This is a continuation of the previous post, a remembrance
of my Uncle Earle, the amateur photographer. While he did occasionally take
family-oriented pictures, Uncle Earle’s hobby interest was scenery photography.
He was meticulous about his photography – perhaps a bit obsessive as hobbyists
often are -- and would write whole paragraphs about the settings, the time of
day, etc. I believe his first camera was a Kodak, with which he took black and
whites, but eventually he bought a German-made camera of which he was proud, and
he began to take slides. My mother once noted that Earle liked his pictures
without people, and without the human touch, she thought his slide programs
boring. “Not so much as someone’s back,” she said.
In 1960, Uncle Earle retired from teaching high school math
and industrial arts in Idaho Falls and returned to the Orofino area. But alas!
He was forced to give up photography because of Parkinson’s Disease, so he gave
his camera to my dad. That was the end of black-and-white photography at our
house and the beginning of slides. My parents never used their little Kodak
again. Was there something wrong with it? Perhaps so. As Chris commented on the
previous post, there’s something to be said for black and white pictures.
Daddy was interested in photography and really worked to
take good pictures with Uncle Earle’s old camera. Daddy was impressed by the
fact that Uncle Earle held the camera in high regard, but he and that camera
seemed to be at odds. Maybe you remember how it was when taking outdoor photos.
You took a reading from the light meter, set the camera according to those
readings, and then you took the picture – and hoped for the best. Indoor
pictures utilized a flash, of course, and looking at the old slide images I post
you can see that many have a glare to them. Son Clint suggests that’s the
effect of the bright flash. At any rate, Daddy wasn’t satisfied with the camera,
and I remember visits to the camera shop in downtown Lewiston. I’m sure the
biggest problem was that the camera was “old technology,” to use today’s vernacular.
Or maybe it was my dad who needed the
adjustment rather than the camera –I just don’t know.
Or, perhaps it was just that it was the wrong camera for
my dad’s purposes. Perhaps the camera was perfectly suited to Uncle Earle’s
interest in outdoor photos of inanimate objects but not so good for my dad’s
interest in recording family history. Sometimes I wonder why he didn’t he have
a camera that was easier to use and better suited to his purposes, momentarily forgetting
that it was a different day and time. Cameras did become easier to use in the ‘60s,
but digital photography was still a long way off. 
Given the restrictions imposed by this camera, my dad’s pictures
were mostly posed, even if the pose just happened. There was no such thing as
an action shot, no spontaneous photo of a little one’s antics, no pictures of
special moments in the everyday. Cameras weren’t then what they are today, of
course, and that’s my point. But Daddy had an artist’s eye, so occasionally he
set up a shot that was out of the ordinary. Eventually he quit taking pictures altogether,
and that’s a pity. I think it’s sad when individuals with certain interests or
talents don’t have the equipment to really enjoy the pursuit and develop a
quality product. KW
[It was difficult to select photos for this post. I find that six is about all any one post can handle.
Photo 1: a studio portrait of Earle J. Dobson, my uncle.
Photo 2: My grandmother, Ina Dobson (Earle's mother), and Earle's wife, Bernice, taken Oct. 23, 1949. Note Grandma's suit. I want to make one of that type as a costume for my "Ina" program. Oh yes -- and there must be a hat, gloves, handbag, and shoes.
Photo 3: "Old Faithful," taken by Earle, July 4, 1942.
Photo 4: Julian Dobson, August 1940, taken by Earle.
Photo 5: A fading color photo taken with Earle's camera. Black and white is a more lasting medium, and I am grateful to say I have a number of black and white prints taken on this same occasion, July 19, 1953. This is Grandma Ina with five of her six children. From left: Myrtle, Earle, Ina, Vance (my dad), Ethel, and Shirley.
Photo 6: The homestead at Gilbert taken by my dad with Uncle Earle's camera in 1960.]
4 comments:
Nice photos. The one of Ina & Bernice has a hint of their reluctance as subjects. It is a good representation of women's fashion of the day, though. Ina is fashionably dressed for a woman aged 79. In 1949, 79 was considered quite old. Many women born in 1870 didn't live as long as Ina.
Sad to know that Earle had to give up photography. So much for his golden years!
My father had a still camera in the 1930's as well as a movie camera. His interest was capturing family members and not nature. What we don't realize today is how very expensive cameras, film & developing were in the 20's, 30's & 40's. People took photos sparingly and with a purpose.
Camera buffs know the names & features of many camera brands. When I went to Germany in 1958, my cowboy uncle gave me a camera name & model that he wanted. I believe it wasn't available in the U.S. I found it & brought it back for him. His interest was photographing the appaloosa horses that he bred.
As a teenager in the 1960s, I asked for a camera for Christmas for several years before I finally received one -- a Kodak instamatic. I remember my grandfather remarking that the camera was the beginning of the expense. But I persisted in my requests because I thought a lot of photo ops were being missed, and I think my mother came to see that was the case.
The German brand was undoubtedly good but I wonder if WWII didn't leave a stigma on that.
My first camera was a Kodak Instamatic, but I remember my father taking photos with a Brownie box camera.
When slides came into favor my folks made absolutely "tons" of them. They were most fond of family shots.
I also had an instamatic, but I don't think I got until college years. Photography seems to have been a man's job in the 20th century. Dad took all our pictures when I was growing up and as I recall, he had quite a nice camera. There were a number of years when very few pictures were taken, and the dates of film development on the photo edges clearly show the photos themselves were taken over a year or more's time. I'm sure the reason was the cost of developing and perhaps the price of the film itself.
Post a Comment