Is modern digital photography

easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
From the mid seventies on, everything started to get "better". Or "easier". Cheap cameras took a step upwards, mid range, point and shoot cameras became quite sophisticated with good lenses, simple focussing and automatic metering. Top quality cameras showed improvement with, among other things, metering systems which meant the hand held meter could be left at home, automatic film speed setting, easier film loading and zoom lenses which could be used without too much loss of quality. These improvements continued until, in 1986, Canon changed the face of top end enthusiast's cameras with their T90, A camera which loaded the film for you, wound back the film when finished, had a good metering system, allowed burst shooting and, instead of being hard and cold to handle, was warm and soft like a young women. All other manufacturers took note. Not long after, came the EOS with it's autofocus and all was ready and waiting for the digital film revolution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pgb
easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
From the mid seventies on, everything started to get "better". Or "easier". Cheap cameras took a step upwards, mid range, point and shoot cameras became quite sophisticated with good lenses, simple focussing and automatic metering. Top quality cameras showed improvement with, among other things, metering systems which meant the hand held meter could be left at home, automatic film speed setting, easier film loading and zoom lenses which could be used without too much loss of quality. These improvements continued until, in 1986, Canon changed the face of top end enthusiast's cameras with their T90, A camera which loaded the film for you, wound back the film when finished, had a good metering system, allowed burst shooting and, instead of being hard and cold to handle, was warm and soft like a young women. All other manufacturers took note. Not long after, came the EOS with it's autofocus and all was ready and waiting for the digital film revolution.
Canon were very innovative in the decade before that. I'd disagree with you about the T90, and say that the A1 was the one that changed everything. As far as I know, it was the first multi-mode SLR. Until then, auto exposure meant aperture priority. (One exception; Canon's AE-1 which introduced shutter priority.) The A1 had aperture priority, shutter priority and was the first SLR to have a program mode. In a way, it was a technology demonstrator that showed how important the electronics were going to become in photography.

a1-winder-a.jpeg


I've taken that image from this blog, which is a good place to find out more: http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/canon-a-1/

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
 
At the low end:

The Pentax K1000 film-SLR was the epitome of simplicity. In contrast, a modest Canon Rebel DSLR comes with a 400+ page manual. (With more capabilities comes more complexity.)

I just shot Kodachrome, and mailed it to Kodak for developing. Easy-peasy.
Ah, but you had to learn what the 'simple' settings on your K1000 did. Shutter speeds, apertures, focus, etc., all that stuff you now take for granted because you know it.

And get the exposure wrong by only 1 stop on Kodachrome and the results were really not great.

On the other hand a complete novice can pick up most modern digital cameras set to 'P' or 'Auto' and not have to learn a thing about photography and still get a reasonable result.
 
Autofocus came out in the mid-eighties. Autoexposure was sometime around that time too.
Autofocus was kind of a novelty and most of us who shot film didn't use it. Certainly most camreas avable didn't have that feature. Auto exposure goes back to the 70s and again, lots of pople didn't use that either as some very popular SLRs were manual exposure only...
 
easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
From the mid seventies on, everything started to get "better". Or "easier". Cheap cameras took a step upwards, mid range, point and shoot cameras became quite sophisticated with good lenses, simple focussing and automatic metering. Top quality cameras showed improvement with, among other things, metering systems which meant the hand held meter could be left at home, automatic film speed setting, easier film loading and zoom lenses which could be used without too much loss of quality. These improvements continued until, in 1986, Canon changed the face of top end enthusiast's cameras with their T90, A camera which loaded the film for you, wound back the film when finished, had a good metering system, allowed burst shooting and, instead of being hard and cold to handle, was warm and soft like a young women. All other manufacturers took note. Not long after, came the EOS with it's autofocus and all was ready and waiting for the digital film revolution.
Canon were very innovative in the decade before that. I'd disagree with you about the T90, and say that the A1 was the one that changed everything. As far as I know, it was the first multi-mode SLR. Until then, auto exposure meant aperture priority. (One exception; Canon's AE-1 which introduced shutter priority.) The A1 had aperture priority, shutter priority and was the first SLR to have a program mode. In a way, it was a technology demonstrator that showed how important the electronics were going to become in photography.

a1-winder-a.jpeg


I've taken that image from this blog, which is a good place to find out more: http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/canon-a-1/

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
Yes the A-1 (and frankly the AE-1 before it) had more impact on SLR camera construction and sales than the T-90 did.

The T-90 was really the last gasp of advanced manual focus SLRs but what it did herald was the curvy, organic style which subsequently became the norm.
 
