Jack Sharp works of amateur photographer circa 1950-1970 | Hacker News Reader

Jack Sharp works of amateur photographer circa 1950-1970

jacksharp.co.uk

93 points75dvtwin57 comments

Excellent photos, especially this one [1] of what appears to be posters against granting women the right to vote in the Swiss canton of Geneva. I had known that Switzerland had been pretty late in accepting women to vote, but seeing their "reasonings" from back in that time written down so clearly put things in a new perspective (if it matters I'm not Swiss, but I generally like Switzerland and I considered at some point the possibility of moving there for good).

[1] https://www.jacksharp.co.uk/12603572-88977-photo-4

"Oui" won at the urns in Geneva in 1960: http://institutions.ville-geneve.ch/fr/bge/actualites/actual...

My canton wouldn't follow for about another decade, but the flip side of slow adoption is that implementation hasn't been subject to foot-dragging[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23885838

US-based HN'ers may wish to compare also Article 8 of our constitution: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/...

with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#/media/...

[1] found the original soundtrack to that overdub: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6NehFdQ5g (still haven't found a Trump/Azar duet, however)

The arguments are mind-bogglingly outdated now. -- "Men and women are equal, but they have different missions". "Don't bog our women down in party fights, they have more noble tasks to complete." -- They really were different times, and only 60 years ago.

about as outdated as the uniform: https://www.jacksharp.co.uk/12603583-88977-photo-5

Assuming the Securitas of the time didn't dress like that, this'd be more up to date: https://cdn.unitycms.io/image/ocroped/1200,1200,1000,1000,0,...

Massey-Harris is now Massey-Ferguson, but still makes tractors and manure spreaders. It's a single person job now: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Ma...

The steps across from the Alhambra are gone: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.2028417,6.1463583,3a,90y,180... but Chillon (like Lavaux?) hasn't changed much :-) https://www.google.com/maps/@46.412932,6.9292024,3a,75y,180h...

How do you mean outdated? It's still a very popular argument. And time have had nothing to do with it being hogwash.

You hear these sometimes, but not about female voting rights. Afaik, the "women shall have right to vote" side won hearts of general public.

As far as I have been able to figure in 10 minutes, even the Nazis, who otherwise rolled back many women's rights, were unwilling to disenfranchise (german women had been enfranchised since 1918).

Not that having the vote practically mattered much: 1933 was irregular, and post-1933 votes were formalities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_elec...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_German_parliamentary_elec...

Women in Switzerland gained the right to vote in federal elections in 1971. The photos were taken in Switzerland. The posters were made during the fight for that.

A previous referendum on that was held in 1959 and was rejected by 67% of Switzerland's men.

Another thought on 60 years ago being different times:

In the biography of a 1st world politician (national level during the 1970s), he recollects that he lost his first race, in the 1960s. Only to win it a day or two later, because someone noticed that a bunch of people who had voted for his opponent not only did so in alphabetical order, but were also dead.

So he did in fact proceed to the legislature, only to find the first topic of debate for that session was about how long someone had to be dead before they couldn't vote anymore.

I hope that in 2020 the metabolically challenged no longer vote, at least not in alphabetical order.

I hope that if they do vote, that they do it in alphabetical order, so that it's obvious.

Very good point!

A final(?) thought on 60 years ago: in 1960, the people who were clinging to power were born and were young before WWI, when the world was a very different place: europe was full of monarchical empires, and society reflected it.

In 2020, our ExComm (officially: "federal council") are 48-70 years old, so the eldest (no points for guessing party alignment!) unsurprisingly reflects mores from the 1950s and early 1960s.

That picture made me feel pretty bad...

I am in my early twenties and from Switzerland. My father was born four years after this picture was taken, can't wrap my head around the fact that my country was so incredibly sexist back then. The arguments are laughably bad.

I wondered which parties voted against it, as expected the only one was SVP(BGB back then). Who would have thought...

EDIT: The last canton to allow woman to vote was Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990.

I have a curious question, hope you can shed some light.

I am an American. I grew up in a highly educated household that valued education, being kind to each other and rejecting nationalism. We don't hold up our flag and somehow feel uncomfortable with patriotism. Our family constantly argues about the US military and its might, its wrong doings and its good deeds.

With that said, I've interacted with several Swiss friends and found a repeating pattern of opinions (which we laugh off as jokes) - of how proud Americans are about their country. For me and my social circle in a mid-large city in US, it is completely the opposite. Even during college, none of my fellow friends had any shred of pride in being an American (I studied Engineering). It was mostly looking up to Switzerland (and EU, esp. Scandanavia) as utopian paradise.

