When I
worked on my college newspaper in the early eighties, some of us typed our
articles on rolls of brown paper, otherwise used for the drying of hands. One
reporter, of limited stature, typed stories as long as he was. Though I owned
an electric typewriter, in the newsroom, like everyone else, I pounded out my
stories on battleship-gray manual Royal typewriters, well-known for their
durability. Columnist Herb Caen, a fixture at the San Francisco Chronicle for almost sixty years, is said to have used the same Royal for his entire career. In our
newsroom, a friend who also played on the football team amazed our colleagues
by carrying one of the tank-like Royals across the room in one hand.
When I graduated, my mom bought me a Pentax K2000 camera, which,
like the Royal typewriter, had a reputation for durability. As a young reporter
on a newspaper in Connecticut, I was required to take my own photos. I also learned
that it was possible to drop my K2000 and not seriously damage it.
One thing I appreciate about that camera is that I more or
less understand how it works. The camera lets in the appropriate amount of light
to enable the creation of a durable image on specially treated film.
Somewhere in my attic is a large black-and-white print of
me when I was ten years old, decked out in my Little League uniform and
catcher’s gear: face mask, chest protector, shin guards. In the photo I’m
preparing to catch a simulated pop fly. But anyone with knowledge of baseball would notice that
something is askew: The photo implies that I’m wearing a catcher’s mitt on my
right hand. All catchers, even in Little League, are right-handed, and wear
their mitt on their left hand.
This photo was not professionally developed. Friends of my
brother, who was fourteen, set up a darkroom in their house. The kids who
developed the photo did it backwards.
My Pentax camera was fairly easy to use, but nowhere near
as simple as today’s digital cameras and smartphones. The film cassette fitted
over a vertical spindle on the left side of the camera, and the roll of film
began with a tapered leader that ensured that the film would advance. Film did
not advance automatically. You had to push with your thumb a lever on the right
of the camera. It was important to pay attention to the light meter. If the
needle rose significantly above the midpoint of my gauge, the pictures would
look washed out; if the needle was too low, the photos would come out dark.
Auto focus was not an option. A separate dial on the camera’s detachable lens was
used to bring the image into focus. For taking photos indoors, it was necessary
to slide in the flash unit above the camera.
The camera, now thirty-one years old, still works, though
the flash unit died many years ago from acid leaching out of a dead battery.
Today, of course, digital technology is everywhere – in the
music we listen to, in most of the movies we see, and, of course, in the
zillions of photos on Facebook.
Which raises a
question: Does the glut of digital information make us more informed? Or less
so? Could we perhaps have a few less cat photos and videos?
Disclosure: I posted photos of one of my cats earlier this
week. He was roaring after waking and discovering that there was multicolored
yarn on his head. Sometimes I give in to the spirit of our age.
No comments:
Post a Comment