Into the Library – How far Photography has come in 25 Years

The last post noted my (already weakened) New Year’s resolve to get more involved in photography and do things that would make for worthwhile entries here.  

 January Day, Columbia, MD (23 January 2012)

It’s a gloomy day here.  A cold rain is falling on an inch of icy snow that has been on the ground for three days.  That makes it a good day to continue reviewing my collected Outdoor Photographer magazines.

When I graduated from a Kodak Instamatic camera to 35mm over 40 years ago, my interests in ecology and travel meant that I was going to be an outdoor, natural light shooter.  While I admire what can be accomplished in a studio with lights, I get the most pleasure wandering about interesting places and trying to capture images as they appear in available light.

There are many photography magazines out there but, given my predisposition, Outdoor Photographer (OP) has been the best fit for me.  It’s all about great places and natural light.  From close-ups to panoramic landscapes, you seldom see people in the pictures unless they really add to a composition or provide a reference scale to the scene.  I began subscribing in 1986.  At first, I saved the issues because they were worth keeping.  Then many years passed when all I did was stack them aside because work was too consuming to give reading the time it needed.  Now I have a 25-year collection with many issues that have never been opened…a shameful admission of abominable discipline.

On the other hand, I now have a record of the revolutionary changes in photography that have occurred in that period.  Going through the collection starting with the oldest issues has been fascinating.  Since this blog is about images first and I shouldn’t be re-publishing someone else’s copyrighted work, I’ll break up the chatter with some favorite shots from those same years.

Early Snow, Vermont (October 1986)

Early autumn in New England and the first snow of the season fell while 

the leaves were still on the trees. The muted color of the trees and the

lack of color in the ground and sky make a soft, subtle scene.

When I first subscribed to OP, I was impressed with its outstanding presentation of pictures.  It’s amazing how much better published pictures are now.  Of course, 1986 pre-dates digital photography as a consumer product.  Long ago, photographers were certainly able to produce technically flawless pictures using high-grain film and meticulous darkroom procedures.  It seems we are so much better able to print and publish now.

The earliest issues actually had some black and white shots.  Ansel Adams showed that black and white can make a stunning image but not everything looks better without color.  The monochrome images in the magazine were among the least interesting and I’m certain they wouldn’t be published now.  Like you, I have become conditioned by today’s standards.  Today’s equipment is better.  What we can do on the computer after the picture is taken [in the ‘digital darkroom’] was unfathomable then.  Today’s images have so much more ‘POP’ since we can improve a picture’s brightness, color saturation and contrast.

On the other hand, there are certain shots that can impress without much brightness or color.  A subtle and moody scene around dawn or dusk or in interesting weather will always works for me.

City Park, New Orleans (April 1986)

 Of course, the most striking aspect of that time was it pre-dated the digital era.  We all used film then.  The magazine had these archaic moments that are no longer possible.  The late, great Galen Rowell was discussing his cover shot and wrote, “I withheld my judgment until the film was developed”.  Now, we can see our pictures when we take them.  

I recall a pro at that time telling me that if you wanted to publish in magazines like National Geographic, you shot 35mm slides.  Kodachrome slide film was king for many years.  Then Fuji made terrific film.  Now, hardly anyone uses film and Kodak, once a Fortune 500 company, has just gone bankrupt.  It has become a relic.  While some may wax nostalgic [the way vinyl record lovers do] about certain qualities of film…I can’t think of one right now, I’ll bet no one misses worrying about film and airport x-ray machines.

Ready to Fly (Wisconsin, June 1987)

Close-up of a dandelion-like seed pod before the wind carried the seeds away 

Back then, large format cameras were used by many of the better photographers.  Few people lug around 8 X 10 field cameras anymore.  Motor drives [which allowed quick sequence action pictures without you having to pull a lever to advance the film] were expensive accessories then.  Now, digital pictures can be taken and stored as fast as the shutter can go…no need to mechanically advance the film strip.

 Nova Scotia Stream (October 1987)

Using a tripod, one can close the lens aperture down to use the higher f-stops that 

will give the greatest depth of field.  This puts everything in the picture in focus.   

However, higher f-stops mean longer exposures and longer exposures blur the 

movement of the water, which, in this case, makes for an appealing image.

The August 1986 issue introduced the Canon T-90 camera.  They called it a “revolutionary new camera…fully automated in every way except focus, a control many photographers still aren’t willing to relinquish to the computer chip”.  How quaint.  Who thought that in ten years, everyone would swear by autofocus and in twenty, we’d have cameras that did twice as much for half the price and all in a package that could fit in your pocket?  

We’ve come a long way, baby.