Could you please help provide some light on the following questions that I would feel very uncomfortable asking otherwise:

- Do Swiss people also feel shame of being patriotic?

- As an outsider, we see Swiss flags advertised on pretty much every Swiss company, product and service. But, I realize that it may be a mirage and not the actual on-the-grounds situation in Switzerland. Do you see the Swiss pride internally as well or it is just a commercial brandname/marketing ploy since Swiss brand is so strong.

- What, if any, are the views about anti-patriotism that is exemplified by Germans. Hardly see German flags and patriotism there seems to be muted if not outright rejected. Is there any sort of friction?

> Do Swiss people also feel shame of being patriotic? As usual, it depends. Myself? Yes. Patriotism is uncomfortable for me. I live in an awesome country and am glad to live here. But waving flags, being proud of old traditions and partaking in them is not really what I like. But I'm a city kid, my friends who live in more rural places are way more patriotic than me. It could be the usual pattern of people in cities being more left-leaning, and left-leaning somehow not being that patriotic. That's just my impression, maybe that's way off.

> As an outsider, we see Swiss flags advertised on pretty much every Swiss company, product and service. [...] Yes, that's actually where I get kinda patriotic. It feels flattering that the whole world likes our watches, chocolates and just swiss products in general. So a "Made in Switzerland" label and a little, square swiss flag gives the impression and guarantee that a product is of good quality. Not everything is shiny though - A "friend" of mine sells T-Shirts which are "Made in Switzerland". They are produced and printed in Czechia, but because he applies his labels and packaging in Switzerland, he's able to market and sell them as a swiss product. Pretty messed up if you ask me, lol.

> What, if any, are the views about anti-patriotism that is exemplified by Germans. Hardly see German flags and patriotism there seems to be muted if not outright rejected. Is there any sort of friction? Germany absolutely tries to mute patriotism, and as far I know that is still because of a certain dude called Hitler and his friends. The Nazis were of course ultra-patriotic and as far fetched as this may sound - Germanys history is quite awkward in that regard. My parents told me that it was strange to see Germany wave their flags and being proud of their country during the Soccer World Cup of 2006. It wasn't strange for my parents because it made them feel uneasy, but because it was new for germans to show patriotism again. But as I said, that wasn't bad at all, and I or anyone I know doesn't hold any grudge against them. Due to us being able to speak their language, they feel like our big, ex-junkie brother who's got his shit together compared to a couple of centuries ago. The AfD being as present as they are worry me, though.

As a disclaimer, take what I say with a grain of salt :) Of course I am not the voice of Switzerland, and my answers were probably influenced a bit by my own ethics and ideologies. But feel free to ask any questions, they weren't uncomfortable at all, in the contrary.

That’s fascinating. Could someone translate this to English for those of us that can’t read the language?

Despite (or perhaps because of?) the stridency below, "No" lost.

left:

    (french left, german right):

    in 1959 by 650'000 votes
    the swiss people said

    NO
    to women's suffrage

    (then)

    Geneva
    must remain united with switzerland, vote
    NO

    united at the ballot box!
    vote
    NO

    Ticinesi of Geneva
    all should vote
    NO

middle:

    NO, NO, NO, etc.
    Don't mix up our women in political strife
    They have more noble tasks to accomplish

right:

    Citizens! (NB: male only)

    Beware of words, regard the facts!

    - Men and women are equal in the civil realm but they have different spheres.
    - Politics already divides men, don't mix women up in it.
    - Leave the woman out of politics, that's how she'll be useful to the country and secure her interests.
    - A woman does better to hear her voice in her own home than in a political party.
    - Of course men will vote for social laws that protect women.

    Unite, don't divide
    vote NO

That poster on the right is amazing, it mirrors our current political situation in many ways.

point 1: Just stating the current status quo.

point 2: Good old fashioned sexism. Women are too weak, etc...

point 3: Even stronger sexism. Telling them straight up to go back to the kitchen and make some babies.

point 4: Saying that they should proxy vote through their husbands I think? It's kind of a strange point that I think might be better understood through the lens of sexism.

point 5: What absolute bullshit. Just tell the big lie I guess. See also: modern day abortion panels that consist entirely of old white guys.

I also appreciate how the final slogan is "vote to keep half of the population separated from politics, you know 'unite'".

