even at the height of film-era photography (1950's to 1980's), only a very small minority of people were interested enough to do that.
Although, it would've been cheaper (more affordable) to do it yourself, by Kodak providing the processing for the Kodak 1, that's what brought photography to the average person.
Peter, what exactly does democratizing photography even mean? I can't for the life of me figure out how democracy has anything to do with the average person having access to photography equipment that they could afford.
Regarding the pursuit of the middle class, I don't understand what this means. A person can be interested in something even if they cannot afford it. They may save up for a long time then buy what they covet. Regardless, cheap film cameras, and later cheap point and shoots have done much more to make photography affordable.
By the way, the middle class is not a static groups that acts as an aggregate. People are in and out of it all the time and each person acts entirely as an individual.
One of the pix shows a professional photog (beach photographer) staring balefully at the Kodak. Perhaps he's realizing that his business is going to be finished soon.
Just what I was thinking. On the other hand, a beach photographer is mentioned in the novel Brighton Rock, which is set 30s, so maybe he has nothing to worry about.
DPReview is now 123 years behind in reviewing this camera. Do they hate Kodak or what? I can't wait much longer.
Best comment on this thread.
Actually, it took Kodak 123 years to send DPR a camera for testing.
will be interested how photozone.de will test the lens. they also have a fundamental flaw to use picture height for all aspect ratios but there is no PH here. it's diagonal in every direction.
btw, would rather prefer Kodak send President Obama to Bali APEC summit than Kodak No. 1 to DPReview.
Kodak 1 came with 100 shots and prints all included. "You press the shutter and don't worry about the rest". Keep in mind what 100 pictures meant at a time when people had only a handful of photographs taken during an entire lifetime. In 2013, it would be 20 pictures included, with five different pricing plans for additional prints, 2 year commitment, automatic monthly payments, early cancellation penalty, 10-page small print legal contract, and extra charges for the prints in case you want to see them (with all rights belonging to the company). No wonder US companies are struggling.
...and saved in the "cloud".
Very inspiring! every photo tells a story.
Ingenious design. A camera that morphs effortlessly into a shoe shine box.
Looks like a Lytro camera.
I've sometimes wondered why cameras aren't made with round sensors to capture the full [round] lens image. It would give you more image area to crop from.
Sensors are made in big sheets... circular sensors would be very wasteful
Good idea, could a camera have a round filter for the sensor?
Like all silicon chips, sensors are cut from a circular wafer. And wafers are sliced from a cylindrical silicon ingot. Thus, to avoid silicon waste, just make an ingot with a diameter that equals the circular sensor diameter...Some advantages of a circular sensor :- total freedom to choose the image aspect ratio in post-processing.- no need to rotate the camera when shooting in portrait orientation. Thus no need for an optional heavy/bulky vertical grip for DSLRs.- no need for a spirit level or virtual horizon to set the camera horizontally with accuracy when required (although one may be needed to control camera tilt...). Picture can be rotated in post-processing without cutting corners/borders.- or, advanced cameras, with a built-in electronic level sensor, can automatically rotate the picture to set it horizontally without cutting corners/borders.- you get the maximum possible image size whatever the final image aspect ratio you choose (compared to a rectangular sensor).
It's the other way around, actually!For these are crop circles-- oops, CIRCULAR CROPS, I mean, FROM squarish sensors, err... negatives.
1 sensor per silicon wafer will bring incredibly high prices, I fear. I do not remember the standard wafer size, but it's quite bigger than even full frame sensors... So that you can use the same process steps for several to a lot of chips.
Does not work that way. The silicon ingots are MUCH larger than any sensor. This might work out if you make Hubble 2.0, but not for mass production cameras. There are just too many "per piece" costs involved in the processing. Sensors are only cheap if you can make hundreds from a wafer (which is why fullfield sensors are so much more expensive than anything smaller).
Second, the logic itself won't work out: The square pixel grid is there for a reason. Trying to make a circular sensor would be insane - you would get different amounts of pixels per line, how to organise the line and row amplifiers and readout paths? It would be cheapter to just cut the square and ignore the pixels in the corner than to make a dedicated round sensor.
This is much better then DSLR. Let's shoot film again.
I like the circular image format!
I never stopped.
Velvia 50 with Nikon FA at present.
Nikon FA - brilliant design - lightweight, compact and with a perfect selection of features. Nikon, please give us a digital FA.
Not THAT better than DSLR. But it's more exciting than a DSLR as you have to process and wait to see the results. I also love using film, but I only now use it for fun and for art. But for work, I won't use it.By the way, I use Pentax 6x7 and Pentax K1000 until today... ;)
Mamiya M645 and Kodak Portra 160 on occasion.
No Mamiya for me - just an Olympus OM-2n - but Portra 160 is the only colour film I use. Colours are just right with this film!
Some of us still do! I have long-frozen Panatomic-X film in 120 size for a big Fuji 690II.
Just another consumer point and shoot. I would never buy a camera without an evf. Plus, the bokeh sucks.
And the equivalent aperture must be something like f/128.
Who's the tramp at the beach showing off her calves??? Absolutely disgusting! No proper female would dare to bare in such a shameless way!
Kids these days.
People don't change much. They are much the same sort of photos we take today
I was thinking the same thing.
Where,s the selfies in the bathroom mirror and pics of their dinner?
A wonderful time documentary images. Like them, surprising sharp as well.