65 Years Ago - July 1950

<p>Welcome to July 1950. Let's start with a shutter speed testing article.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is an interesting filter to try.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>How about a pinhole camera?</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>How to get razor sharp negatives.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is this month's Amateur Report.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is this month's Hollywood and Vine column.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are this month's camera equipment ads.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are this month's dealer ads.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>That is it for July 1950. All material was from Modern Photography. All comments and suggestions are welcome.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, <strong>Marc</strong>. That's a fascinating article on adapting the Rolleiflex to a f/72 pinhole aperture; I wonder if anyone's still doing it? The tour of the London Camera Club is a delight; even the prose is gentlemanly!</p>

Interesting that the Alpa Reflex cost approximately twice what an Exacta cost. I wonder how many they

sold.

<p>Interesting look back, Marc. The polarizing filter article was interesting, especially since most of the tips given still would apply today (caution with TTL metering in some cases). Also, while crossing to polarizers for neutral density does indeed work, it is potentially dangerous for filtering the sun as harmful infrared rays can still pass through. I always enjoy reading the equipment ads as well. I wonder what I would have bought if I'd been around during that time. Nice to see multiple pages of Kodak ads. Thanks for a great look back.</p>

Never mind that filter. How about the tooth paste those girls use?!

<p>Very interesting issue!</p>

<p>In the shutter test there is a typo (87/60 instead of 78/60) right after the continuation, which must have caused a lot of scratched heads. It was a very practical method for the available equipment at the time; nowadays it could be used to check digital cameras, if you have a turntable!</p>

<p>The article on the Camera Club in London is wonderful.</p>