On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom C wrote: > >>While I appreciate the nostalgia around Kodak and the Instamatic, I >>think it was a travesty. >> >>It short changed the general public, millions of people, including my >>father and myself for a good 20 years (not knowing any better being >>born in 1960) into accepting crap quality images in exchange for >>convenience. >> >>I wish the idea had never been invented, unless it was going to be >>provided in a larger format, which of course would have negated the >>profitability. >> >>I tend to think Kodak's demise is little recompense for the damage >>they did to photography after practically inventing it for the common >>man. > > Can't argue with a word of that.
I sure can. "Travesty" is probably a little strong, dontcha think? What idea do you "wish would never have been invented unless it was in larger format": the cheapo camera or the film-in-cartridge idea? The cheapo camera would be a cheapo camera in any format, so I can't see you advocating for that. So you must be talking about the cartridge film concept. The 126 format is already larger than 35mm, which a lot of quality images were produced on, so I don't think you can be faulting the 126 negative size. Kodak's 126 cartridge"lowered the bar" for film loading in a very clever and inexpensive way. It also made it possible for images to be saved even if the camera's film back was opened (which meant more developing and print business, instead of the whole roll just being thrown away). There was nothing any lower quality about the film being put in a 126 cartridge over that being put in a 35mm cartridge. So I'm assuming you are railing against the cheap cameras themselves. The first Instamatic was released in 1963, yet you have imbued it with the incredible power of "short chang[ing] the general public, millions of people, including my father and myself for a good 20 years (not knowing any better being born in 1960) into accepting crap quality images in exchange for convenience." 20 years of ignorance about better camera options? Seriously? Lots of blaming going on in that sentence and no taking of any personal responsibility for "not knowing any better". As a child, you may not have known better, but I don't know what your father's problem might have been. 35mm SLR film cameras were already out there in 1963. Good quality 35mm rangefinders by all the big camera companies were out there by the metric buttload. A lot of people had them. If you were a curious person you probably saw somebody with one (on vacation, etc.) Even so, a lot of people made an economic decision that for their snapshot purposes, something inexpensive was "good enough". Others were intimidated by too many options (shutter speeds, apertures, etc) on the better quality cameras. In any event, I don't see how it is Kodak's fault that you (or your father) didn't become aware of (or purchase) higher quality cameras before you did. I don't think that anybody is going to seriously argue that the Instamatic would be the only camera that one would ever want/need. But I think there are an awful lot of people who had their first photographic experience with a camera that they would today describe as "cheap" or even "crap" but that camera ignited a spark that took them to where they are today (and Kodak didn't exactly have the market cornered on those). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
