Do you have a unique or "classic" book?

tedolf wrote:

Seedeich wrote:

David Kieltyka wrote:

It's interesting to see what aspects of photography were valued & emphasized at the time compared to what we value & emphasize now. For example, in the section on using fast lenses (the 50/1.5 & 85/2 Sonnars) the discussion is all about taking pics in low light. Shallow depth of field: zero mention.

I wonder why they don’t mention DoF.
Maybe they are interested in praising the low light capabilities of the fast lenses.
Better not mention, that you can’t get sharp images at the same time.

Depth of field was certainly discussed in the books, from which I learned photography in the 70’s.

Because they understood that super shallow DOF was unappealing and to be avoided. If you had to use a very fast F stop for low light, super shallow DOF could be avoided by subject to camera distance. No one was seeking shallow DOF. That is a modern fetish.

Tedolph

In the film days with ASA between 50 and 400, one always had to be aware of the balance between shutter speed / motion blur and aperture / depth of field. SLRs usually had a button to stop the lens down, so you could judge the overall look of the depth of field. Rangefinder people could of course not do that and had to rely on experience.

Fast lenses had also the advantage, that you could see something in the viewfinder in lowlight. You also needed a certain amount of light to focus with the split prism. Sometimes I think, photography has become too easy with modern technology. The fun of shooting with challenging gear at the limit of the possible has disappeared.