> …the reason is simply that I consider the people who were the leaders (all pros) in that period, creating the styles subsequently ripped off ad nauseam ever since, were: John French, Bert Stern, Cecil Beaton, Norman Parkinson, Richard Avedon, Saul Leiter, William Klein, Ernst Haas, Pete Turner, Art Kane, Frank Horvat, HC-B, Robert Doisneau and some more whose names.. will come to mind almost immediately after I post. Also, some of these were working throughout WW2 and before, but I suggest that their moment of glory came within the period I selected.
> You mention the cost of running a lab and, presumably a studio; don´t you realise that the very fact that so many big names have had to close down their facilities and rent instead is saying something to you, very loudly? What it is saying, if you weren´t listening, is that the golden era is over, baby, gone, kaput, bye bye.
> But, ultimately, any era is seen differently by those who were there and making something out of it. I was not doing my own thing until ´66, but was very aware as a kid and also as an employed photographer in those years before ´66! I guess it was that awareness/admiration of the movers and shakers which drove me to get into the business.
Thank your for these relevant comments. It appears that your idea of a golden age is largely self-referential That’s perfectly valid. I asked for your opinion. Remember if you can that there is no right or wrong for this topic.
> You mention the speed of turnaround using digital. I´m sure it is quicker in some instances but it frees your time for what?
One can do whatever one wants with free time. The concept isn't difficult to understand.
> Perhaps it is imposible for a pro and an amateur to look at photography from the same perspective, so perhaps in this case, there can be no common understanding between the two parties.
I needed a good laugh. BTW there are 2 of the letter “s” in “impossible.” ;-)
What you are suggesting is that communication doesn’t work. Clearly that’s not true. Photography is a vast industry. Each person’s experiences within this industry are unique but an understanding of what one considers noteworthy about the industry is easy as long as one can communicate competently. I was heavily involved in photography between 1972 and 1983. My experiences included 8 years of regular course work taken while at high school, a CC, and a U, and a variety of jobs.
Back to the topic, during the span you suggested as golden, there was remarkable development in the use and kinds of color films available and other technologies. I would have guessed you’d have cited the introduction of the Hasselblad camera in about 1948, since you’re obviously a fan. Also the economic and population booms which started just after WW2 played major roles in the spread of photography. During this time span, there was the introduction and phenomenal growth of the kinds and types of SLR cameras available. These all support your case of golden age.
Inexpensive built-in through the lens light meters were not standard until the late 60s, IIRC. The ability to meter while composing the image was revolutionary all by itself! But light meters were around since about the 1930s. But that, too continues to improve.
These and other innovations also point out a continuation of what I stated as the continual growth of and synergy that started with the introduction of the Kodak Brownie, and which continues to advance the science and art of photography to this day.
Lastly, Businessweek recently ran an article on the golden era of photography. They claim it is now. Here’s the article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...31117_mz070.htm
Here’s another article that claims that the golden age of Western photography took place between 1858 and 1920: http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibiti...rn/jackson.html
All is good. There are a lot of interpretations on this topic.