Yeah, we still have people who think this way, but as opposed to 1959 (compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659208 ) when they had a majority of the electorate, now they're only reflected by 1 of the 4 parties in government (out of 12 who've sent representatives to our legislature).

Multi-party democracy FTW.

Focusing on the word 'amateur' here.

For a while I fancied myself as an amateur photographer. First on film, and then digital.

After 1000s of shots, and tons of money on kit and film etc. plus hours of learning techniques, I realised that I would never be able to take photos that were worth showing anyone.

My photos look amateur. Jack Sharp's do not.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe you either have a photographic eye, or you don't.

I think the only difference in being professional vs amateur is that a professional takes money for the job. It doesn't matter much how good the end result is. Of course making money means that somebody has to pay for it and everything else follows. But as soon as you find somebody who is willing to spend money for your work, you become a professional.

There are both definitions in the dictionary, being really good at something, and being paid for it. I think the parent comment refers to the former

Merriam-Webster defines "amateurs" as: "a person who regularly or occasionally engages in an activity as a pastime rather than as a profession"

So it's not about skill. But whether you do it only for fun, or for a living.

"At the end of the day, I firmly believe you either have a photographic eye, or you don't."

Perhaps, but virtually learning anything in the world involves 2 things: hard work & commitment.

What you don't see here are the tens of thousands of shots that didn't work out so well. Look through an unedited roll from someone like Garry Winogrand and you'll feel much better.

Robert Frank used about 600 rolls of 35mm film to produce the 83 pictures in The Americans. More than 20,000 frames.

https://www.nga.gov/features/robert-frank/the-americans-1955...

Sure.

Even if I had the tenacity to shoot 20k photos, I still couldn't pick the handful worth sharing. Because I also lack taste, esthetics, and opinion.

For reference, I share 100s of photos of my dog every month. (Swapping baby and puppy pics is a way for friends and family to feel connected.) I'm always surprised by which ones are deemed "really good".

My point is that artists do something more that's beyond my understanding.

I want to buy a film camera. I am not a "photographer" at all. But I take photos and I sometimes I want to take photos. What I feel is digital kind of makes photos expandable. I mean more than they ought to be. Also, all the bells and whistles get in the way. I would be happy to just get a FM3A (or something like this) and just shoot with it maybe couple of times a year.

I've shot digital and film as a hobbies.

I love the Fujifilm X100 line of cameras.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X100#Fujifilm_X100V

Digital, but old school glass viewfinder, classic film type physical, controls, but also the convenience of some gorgeous film emulation if you want it.

I feel like I can operate old school like film (well obviously there isn't a darkroom here) with limited to no digital interaction while I'm photographing, and jump into the digital world when I want that convenience.

I'd recommend this too. I have a X-100F and it's a joy to use. I shoot straight to JPEG with it and everything about the process is fun and the results are great.

Go for it! I usually shoot digital, but have a Nikon FM2 that I get out a few times a year. Sometimes I'll even just walk around the house with it snapping photos with no film. Just to feel the camera.

I sought out this feeling in a digital camera for over a decade. After trying a bunch of Fujis I finally broke down and got an M10. It feels just like my old film Leicas until it runs out of battery.

Actually I might as well end up with a FM2 or FE2 as they are more likely to be found and that too a lower price and in better condition (and a new one if I get really lucky). FM3A are simply gone now and the price has gone way up.

> got an M10

You mean Leica M10-D? Isn't that a range finder and I would assume it's automatically out of my budget if a used FM3a is costly for me :)

Try a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord, it's a very unique experience. They have pretty good resell value too. The FM3A is a collectors' item and it's too expensive. Better get a FE2 instead. It's basically the same, I've got both of them.

Rolleiflex or Rolleicord - I will get one of these if I came across them at really good prices but I am looking for a compact mechanical SLR as my main camera on trips etc, at least for some time.

And yes, I might have to get an FE2 or FM2. Because FM3a is indeed quite expensive.

Compact mechanism SLRs are not made anymore at all, are they? Nikon stopped in 2004. Nothing like that were made later? Or are there comparable cameras - like FM3a, FE2 in look, feel, build, functions, size - but more affordable and readily available?

However another camera I am looking for is an instant camera. I liked one and ordered it on Amazon. When I received - it had a LCD on the back (then I realised the product didn't have an image of the back and it was not mentioned either). It was an absolute deal breaker and the all plastic thing felt very cheap.

