February 2023

You bet - and they never stopped doing so. The big names of the camera-body world are also big names of the camera lens world - according to themselves. And also according to lots of users  who would sooner part with a foot than with the big-name lenses that their maker produces. If they have a Flapoflex camera they need Flapanon lenses - no question. Any suggestion that they use lenses from an independent maker would be heresy. Some camera camera makers have even gone so far as to pull up the commercial and design drawbridge by refusing to share specifications, dimensions, and protocols that would allow other makers to provide compatible lenses. Until recently this was a thorn in the side of many camera users. Of course there are some makers who are not served by others because the others have no wish to make the complex or extremely expensive lens mounts they need. Now, however, there are two more possibilities - as there has been some movement at the station in regard to the legalities of secondary - and tertiary makers. a....

Sentimental longing for things in photography is no new thing. I suspect that people in the wet-plate era often looked back with affection to daguerreotypes. There was something about boiling mercury that just tugged at your heartstrings. Likewise now we can be nostalgic about film days - and do something about it, if we wish. We are still close enough to the vast - if receding - sea of analogue photography to be able to rush for the shoreline and paddle in the developer. There are simple reusable film cameras made, brand new Leica M's, and  markets of secondhand goods still capable of working for years to come. Our chance to work with chemistry is diminishing, but will probably never go entirely - someone will be able to develop negatives in the bathroom as long as there are bathrooms. Nostalgia in the dark and a big water bill. But what of later, rather than earlier, nostalgia. Is there someone sighing for the 1990's compact digital camera? Will there be a rising trade in 3 megapixel things with retractable lenses  and Game Boy graphics?...

Oh stop groaning. Be thankful that you saw the old Hitchcock movie called " Dail M For Murder ". With Grace Kelly and Ray Milland in it, it was worth seeing. Grace Kelly was always worth seeing. The N in this case is Nikkormat - one of the long line of successful 35mm SLR cameras from Nikon that were so popular in the 1960's and 70's. More affordable than the Nikon F line from the same makers, it could take the same lenses. In those days the production of cameras with electronics was just coming on - electricity was a new thing - and camera design had frequently to integrate mechanical function with some pretty busy engineering. The basics that you see today in your digital camera were all there, but a lot of the characteristics were factory-set. Set by the camera factory, makers of the 35mm film, and the people who later developed those films. You were expected to set controls on the camera  yourself and set them right; otherwise you were disappointed a week later when the prints and slides...

And there is nothing - save a dockyard crane - as heavy as an old professional digital camera. The Nikon D1X you see in the heading image is a relic of my first involvement with digital work. I'd just started serving in the Stirling Street shop - the only one at the time - and The management knew that I'd need to get up to speed with digital to be of any use. They sent me to the C.R. Kennedy offices for some rapid training, and Chris Doudakis did an admirable job of showing me what had changed in photography. Bless him, he was good - it stated to make sense after a half hour. The Pentax K20D was the go at that time and their ergonomics and markings were so well thought-out that even the confused could be set right in short time. In retrospect I might well have started my own shooting with one of these at the time and not been at all sad. However, it was also a time when there were a number of ex-press Nikon D1X camera...

Start the music, Miss Jane! Now everyone pass your portfolio to the person next to you. Stop the music, Miss Jane! And now we get to work. We all have a portfolio of work - amateur images, professional pictures, incomplete files, psd's that have caused us to lose the will to live after the 56th layer...

What was your weekly allowance? Did you get one at all? Did you have to do chores to qualify for it? Or was there a pot of money on the telephone table that you just dipped into whenever you fancied a treat? Mine was 50¢ initially - when that would buy ten chocolate bars or one Airfix model airplane in a plastic bag. Later it became $ 2.00 but there was a good deal of lawn mowing needed. In my final year of high school it was $ 3.00 - a figure set by the boarding school administration for everyone to prevent trouble. I could afford a roll of Kodak B/W film from this, plus a drug store soda. The developing was free in the school darkroom. It was a workable equation...

A latin phrase expressing deep emotion. In my case it's because I have plenty of them but I'm afraid to let them out. And I'm not alone - the makers of cameras, lenses, and computer programs have plenty of words as well - dictionaries of them - but in many cases they, too, have no idea what to do with them. When they do the rest of us sit back and stare in confusion. It can be like Scrabble in a mirror. Take a well-known maker of picture editing software - one that supplies truncated versions of its program to many camera makers to allow the buyers a basic chance to edit. People who use the CD  supplied or download a basic program as a free thing may never know what they are missing. Or what has just missed them. In an effort to fool myself that I was going to do better post-processing I tried out their basic program. It had come free with several camera bodies. It worked, but was even less capable than the Mum and Dad program that I use...