That's a YES.

I used to have to use this to get a print ...



Now I just use this ....

Love it! Love it! Love it! What a great setup!!

When I first got interested in photography I was in the Army and I went to the base recreational photo lab. What a hoot! Later I bought my own equipment. I think I still have it somewhere in storage.
 
easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
From the mid seventies on, everything started to get "better". Or "easier". Cheap cameras took a step upwards, mid range, point and shoot cameras became quite sophisticated with good lenses, simple focussing and automatic metering. Top quality cameras showed improvement with, among other things, metering systems which meant the hand held meter could be left at home, automatic film speed setting, easier film loading and zoom lenses which could be used without too much loss of quality. These improvements continued until, in 1986, Canon changed the face of top end enthusiast's cameras with their T90, A camera which loaded the film for you, wound back the film when finished, had a good metering system, allowed burst shooting and, instead of being hard and cold to handle, was warm and soft like a young women. All other manufacturers took note. Not long after, came the EOS with it's autofocus and all was ready and waiting for the digital film revolution.
Canon were very innovative in the decade before that. I'd disagree with you about the T90, and say that the A1 was the one that changed everything. As far as I know, it was the first multi-mode SLR. Until then, auto exposure meant aperture priority. (One exception; Canon's AE-1 which introduced shutter priority.) The A1 had aperture priority, shutter priority and was the first SLR to have a program mode. In a way, it was a technology demonstrator that showed how important the electronics were going to become in photography.

a1-winder-a.jpeg


I've taken that image from this blog, which is a good place to find out more: http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/canon-a-1/

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
Yes the A-1 (and frankly the AE-1 before it) had more impact on SLR camera construction and sales than the T-90 did.

The T-90 was really the last gasp of advanced manual focus SLRs but what it did herald was the curvy, organic style which subsequently became the norm.
I did quite like the AE-1, with the large well-positioned shutter speed dial but at that time I didn't trust cameras with electronic shutters. You got little - if any - warning of when the battery would fail (in any camera at that time). Cameras with mechanical shutters kept working without power.

I also thought the A1 was overcomplicated. For goodness sake, by the time you've decided which of four exposure modes you would use, you could have set shutter and aperture manually. I was completely wrong about that!

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
 
When I started there was no aperture or shutter priority or program mode, No auto-focus, At one point the camera didn't even have a meter and I had to use a separate Wesson handheld meter. Everything had to be figured out and set manually.

But you didn't have to have a rocket scientist mind to be able to learn what it was all about, It just took more thinking and manual involvement with the equipment. Conversely, I don't ever recall anyone asking me to describe "equivalency". Now, that I find really really hard!

So in that respect, some things are more difficult now. :-D
 
Much easier. I jumped into the hobby in 60, my first 35MM was an Argus. Too expensive, complex and time consuming. Gave it up till digital came along. Now I'm concerned that with the rate we're using pixels today, a pixel shortage is coming soon.
 
easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
When did in-camera metering come to cameras? Was that in the 80s? I think that my Nikon FE had in-camera metering (but I am not sure) and that would have been a small change. Other than that there wasn't a lot of change after the 70s.

Digital photography is much easier than film photography . . . especially if you developed your own film and printed your own photographs.
In camera, through the lens, metering was common in the 1960's after the introduction of the Pentax 'Spotmatic' SLR.
I think the Topcon was the first. It also had the meter behind the mirror, so that it was not affected by changing the type of focussing screen, unlike those that were placed in an interchangeable finder.
This was quickly copied, with interchangeable finder cameras [Nikon, Exacta] having metering added to accessory viewfinders, while others [e.g. Canon FT & Pellix] adding it to the body.

All of this was 'stop down' metering. The photographer would need to stop down the lens to the selected shooting aperture and then see of the meter needle [connected to the shutter speed] matched a mark in the view finder. [The FT/Pellix had a big lever on the front, convenient to the pinkie of the left hand].
My recollection is that the Topcon metering was wide open. The camera knew what f number you were going to use because it had a coupling lever on the back of each lens. It was all very well worked out. And patented.

The Spotmatic was much cruder but worked well enough. I got good exposures from both.
--
Save the Earth! Collect the entire set!
 
