Cast your mind back if you will to a time when a photographer was required to coat large cumbersome plates, sensitize their own printing papers and prepare a range of toxic chemicals. Now contrast that process with a 'gizmo' laden mega, mega pixel 'offering' purchased for small money and you can see how far we have come in a relatively short period of time. Go one step back and remember the trail blazing artisans who constructed their own cameras using a variety of diameter pins in place on lenses and you can see an even more striking contrast which is difficult to grasp.
The amount of luck and uncertainty endured by the pioneering few and the inexplicable causes for failure would, I am sure, lead us all to forget the whole idea of making pictures. The rapid advancements in technology over a short timescale had pushed the boundaries of photographic practice to the point where anyone can record an event.
So what about the time in between? Can you remember any 'milestones' when a new range of artists provided an alternative to the formal studio portrait? Well, a number of us remember the swinging 60's and while it gave rise to some great photographers I'd ask you to think of the time just before when the term 'photo journalist' was coined. Yes, I mean before Bailey, Lichfield and Donovan when the really great photographers developed their skill.
It can be argued that the 'golden' age of photojournalism can be attributed to camera men such as Alfred Eisenstaedt, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Bill Brant but one thing that can be said, it was the time when the rangefinder camera came of age.
Photographers were now able to 'tell it how it was' thanks to the features now available in the cameras of the 50's and yes, the development of the miniature camera and film. While the camera has always been just a 'tool' it is without doubt that the 50's were the age whereby the rise of photojournalism pushed forward the development of camera technology. Previously the photographer had limitations imposed by the apparatus and medium available, and the situation called for the photographer to rely on their knowledge and experience gained from the many failures and lack of various pin diameters to imitate a range of lenses.
With the rangefinder came reduced 'pit stops' to change film. Miniature film rolls of 36 exposures must have seemed liberation at the time and together with increased refinements such as interchangeable lenses, the rangefinder and photojournalism had said 'hello'.
Not possible, I think you'll agree, for a photographer to produce those wonderful gritty and grainy 'in your face' images amplified by the use of black and white printing with a Kodak 'belly button' camera and hence the demands for improvement had to follow. Can you imagine trying to record an uprising in a war torn country after setting up a cumbersome tripod? So how did the photographer benefit from the increased availability of the rangefinder camera?
In a nutshell, the ability to focus a lens, which was coupled to accurate settings thus avoiding guesswork and pre measurement, increased the opportunities to record street scenes after dark, stage lighting and rapid movement. The impact of the increased availability of roll film cameras and miniature films cannot be underestimated. In 'A Key to Photography' by R M Franxtone (1939) he reminds us that "...roll film, in all the popular sizes, can now be obtained in all the large towns and even in the villages"; contrasted with the use of large photographic plates, one can see how rangefinders became the 'digital' of the time.
You may be forgiven for thinking only of the name Leica when you turn to a rangefinder camera when in fact Kodak came to market first with its 3A Autographic range around 1917. Take a look at the Kodak and I am sure you'll agree its 'belly button' approach to taking pictures did not endure itself to the photojournalist of the time.
Early rangefinders relied on the photographer buying an accessory, with Leica starting the trend in the mid 1920's. Contax followed close behind and from around the 30's to the late 60's many manufacturers produced a model or two.
We can argue which developed first: the need for a very reliable and robust camera body or the need for the press to deliver increased coverage of the conflicts taking shape around the world. Certainly, Leica and Nikon rose to the challenge and one will always associate quality with these famous names.
The best known rangefinders are associated with 35mm film but it's worth remembering that all film sizes have been accommodated over the years. With lenses being screw mounted originally, they did change to offer the bayonet over time and one can see this style used in the new rangefinders of today.
The Nikon rangefinder gained popularity around 1948 with the introduction of the Nikon 1. With approximately 730 bodies being made this is now a rare and expensive item to collect. The Nikon M enhanced the name Nikon within the world of photography and gave it status in 1949. The black body models made were at the request of photographers working at the front of many wars. But maybe the model best know is the S range. It spawned 5 updates with the Nikon S3M being the most valuable Nikon 35mm camera ever. In 1993 at Christies in London, a S3M sold for £28,000 or $58,000 making it the most expensive 35mm sold (ref: The Complete Nikon System by Peter Braczko 2000)
So why use a rangefinder camera?
Good question when technology has taken the professional and amateur camera user to new heights.
Think of a 35mm compact today and most likely you'll find an 'auto-all-thingy' however, a rangefinder tend to give you a greater degree of manual control than even and SLR. When you press the shutter there's no black-out and you can see what's going on outside the view of the lens; pretty useful when bullets are whistling past your head. You can hold a rangefinder steadier and for longer but perhaps more than that is a sense of engagement with the subject. As you are never separated from the subject whereas with an SLR the most critical moment is often lost; that is the moment of exposure.
With a 'brightline finder, you can see what's going on around you all the time and this allows you to recompose immediately when something has come into frame that you did not plan for. The absence of a flipping mirror allows for the use of longer shutter speeds and the ability to shoot in poor light is boosted by using a camera with a bright, clear rangefinder path which, unlike SLR reflexes, is unaffected by the lens speed or focal length.
True 'die hard' rangefinder users do not use flash arguing that it can distract from the moment and it acts like a car horn blasting away when you try for that critical moment. There is no doubt that using a rangefinder is a considered choice but so is driving a high priced sports car. Every way you use a rangefinder you are in complete control. Once you have set the focus, aperture and shutter speed you are free to remain unobtrusive in situations where the use of any camera would be frowned upon. Look back at early essays from famous photographers and you'll see that they preferred to shot with both eyes open; now that's what I call control.
So what makes these cameras so enduring? Take a look at an auction site or photographic magazine and you'll be amazed at the cost of the more well known models. At the point of writing I can tell you that in the monthly photographic magazines, a used Leica M3 will set you back around $500.
Why pay that? Well if you have never held a top quality rangefinder or if you have never fired the shutter of a top quality rangefinder or better still if you have never tried to 'get up close and personal' with a camera I suggest you give it a go. Once tried, you will be bitten by the bug forever. Good lick in your search to find the perfect model for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment