• Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    The earliest cameras had no real “mechanism.” You would prepare a plate, often still wet with chemicals, load it into the camera, bring the camera out of the dark room, set up your subject, who would have to hold still for minutes at a time, and then just…take off the lens cap.

    Because what’s the point of an automatic shutter when it takes minutes of exposure to get a viewable image?

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Who knows when the term “shot” was first used though.

      Also, at no point did still cameras use a hand crank, which is apparently what made early motion picture cameras look like early machine guns.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I could probably come up with a still camera with a crank. Manual cameras, those without a motor to advance the film, would have a knob of some sort so that the photographer could advance to the next frame of film. For retracting the film back into the cartridge when the roll is done, many cameras have a little crank that folds out of the knob for quickly rewinding. But yes you don’t turn a crank to take pictures like with an old timey movie camera.

        Since we’re talking about ye olde timey vocabulareye that became obsolete but still stuck, achieving the effect of everything moving unusually fast or unusually slow was called undercranking or overcranking respectively.