Market supplies what the majority wants and to be honest digitals are great and versatile.

Yes, they've stopped making them, the FM3a was the last one, sold as a backup camera to pro photographers, heh. Affordable? Old Yashicas and plasticky Minoltas, better maybe a Pentax ME. But I totally love the FE2/FM3a, they've got that mechanical feel. Maybe the Pentax ME Super comes close enough, plus nicer lenses.

Instant film camera, get a Ricoh GR1 or an Olympus XA. I have the digital GRD III, it's still great and I find myself using it all the time although it was released in 2009.

There are Rolleiflex alternatives like the Yashicamat but the lenses are just not quite as good. Zeiss has a special feel to it, I cannot describe it. Especially geat for portraits.

Yeah. I can take some pretty good photos. Digital allows me to take many more photos than with film so some are bound to come out great. My daughter, though, understands light much better than I do. She has an artistic side and she just gets it. Some people get software, others understand higher-order math, and some get light in ways the rest of us just don't.

Great photos and a nice story. I have the same Pentax camera, can be bought for pennies now. Sometimes it's bundled with Pentax 50mm 1.4 Super Takumar - a great lens

Yeah, I have two Pentax Spotmatic camera's. One of them came as part of the original kit. Taking pictures with them is quite the experience. Since their really old camera's, the light meter in both have died, sadly. So, it's a bit of a hassle doing everything manual and I don't use them that much. But the pictures I've gotten from them are totally worth the time and effort.

The exposure meters in old film SLRs are quite basic anyway, if you can remember the sunny 16 rule you’re 90% of the way there already. For the other 10%, use a light meter app on your phone

yes, it's hassle but looking back at photos taken with them always surprises me. Something about it.. Feel like more real memories than digital (especially phone) photos

Ditch the meter! Your brain is a better computer!

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

Dynamic range of analog is still unbeaten without multi-exposure fudgery...

I LOVE Film! <3

Sure it does. Sony A7II has dynamic range of 14.7 EV.

> A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it.

Source: https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-compariso...

Wasn't aware it has improved that much. I have ~10 EV era gear which is top of the line from single digit years ago.

My Canon 70D is also not great ~10. I can see it when I look at my friends low light Sony pictures taken in same settings, it's noticeable.

What a wonderful collection. There is something about B&W photos that gives me more of a sense of realism than color. Obviously, the subject plays a major part but its the developing and printing that brings them to life. Sharp had a real talent and he threw it all away to become an engineer ;).

Like Vivien Maier, not that bad but not that good either. What separates older "masters" is precisely their obsessive self-curation.

This! I used to run a photography critique group and had to constantly harp on this. Photography is really the art of exclusion -- not only what you exclude from the frame but also what you cut from your final selection of images. Robert Frank took tens of thousands of frames for the 60 or so photographs in The Americans. The eye is certainly a large part of it, perhaps he saw more and therefore just took more photographs, but in the end his ability to cut down to a sequence of powerful photographs is what mattered and makes him a master.

As an amateur street photographer, this feels good to hear. For a long time I couldn't comprehend how some of the masters took their most famous shots, how they anticipated the so-called decisive moment, framed everything perfectly in a nanosecond, and then got the perfect exposure.

In addition, it felt like all my best shots were 100% luck, only discovered after reviewing them the next day.

It seems like luck (or, maybe, "getting skilled at being lucky") is fundamental to the art.

that's not to say the greats relied only on luck. even my luckiest, one-in-a-million, greatest shot is nothing compared to what Frank left on the cutting room floor of The Americans.

They just got very good at it like the pianist/e who's been playing piano since s/he was five. Like Chick Corea or Ray Charles.

As to any discipline that deals with abject failure, I'd recommend reading "Zen in the art of archery".

I see a parallel to DJing here.

Wow! They are really really good! Thanks a lot for sharing. I had never heard of him before.

Wonderful pictures.

No prints available...? That would be awesome.

If you open a picture there is a shopping cart in the top right where you can buy prints

And it's super cheap!

From what I could gather they are digitally printed, honest question: knowing this do you still consider it cheap?

Yes, because it's still a striking piece of art.

Also I would not expect anything but a digital print in this day and age, if it's not advertised to be a traditional print. If one is lucky (my preference) it's still a digital print but on wet paper, i.e. Fuji Crystal Archive or Kodak Endura, but the photographic paper is exposed with LED or laser.

A black and white traditional darkroom print is labour intensive and usually goes for much more money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com