Dude. I knew who Edwin Land was, kind of, as a contemporary of people like Howard Hughes (who I also don't know as much about as I probably should). But I did not know that he did such important work for the government. That makes him seem so much bigger than life all of the sudden. I'm kind of surprised I don't hear him mentioned more often. Shoot, if I cared about Reddit Karma, I'd share what you'd share in r/todayilearned. He seems like the kind of guy people would get a kick out of talking about. What I'm about to say might sound stupid, but in my defense I don't know much about cameras. After clicking that link, I just learned an asston. I had no idea that there were twin reflex and single reflex cameras. I just figured the form factor of the Rediflex and cameras like it were because they were cheaper and easier to make, and despite the drawbacks of the viewfinder, easier to use. I didn't even know they were popular among hipsters, but that kind of makes sense because I think I first discovered Through the Viewfinder Photography on Instagram or Pintrest or something of the sort. It's really interesting as to how deep of a rabbit hole photography is. On the surface, it seems pretty easy and straightforward, but I've browsed a book or two on photography techniques before and there's a surprising amount of technical skill that goes into it. It's no wonder so many people get hooked on it as a hobby. As an aside, I'm keeping my eye out for a Kodak Brownie with an Art Deco Face, because it's a cool looking thing. I'll be damned if I pay $150 for one like I usually see them for sale as. I mean, they're cool, but they're not a hundred dollar bauble cool. Shit. I just looked up field cameras on Wikipedia and check out the camera shown in the article. That's a pretty little thing right there. We don't have any film for the cameras and while I think if I tried hard enough we could hunt some down, I don't know if it's worth the effort. That said, I bet with how dirty and scratched the lenses are, the photos themselves might have some interesting effects on them. Thank you. You're like one of Hubski's hobbyist historians and that's pretty awesome.
I wouldn't share it if I didn't find it interesting and didn't have a pretty good guess that you'd find it interesting, too. What's kind of mindblowing about Edwin Land is we know he worked on shit from CORONA to the MOL, but that's only because those projects have been declassified (MOL just last July. Add in the KH-9 HEXAGON and KH-11 KEYHOLE and you're modern. I mean, I watched 'em put up a KH-11 in 2011. KH-9 is still so secret that the NRO just sort of dumped one in a museum on 24 hours notice so that friends and family could finally see it (25 years after they last flew) and then tucked it back into the shadows. Meanwhile, the NRO will literally give KH-11s to NASA but won't tell anybody what they are, where they came from, or who worked on them. Considering the KH-9 was easily the most complicated mechanical device we've ever lofted into space, and considering the KH-11 was hardly developed in a vacuum, it's probable that Edwin Land did their optics, too... which means he basically was the US spy satellite program. William Burrows made the argument (back in '82) that the US space surveillance apparatus prevented nuclear war by allowing verification of things that would have been unverifiable. And while SR-71s and U-2s had dozens of missiles fired at them (sometimes multiple times per flight), the satellites were beyond harm via treaty. There aren't many people who can legitimately lay claim to Saving The World. Edwin Land is one of them, though. 50 years from now a bunch of shit is going to be declassified and it's going to be a hell of a story. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ If'n you're gonna fetish on old cameras, Voigtlanders aren't a bad way to go. They're literally the oldest name in optics, although they were killed from 1965 until the 2000s because - get this - Carl Zeiss purchased them and ate them because ZEISS wanted their optical technology. Zeiss basically allowed them to operate independently back in 1999 or so, and they came out with the Bessa L. They're still making cameras and lenses that you can put on, like, your normal camera and they kinda rip. Price an Avus on eBay. You'll see that you get hella more for your $150.
Isn't Carl Zeiss like the Luxottica of camera lenses? I think I heard someone say somewhere that if it's a plain old digital camera, it probably has Zeiss lenses. Speaking of lenses that are old and scratched and full of character, is it possible to put them on modern cameras? I figure you'd get a more genuine blur/scratch result than anything Photoshop could do. As for Land, I wonder if people gossiped about him when he was away working for the government. I don't know much about space equipment or military devices, but the idea that one guy could be a lynch pin figure during the Cold War in such a way is so exciting to think about. That'd put him really high up there in importance in American history and I really feel like we're doing him a disservice by not talking about him. I might have to pick up a boom about the Cold War. Know any easy reads?
Zeiss optics got diluted a bunch when Sony started slapping that name on everything. This is new, though. Zeiss is the shit, and in real camera terms (not shit point'n'shoot iPhone cameras) they still are. Zeiss Master Primes are the absolute gold standard. There are lots of optics that will go on lots of cameras through easy mount adapters. The question is "screw mount" or "bayonet mount." It's not as easy as all that but, for example, a Nikon F-mount lens from 1959 will screw right onto the Nikon you buy from Amazon today. Canon pissed off a lot of people by switching their mount system in the late '80s, if that tells you how far back you can go. Hasselblad glass? No problem. Field cameras? Well most of them just have a plate on the front that you can literally build something out of plywood. As far as "character" (IE Instagram bullshit), a scratched lens will mostly give you halo. A fungal lens will be cloudy. Actual optics problems never reveal themselves as anything but negative stuff; I mean, yeah, a really fungal lens pointed at the sun will give you pretty wicked flare but most people would rather avoid flare when you're serious about it. All the Instagrammy bullshit we've come to know and love emulates what happens when the negative is abused, not the optics. The thing to keep in mind about Edwin Land is that this shit was super secret squirrel until super recently. I mean, the NRO wasn't declassified until 1992. Like I said, the MOL was totally classified until less than a year ago. As far as books, we can narrow that one down. What really interests you? Because I grew up with this shit and I have opinions.
