How Black and White Roll Film Changed Photojournalism
In the early days of photojournalism, cameras were the epitome of novel but riddled with inconvenience. They could capture a likeness in a relatively short amount of time compared to an artist, but they required extensive preparation as well as sensitive and cumbersome equipment to accomplish that goal.
According to the video by the Getty Museum titled "The Wet Collodion Process", "From 1851, until about 1880, the wet collodion process became the dominant method for making photographs throughout Europe and North America". It was also the majority of what made photography in this time so unwieldy. Collodion was the main chemical used in order to make the image, but it had a time limit before it dried up and became unusable. This is especially relevant to photojournalists, as their profession means they won't always be in reach of an area with a dark room, which necessitated carting a portable version along with them.
But, of course, innovation is inevitable.
What came after the wet collodion process was dry plate technology, and then in 1888 the use of black and white roll film.
It began with a farmer named David Henderson Houston. Despite not being a photographer himself, as per this article on the Online Artist Archive, "...he held patents for inventing the first holders for flexible roll film and for designs of some of the earliest folding and panoramic cameras". However, roll film wouldn't step into its own until a man named George Eastman entered the picture.
Eastman was already invested in finding less arduous processes for photography than the wet collodion one. He had previously been involved with improvements to the dry plate process which cut down on some of the difficulties involved in its wet counterpart, but roll film was something else entirely. According to History of Photographic Film - First Photographic Plates, "The first film that was in a roll and flexible was made by George Eastman in 1885, but it wasn’t synthetic but on paper. The first roll film on transparent plastic (on nitrocellulose which is highly flammable) was invented in 1889". Lining up those dates with that of when the wet collodion process was dominant (1851-1880s), it's easy to see a correlation between improvements in black and white roll film and the phasing out of the wet collodion process itself.
Of course, it is difficult to talk about the changes roll film made to the photography scene without touching upon its partner invention, the Kodak camera. The appeal of the Kodak camera lay in both its form and its function. Compared to cameras before it, the Kodak camera was about the size of a box and was easy to transport by hand without needing an entire van. The picture taking process was also streamlined and automated so the average person could take pictures without needing access to specific chemicals or a darkroom. How this was done was through Eastman's company, the Eastman Kodak company, where "When the roll was finished, the entire machine was sent back to the factory in Rochester, where it was reloaded and returned to the customer while the first roll was being processed", as explained by Kodak and the Rise of Amateur Photography. This meant that not only could the photographer get right back to shooting as soon as they got their reloaded camera, but they didn't have to worry about processing the first roll of film themselves lest they lose the images.
And now, of course, photojournalism.
Something interesting about roll film and the Kodak camera is that the ease of its use enabled a larger amateur photography scene, since average people could leave the hard part of developing the film to the company while they just pointed and clicked the button on the camera. This meant that participating in photojournalism became more accessible to the general public. Again, in Kodak and the Rise of Amateur Photography, "...amateur “camera fiends” formed clubs and published magazines to share their enthusiasm", and while magazines aren't journals, it does show public interest in taking pictures and putting them together in a way reminiscent of journals and photojournalism.
The sheer convenience also cannot be ignored. Having a smaller camera means the photojournalist doesn't have to lug around so much equipment, which in turn allows them to reach more places to take pictures. The shorter exposure time also means they could actually take pictures of action as opposed to being limited to more static scenes, where with earlier cameras "You could take pictures before the battle, and after the battle, but not during the battle, because of the long exposures required" as pointed out in The Civil War: The birth of photojournalism.
That the film was in a roll was another added convenience for photojournalists, as it meant they could continue taking pictures without having to go through the time-consuming process of preparing a new collodion slide every time. In turn, photojournalists could also capture more spontaneous events without needing to account for the time needed to set up all the slides and the camera itself. The film roll also cut out the issue of collodion basically being on a timer to develop before it ruined the photograph, so photojournalists didn't have to race against the clock to develop their own photos, or port their own darkrooms around if they were too far from a place with a darkroom they could use. However, there is a cynical angle to all of this in that for photojournalists taking photographs in dangerous areas, all this convenience might encourage them to get closer to the danger which increases their odds of being killed.
Though this would require the advent of social media to truly flourish, the beginnings of citizen journalism can be seen with the advent of roll film and the Kodak camera. The whole point of them was to make photography more accessible to the masses, and that sheer fact meant that there was more potential for people to participate in photojournalism.
 |
| Photo by Madeline Jacyszn, 9/25/23, Holyoke, Massachusetts A blooming morning glory in rain. Despite its name, the flower is still open well into the afternoon when the picture was taken. |
For one, this was actually the third picture I had taken of this morning glory bloom. The composition of the first two dissatisfied me, so I continued snapping until I settled on this one. In his video Before There Were Pixels - Part 1, Professor Nordell brings up famous photographs that Eadweard Muybridge took of a horse running. The visual presented of those photographs is what are obviously multiple consecutive shots of the horse in motion judging by the position of its legs. Both mine and Muybridge's ability to snap multiple photographs in a row without pause is reminiscent of what roll film and the Kodak camera did in allowing people to take multiple photographs without a lengthy slide reloading process.
Similarities could also be drawn between phones themselves and the Kodak camera. Both of them are compact compared to their predecessors and they both increase photography's accessibility to the public. Phones might be said to be more successful in this regard, since by virtue of having a phone (which has grown into a modern necessity) someone also has a camera, as opposed to having to go out and buy an entire separate machine even if its cheap. Like what Professor Nordell points out in his video Before There Were Pixels - Part 2, a smaller size and ability to take pictures faster means compared to their predecessors, both my phone and the Kodak made taking pictures more surreptitious, and therefore make candids easier to capture. What's particularly interesting to me is that, with phones, it's basically a reflex to take a picture of something quickly for later, which is reminiscent of snapshots with the Kodak even if the intent was different.
The main sticking point between using my Android to take a photo and a Kodak camera with roll film is that I can actually see what I'm taking a photograph of. With the Kodak, there's no viewfinder so the photographer is approximating they're got what they want in frame properly. I also don't need to send a film roll off to be developed before I can see my pictures; they immediately show up in my phone gallery for inspection. I can also easily flip from color to black and white easily with filters, while the Kodak, even after it was further developed to take color photos, couldn't just switch between both on a dime. The fact of the matter is I just have more options with my Android than the Kodak has, but I can hardly hold it against it when I can clearly see its influence in streamlining photography in my own phone.
Comments
Post a Comment