For me, while digital is easier to take a good photo, it is much easier and faster to see you didn't .
 
easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
From the mid seventies on, everything started to get "better". Or "easier". Cheap cameras took a step upwards, mid range, point and shoot cameras became quite sophisticated with good lenses, simple focussing and automatic metering. Top quality cameras showed improvement with, among other things, metering systems which meant the hand held meter could be left at home, automatic film speed setting, easier film loading and zoom lenses which could be used without too much loss of quality. These improvements continued until, in 1986, Canon changed the face of top end enthusiast's cameras with their T90, A camera which loaded the film for you, wound back the film when finished, had a good metering system, allowed burst shooting and, instead of being hard and cold to handle, was warm and soft like a young women. All other manufacturers took note. Not long after, came the EOS with it's autofocus and all was ready and waiting for the digital film revolution.
Canon were very innovative in the decade before that. I'd disagree with you about the T90, and say that the A1 was the one that changed everything. As far as I know, it was the first multi-mode SLR. Until then, auto exposure meant aperture priority. (One exception; Canon's AE-1 which introduced shutter priority.) The A1 had aperture priority, shutter priority and was the first SLR to have a program mode. In a way, it was a technology demonstrator that showed how important the electronics were going to become in photography.

a1-winder-a.jpeg


I've taken that image from this blog, which is a good place to find out more: http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/canon-a-1/

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
The A1 system was very much a professional system whereas the T90 was really aimed at top end enthusiasts. The best of the group was probably the Minolta XM. It was far in advance of the Canon/Nikon cameras on offer.
 
easier than 60's and 70's film photography?
Why specifically 60s and 70s? It doesn't seem like film photograhy changed all that much after the 70s...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
From the mid seventies on, everything started to get "better". Or "easier". Cheap cameras took a step upwards, mid range, point and shoot cameras became quite sophisticated with good lenses, simple focussing and automatic metering. Top quality cameras showed improvement with, among other things, metering systems which meant the hand held meter could be left at home, automatic film speed setting, easier film loading and zoom lenses which could be used without too much loss of quality. These improvements continued until, in 1986, Canon changed the face of top end enthusiast's cameras with their T90, A camera which loaded the film for you, wound back the film when finished, had a good metering system, allowed burst shooting and, instead of being hard and cold to handle, was warm and soft like a young women. All other manufacturers took note. Not long after, came the EOS with it's autofocus and all was ready and waiting for the digital film revolution.
Canon were very innovative in the decade before that. I'd disagree with you about the T90, and say that the A1 was the one that changed everything. As far as I know, it was the first multi-mode SLR. Until then, auto exposure meant aperture priority. (One exception; Canon's AE-1 which introduced shutter priority.) The A1 had aperture priority, shutter priority and was the first SLR to have a program mode. In a way, it was a technology demonstrator that showed how important the electronics were going to become in photography.

a1-winder-a.jpeg


I've taken that image from this blog, which is a good place to find out more: http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/canon-a-1/

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
The A1 system was very much a professional system whereas the T90 was really aimed at top end enthusiasts. The best of the group was probably the Minolta XM. It was far in advance of the Canon/Nikon cameras on offer.
The A-1 was never aimed at professionals. The fact that some used it was rather a surprise.

The Minolta XM was in a higher price category than either the A-1 or T-90 and is probably better compared with the Nikon F series and Canon's F-1 and New F-1 rather than with amateur cameras of the time.
 
Last edited:
Autofocus came out in the mid-eighties. Autoexposure was sometime around that time too.
Autofocus was kind of a novelty and most of us who shot film didn't use it. Certainly most camreas avable didn't have that feature. Auto exposure goes back to the 70s and again, lots of pople didn't use that either as some very popular SLRs were manual exposure only...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
Actually both Autoexposure and Autofocus caused a massive increase in sales for SLRs (similar to, if not as large as digital did some years later).

Of course some users did cling to manual exposure and manual focus but not that many really and claiming that "most of us who shot film didn't use it" simply isn't borne out by the facts if you look at the sales data for that period.
That's proably true... but my own experince is differnt in that I knew a lot more folks with manul focus Nikons, Minoltas, Pentaxes, etc. It seemed that a large number of folks owned camreas like the K1000, the AE1, etc and less folks had the full auto ones. Perhaps there were lots of folks like my mom, who "upgraded" from manual focus to an SLR that was auto everything (in this case a Minolta Maxxum) and then decided she hated the thing... it mostly sat in a drawer.


I might be reacting to my own bias as well as I never really liked the idea of auto focus for film (with digital it's great though!)... and especially with film being so comparatively expensive the idea of auto film advance just seems like a good way to waste more film! I haven't shot film in years, but if I do, it wont be with auto focus and I'll be cranking the film shot by shot... and enjoying it.

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top