Why was the Speed Graphic not adopted by art photographers?

ChrBrewster

Active member
Messages
52
Reaction score
13
Question about photo history. Speed Graphic cameras dominated news photography for decades, and many Pulitzer prize-winning photos were shot with them, including the famous shot of the flag-raising after the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Speed Graphic's film format is large enough for the camera to have been used in studios, and the camera was considered highly versatile. News photographers loved the Speed Graphic, but I can't find any art photographers who used it. Seems it would have served well in various kinds of art photography, such as being a more "portable" approach to the style of the "California School" of Ansel Adams etc. Many uses occur to me. Can someone explain why the art-oriented photographers apparently ignored it?
 
No doubt because it wasn’t Full Frame.
 
If you didn't need the speed, you could get better (larger format), more flexible cameras.
 
Question about photo history. Speed Graphic cameras dominated news photography for decades, and many Pulitzer prize-winning photos were shot with them, including the famous shot of the flag-raising after the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Speed Graphic's film format is large enough for the camera to have been used in studios, and the camera was considered highly versatile. News photographers loved the Speed Graphic, but I can't find any art photographers who used it. Seems it would have served well in various kinds of art photography, such as being a more "portable" approach to the style of the "California School" of Ansel Adams etc. Many uses occur to me. Can someone explain why the art-oriented photographers apparently ignored it?
Probably because wooden field cameras were lighter, had more flexible movements and were used in tripods, making the speed graphics hand held design somewhat superfluous but I'm far from convinced that no "art" photographers used one.
 
Ansel Adams did use Speed Graphics and other press-type cameras, as did many other artists, but generally not as their main camera.

Largely reaffirming what has been said, Speed Graphics and their simpler Crown Graphic siblings were very good hand-held cameras for working quickly on the move. But once a photographer slowed down for more precise or contemplative work there were better options.

For one, many of the artists and commercial photographers preferred to work with 8x10 film. It allowed better detail, could be used to make contact 8x10 prints, and for those who did retouching on film the larger size was much easier to work with. 4x5 was sort of the APS of the day through the 1930s and '40s. (Side note: There was a "Miniature" Speed Graphic which used 120 film, what we now call medium format.)

Second, the Graphics had limited front movement and no back movement in a day when camera movements were often necessary to deal with the limited depth of field of the large format lenses and were used routinely for perspective correction.

EDIT TO ADD: The small size of the Graphic lens board limited the choice of lenses, plus the camera could not be closed with a large lens in place.

And I'll throw in that the Graphic rangefinders were generally not very precise, at least not without frequent calibration -- definitely not a substitute for careful focus on the ground glass. Which meant the photographer wanted to work with a tripod whenever possible and there was no reason not to use a more flexible view camera.

As an aside, a number of well known photographers did use the Graflex large format SLR camera made by the same company -- Dorothea Lange, and Edward Weston come to mind.

Gato

--
Portraits, fantasy, cosplay and such (mildly NSFW)
https://www.instagram.com/jrsprawlsphoto/
.
Personal pictures, kitty cats, road trips, and rural nostalgia:
https://www.instagram.com/j.r.sprawls/
 
Last edited:
Studio and art aren't the same thing.

What are you photographing? Press cameras are notoriously limited. Short bellows means you need telephoto lenses and macro is even more an issue. But they also had limits on how wide you can go.

The tiny lens board meant many larger lenses couldn't be mounted even if the bellows wasn't an issue. Studio guys in more modern days often used lenses in a #3 shutter but older lenses could have used even bigger shutters.

Limited movements made them less than ideal if you needed to twist the camera into a knot. A rail camera like a Sinar could mimic a pretzel. Many rail cameras also had optionals like wide or long bellows.

The tiny little negative was mostly enlarged making it useless if you're wanted contact prints . Likely harder to hand retouch.

Final biggest point you're missing is the world was full of other options. The US had a range of camera makers. Everything from true studio cameras to true field cameras to true architectural cameras to portrait cameras. So why would a non news guy buy the Speed?
 
The tiny little negative was mostly enlarged making it useless if you're wanted contact prints . Likely harder to hand retouch.
Please reconsider.
 
Which part?
 
Rangefinder and viewfinder.
 
I bought a 1930's 4x5 Speed Graphic for my foray into large format because it was the cheapest camera that I could find.

During my ten years of use with it, and lenses from 65mm to 210mm, for landscape and architectural photography I realized that the movements were very limited. More detrimental to it's use, for me, was the need to focus the 65mm lens by sliding the front standard on the camera rail by hand. Superwide lenses must be inside the camera body for focusing, not on the much more convenient bed rail with geared focusing.

For superwide lenses the ideal setup is a short mono rail camera with bag bellows for ultimate flexibility.

I thought the camera shutter would be ideal for using barrel lenses and lenses with poor shutters but for landscapes/architecture the longest shutter speed is only 1/10s, or something, which is far too fast for 4x5 cameras at f22 to f64 at sunrise/sunset, with slow, fine grain films.

So, not a camera easily adopted for art photography..
 
No doubt because it wasn’t Full Frame.
I think you have hit the nail on the head, only in those days the equivalent of full frame was 8" x 10" or larger. The Speed Graphic was up to 4" x 5" only.

Ansel Adams preferred to carry an 8" x 10" camera, despite the extra weight.
In later years he moved to 4x5 and by the late 1960s Adams was mostly using a medium format (6x6cm) Hasselblad camera.
 
Question about photo history. Speed Graphic cameras dominated news photography for decades, and many Pulitzer prize-winning photos were shot with them, including the famous shot of the flag-raising after the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Speed Graphic's film format is large enough for the camera to have been used in studios, and the camera was considered highly versatile. News photographers loved the Speed Graphic, but I can't find any art photographers who used it. Seems it would have served well in various kinds of art photography, such as being a more "portable" approach to the style of the "California School" of Ansel Adams etc. Many uses occur to me. Can someone explain why the art-oriented photographers apparently ignored it?
I am not sure the premise of your question is true. I am sure more than a few fine art photographers did use Speed Graphics.

Most of the people we now think of as "fine art" photographers from the twenties through the 1990s were also commercial photographers. Based on the ones I have known, to create their fine art work they generally used the cameras and lenses they already owned.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top