Early National Geographic Issues and Leica Camera Use during 1920's to late 1950's?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi everyone,

Okay, this is a more historical question than anything else? One of the main reasons why I enjoy photography is due to my father (using his Nikkormat) and National Geographic both of which I use to read a lot (and still do) frequently. One of the most appealing things to me are the photographs in the older National Geographic issues ranging from the 1920's to 1950's when black/white and later color photography was introduced.

I wonder whether before the advent of the Nikon F during the later 1950's whether a Leica outfit was a standard for the old school National Geographic photographers or not. After all, I am not so familiar with photographers who worked for the mag during that time period so perhaps this history-based question is rather moot. So:

1) Which outfits were popular with National Geographic photogs during the 1920's to 1950's? (Leica, Contax, Voigtlander, Kodak, etc.?)

2) Which type of film were used during that time period (I presume pre- Tri-X days?)?

3) How did the photographic methodologies differ between NG photogs from that time period and NG photogs during today? Do photogs work a lot faster and less patiently than before or does the methodologies differ to a point where they can't be compared?

sincerely, Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001

Answers

Hi, Alfie. I'm not sure which outfits were used by NG back then, but I believe that most press photographers used Rolleiflex TLRs and (if they weren't travelliing light) the 4x5 Speed Graphic. I hope that you find out what NG used. Pat

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 06, 2001.

My guess as to question #1, & it's just a guess, would be that if they were shooting 35mm in the late 1930s-early 1950s (in the 1920s, Leica was probably the only 35mm option), they were probably using Zeiss Ikon Contax cameras, which were the tool of choice for photojournalists & war photographers of that era (e.g., "Life" magazine staff, Robert Capa, etc.). The Contax II & III were technologically superior to their contemporary Leica competition (& would be unsurpassed until the advent of the M3 in 1954); Carl Zeiss Jena lenses were also generally better, too (fewer lens elements, coating)--see leicaphile Stephen Gandy's discussion @ http://cameraquest.com/zconr f2.htm.

BTW, for the straight dope, you may want to post your query directly to National Geographic. For a start, you can look on the photography section of their web site: http://www.natio nalgeographic.com/photography/. They also have a FAQ section here that you may find helpful.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), December 06, 2001.


Alfie: In the 20s to 50s Nat. Geographic did not have "staff" photographers in the modern sense. The pictures were taken by editors, correspondents, explorers and scientists who took their own pictures (e.g. Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary on Mt. Everest) "because they were there."

They used everything from roll-film and sheet-film Kodaks through the Contaxes and Rolleis right up to the M3, which was used for (I believe) the American assault on the West Wall of Everest (1963 - technically just outside your time frame.) They also devised a lot of specialized equipment for scientific photography. E.G., Jacques Cousteau helped developed the "Calypso" underwater camera, which later morphed into the Nikonos. And I think NG published some of Harold Edgerton's electronic flash images (as did LIFE). Also a lot of "Rube Goldberg" 4x5 (and smaller) macro systems were created as needed, often by the researcher him/herself.

Film: Probably just about everything - Ansco, Super XX - even some Autochrome color plates in the early '20s and before. Kodachrome became king esp. after WWII.

Techniques: there have been 'eras' in Nat. Geo. photography - and even then the techniques have always varied widely depending on whether the story was scientific, cultural or exploratory. The era of the NG staffer with 14 cases of equipment ran from about 1960 to 1990. Now they send someone like Dave Harvey or Stuart Franklin with 2 Leica bodies and 3 lenses, or Mike (Yamamoto? Yamashita?) with one case of Nikon/Canon zooms. A lot of the scientists have their own Nikon/Canon macro setups.

And a lot of stuff STILL gets shot by the explorers themselves - to get an intimate picture of climbers halfway up a 4,500-ft. rock face, you have to be one of the climbers. 8^)

In the "pre-staff" days, a writer might wander all over India or Afghanistanor wherever with his Kodak, and technique might well amount to "get it all in the frame and focused correctly".

I.E. "the methodologies differ..." and always have.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 06, 2001.


Thanks Andy. I appreciate your thorough answer. I hope to contact National Geographic and get some more details from them :)

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.


As a boy I remember reading again and again my father's early pre-war copies of NG with exciting pictures, and one particularly of a bearded man with two what were probably Rolleis round his neck with palm trees in the background. Someone has already suggested that this was most likely the 'normal' travel camera of the period. I would have thought the Contax was much less likely because of its suspect shutter.The cognoscenti seem to agree that Contax lenses were generally better than Leitz at that time but the camera was not so dependable. I have Leica News from 1935 to 1939 and there are several photos - some of Africa in colour - taken for NG, but I wouldn't have thought that the 35mm was very common pre-war in NG issues. There were several Orthochromatic films around at the time in Normal and Super versions from Kodak, Agfa, etc.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), December 06, 2001.


I believe the first Kodachromes were published in the April 1938 NG in an article called, "Kodachromes from a Candid Camera in Austria". Before that all color photos published were things like Autochromes, Agfacolor, Dufaycolor, or even some hand-colored B&W images. The Kodachromes probably were the first 35mm photos NG ever published since, according to NG's own historical accounts, Franklin Fisher who was the illustrations editor from before WWI until 1953 is said to have specifically dismissed the Leica as a toy - unsuitable for "serious" photography.

-- Tod Hart (tgdhrt@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.

Marty Forsher's first job as a Geographic camera technican is reported to have been devising a system to prevent Editor Gilbert Grosvneer(sp) from forgetting to extend his collapsed Leica lens when he took pictures. His brilliant solution: a collar around the lens barrel so he couldn't collapse it to start with! In the days when all Kodachrome went to Kodak for processing NGS was reported to have their own inhouse facility.

-- Wilhelum (bmitch@home.com), December 06, 2001.

Tony:

Contrary to popular belief nowadays, the shutters on the Contax II/III were just as reliable as Leica shutters of the same time period, even though they were @ least an order of magnitude more complex in design--it's just that most surviving examples that folks find in grandpa's closet or on eBay have broken shutter straps (the shutter itself is made of durable brass slats). The shutters on neither the earlier Contax I nor the post-WWII Contax IIa/IIIa were as reliable & durable. The reliability of the Contax II/III shutter, along w/its shockproof & super-accurate RF mechanism (still the longest baseline of the major RF cameras), was 1 reason why it was favored for photojournalism & rough country expeditions (e.g., Hillary's Everest expedition).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), December 06, 2001.


Alfie, There is a good little section called "Photo Data" at the back of David Douglas Duncans book "This is War". In it he describes his, and other US journos use of Leica III bodies fitted with the new Nikkor 50 and 135 lenses in Korea in 1951. These they picked up in occupied Japan, and found to be better than the Leitz lenses. As the war progressed, they apparently also changed to Nikon bodies, which were then bought back to the US and, well, we all know what happened from then. Hope this helps, regards, Doug

-- Douglas HT Fothergill (henryt@optusnet.com.au), December 19, 2001.

Anyone feeling that they are limited by the 50mm lens should look at the book that Douglas mentions above, "This is War" from David Douglas Duncan. All but one image in the book was made with a 50, and that one was a single tight head shot from a 135. I don't think this book would be any better if Duncan had a half a dozen focal lengths to choose from, if anything that may have reduced his effectiveness.

If you can find this book, check it out.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 19, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