Fuck me. Some of those lenses are worth more than cars! I'm looking at Zeiss's Wikipedia Page and I see that they make lenses for a ton of other stuff than just photography. It doesn't say why or how they started branching out though. I wonder if they were deliberately trying to diversify or if companies started coming to them because they knew that Zeiss knew how to make good lenses. Similarly, I wonder if the government approached Land, or if Land came to them and said "Hey, want some help?" As for using old lenses, it's nice to see that device manufacturers maintained backwards compatibility. I could swear though, that people like using old lenses, but maybe if it's not for the scratchiness and the fog, maybe it's the older lenses aren't manufactured as well, so the images come out a little bit warped? I dunno. I'll have to look into what I'm thinking of, and when I do, I'll share it on here and tag you. Cold War wise, what I would really love is to read a book on how it affected our pop culture, from video games to movies to comic books. That actually might be a bit of a tall order though, I know, because historians don't seem to pay much mind to pop culture for some reason. So, if you have a book that focuses on the key people of the Cold War and how their actions influenced history, that'd be pretty nifty. Going back to Land, he's a great example of how one person potentially had such a huge impact. That's just something that's amazing to think about.
People came to Zeiss because Zeiss made optics. Those optics were good. They have a reputation on the high end because they've earned it; a shitty Sony pocketcam may not take the best pictures but it's not because the optics suck. Granted, you'll get more effect out of a Zeiss prime the size of your arm than you will a single-element lens the size of an Advil but they still make good glass. People like using old lenses 'cuz they're CHEEP. There's nothing about a lens that gets worse with age, assuming they're well-kept. Glass is glass. Newer lenses are generally better but older lenses work pretty damn well, so long as you don't need all the ultrasonic motors and computer control. This is why the backwards compatibility matters - in this day and age, Moore's Law is likely to make your camera body better every 18 months, but the glass is the glass. This is why once you shoot Nikon you're likely to keep shooting Nikon - you have hella more in glass than you do in the body. There's no useful effect out of old glass other than vignetting, and that just means the lens is poorly matched to the body. So... Cold War. The problem is, you're looking for a set of anecdotes, and while I could give you several about everything, I don't want to write a book for you. It's not that historians pay no mind, it's that it's difficult to come up with a cultural perspective that really says anything. You also have to keep in mind that you're asking for an overview of 40 years of history and that's a tall order. Tony Judt has you covered but it's a slog. You finish that fucker on Audible and they give you a badge. No lie. Lemme give you one you might find more interesting. It isn't particularly about the Cold War, but it might be right up your alley.
Huh. I never knew that about lenses. So, I guess you could say, that cameras themselves lose considerable value over time (barring certain circumstances) but lenses, if well taken care of, are a sound investment. With that in mind, back to repairing my wife's busted cameras, not that we would put the money into them, but I wonder if repairing the. Would increase their value substantially if they were made operable again with new lenses . . . As an aside, I should look into Zeiss's stock history. Not that I'm an investor or anything, but I wonder if there's a correlation between their diverse target markets and the overall health of the company. Both those books look really good. The Amazon description for Postwar make it sound very compelling, but one hell of a chore. You're dead on about The Ten Cent Plague though. Same with A-Z Photography. I think I'm gonna call my bookstore tomorrow and see about ordering them. If I can and I get my hands on them, I'll try to start a thread about them. I think I'd love to discuss both.
Also: people are still taking pictures with Linhof Teknikas. You can still buy them. They're a bit more expensive than Horsemans so you don't see them as often but... shit. I haven't seen a 4x5 in the wild since about 2002. Thing is, you can't get tubthumping images without having a tubthumping neg because nobody is making a sensor that's multiple inches by multiple inches. A contact print off an 8x10 negative? It's something to behold. The trick is...
I don't think we would experiment with film, that's a lot of effort for people who are really passionate. For passing fanciers lime us, it'd be impractical. I am thinking of gathering up a few things though and taking them to a pawnshop to surprise my wife with a gently used DSLR and then maybe find her a book on photography. I think she'd have fun with it.
This is the book. No lie. I owned a couple dozen backintheday and this one is far and away the most useful single book.
Sweet! I'm gonna hunt that down! I don't know if it's up your alley or not, but a few years ago we got some books on colors and layouts by Jim Krause and they're very good books for beginners. Very easy to use.