Graflex.org

primus96 · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:48 pm Post subject:

Besides Weegee and J Rosenthal are there any other famous photographers of the past who used a Graphic for their work?
I think that O Winston Link and Ansell Adams did but I may be wrong.
Mr Burnett as an example of someone who trusts a 'Speed to earn a crust.
Perhaps he'd like to get a Graflite or Heiland flashgun & a crate of Meggaflash bulbs?

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:30 pm Post subject:

A lot of them did. I've seen photos of Margaret Bourke-White wearing a steel helmet and holding a "Speed," and I vaguely recollect a photo of Eisenstadt in one of the stainless-steel gargoyles on the Chrysler Building, holding what I recall as a "Speed." The list probably goes on; some of the illustrated biographies might be helpful to you.

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

There's a fairly famous photograph of Ansel Adams on top of a mountain with a camera on a tripod. The view shows only the back of the camera, but from the "tombstone" sport finder sticking up, I can tell its a Pre-anniversary, and it has a Graflex back.

At one time the photographer was selling limited prints (platinum or paladium) 5x7s of this image for $700. I did n't buy one.

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Weston used a 5x7 SLR I think. His friend Tina Modotti I think used a 3x4 SLR.

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Or don't the SLR count?

dvonk · Joined: 16 Feb 2004 Posts: 31 Location: Omaha, NE

again, if it counts, Dorothea Lange used a Graflex SLR as well.

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

I think I just saw the Bourke-White photo a few months ago in a biography I thumbed through at the university library. Korean War, late model Pacemaker, but i can't remember if she was wearing a helmet. It was a nice photo of the camera. I could look at it again this week... I would assume most reputable photographers in the U.S. have used them at some time, and if not for professional work, when they were learning. Is there a better camera for this?
Stephen

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Dave · Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Posts: 78 Location: Canada

Yeah, what troublemaker said. I bet asking 'what photographers have used a Speed?' in 1950 would be like asking 'what photographers have used a Nikon?' in 2000.

FWIW, in the 'Biography' program on Ansel Adams, you can see him holding a Speed in one place (possibly the aforementioned pre-Anny) and a Graflex SLR in another place. (Adams seems to have been a bit of an equipment freak, and a lot of cameras passed through his hands.)

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

For what learning?
Basic photograhpy. Do some folks begin with swings, tilts, shifts and rise?
From what I understand Graphics were used quite a bit in schools and universities for a long time, and I am sure along with a variety of TLR's and who knows what, everything under the sun.
I do not think I would hand a student a view camera to go out and take strait photos, and they are a bit awkward to hand hold. I think the durability, adaptability, combine with the limited movements on the Graphic to make it an excellent educational tool. It is just an opinion based on what I've read, and certainly my own experince and teaching a friend recently about the basics.
Perhaps someone "famous" can jump in here and let us know if this could possibly be true...

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Box cameras or any of the folders. Weren't these much more common ? I thought all graflex cameras weren't exactly cheap new. If you relate the cost to the average weekly wage I bet a new Graflex cost more in 1950 then the latest whiz bang camera does today.

If you are just learning basic photography doesn't a folder do everything you need?

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

Over the last 25 years or so I've taught several people photography and always started them out with either an Argus C3 or a Pentax K1000.

Once they fully understand f stops, shutter speeds, focal lenghts, DOF, etc. Then I show them how much sharper an print from a 4x5 is and let them play with a Speed.

But today, the kids see there's no future in film cameras and suffer through.

I've always wanted, but never had the group, to do a BIG SHOT... find a building a bunch of people with little Vivitars or some flash bulbs and paint with flash. I would set up several cameras 35mm, 4x5, 8x10, all with normal lenses for their format and the same aperture, so they can see the depth of field change as well as sharpness, gradation etc.

Rangemaster · Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:44 pm Post subject:

Les,

When doing my classes on photography, I have done just what your talking about, even the digital shooters have a eye opening when they see the differance between the formats and the amount of information recorded, I have also used a old ciro-flex 6 x 6 and did some scans to compare to the new 6.3 megapixel cameras and it is a eye opener as well..even though the newer lens on the digital is superior, they are quite amazed at the amount of information and quality of the picture fro the older camera.

Dave

Dave

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

Nick does have a point. There is a thread on the board here that discusses the prices of Graphics in "Eisenhower dollars" compared to "Bush dollars" wherein it suggests a Graphic would run around $2,500 or so these days. Sorry about misdirecting the post, I should have made my comments in the form of a question...
Regardless, there is evidence that Graphics have had their place in schools etc...
What was meant was that some famous photographers have probably used them in thier formative years, and I as well as the original post are interested in hearing about it...
I think Ansel first used a Brownie as a youngster in Yosemite (it was some sort of little box camera I have seen a picture of him with it)
Stephen

dvonk · Joined: 16 Feb 2004 Posts: 31 Location: Omaha, NE

those of you who notice the trend of younger people using digital cameras instead of film may appreciate this.

i am 21 years old, and i started photography on a digital camera about 2 years ago. feeling there was something lacking, i purchased an older (late '70s) electronic 35mm SLR, which was much more fun than the 'press a button, instant picture' digital cameras, because it required actually having to think about my exposure somewhat (f-stop, shutter speed). the small negative and electronic nature of the camera left me searching for more even still. i respooled a b&w roll of 120 onto a 620 spool and ran it through one of my old (c. 1920s) kodak cameras (just a collector camera at the time) and they turned out beautifully. i was hooked, and i needed more. i bought my 4x5 crown graphic and have loved every minute of it. i have finally found what real photography is, and will never go back. i suppose im a rare example of an individual who traveled backwards in the trend of photography.