Everyone in this thread is first week of August.
Coincidence? naahhh.
The biggest differences between the WW-II Combat Camera guys and my time were camera size and emulsion speeds. Those guys had to have a really good sense of timing with their shots, too. Loading a 4x5 with sheet film is a PITA! No frames-per-second option there. Medium format and 35mm were just beginning to show up. I had to ~argue~ to be able to get a Nikon in 1971! When we did get them, it was a three lens "kit". 35mm, 50mm & a 135mm. That was it. I used my personal camera gear in a lot of instances. I know I've posted a shot of me sitting at a light table with a couple of my Miranda cameras. Luckily, nobody ever gave me any flak for not using 'company' gear. My shots seemed to be good enough to outweigh the infraction. One job for a recruiting poster, I used my 21mm and some colored gels for lighting, subject was a Tech Sgt. in front of an O-scope, probing some gizmo... made the mundane look interesting. Another job was to do a shoot of the last working BOMARC site. ISTR it was in Tennessee. Can't be certain (no credit line!) but the shot of the single missile in
"Snapshot"? this article looks like one of mine. I wish they'd used the fisheye shot, then I'd know.
Another difference was by-lines. The WW-II guys got little recognition, most photos published simply were: "Official US Army Photo" or similar. If I did a job for wide publication (Stars and Stripes, or Airman Magazine) I was a prick about getting it tagged with MY credit line. That has now become common practice for most of the recognized military photojournalists. Hoorah for DINFOS.
The MoPic fellas had to hand wind their B&H cameras to get a few seconds of footage, our guys had Arri 16's with motors. If there was a shoot with a set, sticks and a 400 foot mag ("mouse ears") were available. And Nagra recorders for audio. We got one of the early video rigs to play with, too. Reel-to-reel! Too clumsy for location work but we had fun experimenting with it "at home."
