100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/22/2023 at 4:49 PM, willeica said:

Ed, my PCCGB Zoom on German companies who relied on leaf shutters in the 1920s and 30s touched on this. Zeiss, however, effectively, controlled the shutter market through holdings in and agreements with Deckel and Gauthier. Leica was lucky that it stayed outside this with its focal plane shutter. In the US, however, Kodak bought up many companies that were ‘in its way’ and created mighty market power which may have not been ultimately to the benefit of the broader US  camera industry. I have come across this in the cataloguing of a camera archive which I am doing at the moment. One classic story is the Bulls Eye/ Bullet/ Bulls Eye story which involved Kodak producing a copy and then buying out a much smaller camera in Boston which had produced the original Bulls Eye camera. Ironically, many Kodak products were littered with details of many patents in or about the camera body. This is useful today for dating Kodak items, however. I believe that Helmut Lagler’s books contain details of Leitz patents and which member of staff worked on which patent.
 

William

One classic story is the Bulls Eye/ Bullet/ Bulls Eye story which involved Kodak producing a copy and then buying out a much smaller camera in Boston which had produced the original Bulls Eye camera. 

 

William,

You are absolutely right.

Kodak had a dominant position, comparable to the the big tech firms of today.
So Kodak could buy any competitor and any patent so as to further increase its dominant position.

A great source on this subject is: 
Reese V. Jenkins, 1975), Images & Enterprise.

 

Roland
 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Roland Zwiers]

On 7/20/2023 at 11:37 PM, derleicaman said:

I remember seeing this picture in the Lagler books. It is interesting to look at the original management team at Leitz back in those days, and then as they aged and changed in their appearance in later years. We are all so used to seeing the pictures of the Leitz family, Barnack and Berek, we lose sight of the fact that many, many others were involved in the story of E. Leitz.

We are all so used to seeing the pictures of the Leitz family, Barnack and Berek, we lose sight of the fact that many, many others were involved in the story of E. Leitz.

Bill,

You are absolutely right.
This overlaps with the human side of the Null-Serie saga.

From Oskar Barnack work notes and the Leitz delivery register ‘Kamera’ one can infer that the selected photographers must have had very close links to Ernst Leitz.
The crucial difference between the work notes and the delivery register is that Oskar Barnack serves two groups:
one group that receives a test camera as a gift (in return for hoped-for feedback),  the second group receives a test camera on loan.
The delivery register does not make this distinction.

It seems to me that the persons that receive a test camera as a gift, generally have a higher status,
both at Leitz and externally.
This could have had the disadvantage that Oskar Barnack could not pressure these people for timely feed-back.
this would have been especially the case with prominent recipients outside Wetzlar.

So very quickly he may have found the need to reserve two loaner cameras for eager Leitz employees.
These photographers would give feed-back much sooner.
So Oskar Barnack could rotate his precious loaner cameras much more quickly as well.
Note that his work notes initially mention two loaner cameras, whereas in another location he mentions five.

This interaction between Oskar Barnack and the 1923 recipients of a test series camera deserves more attention.

Roland

 

Roland  

[Roland Zwiers]

On 7/22/2023 at 4:14 PM, Edward Schwartzreich said:

From my own researches over the years, it seems to me that all of the camera and likely the film manufacturers in Germany prior to WWII were "part of the club" as it were, even if not especially intimately chummy.  I do not get the sense of ruthless competition at all, but more of a gentlemanly sort of camaraderie.  So, interchanges of ideas among competitors seems more likely than not.  They knew that advances by one company would ultimately benefit them all.

Significantly unlike Eastman here in the U.S.

Ed

Ed,

You raise a very big subject, namely the strategic value of celluloid based 35mm film.

• Strategic in the sense of market power (Kodak versus the rest).
• Strategic in the sense of dual use (The use of Agfa Fliegerfilm for German aerial reconnaissance cameras during 1915-1918)

The subject of market power is so big and obscure, that I cannot even formulate a plausible hypothetical story line.
I can only share some building blocks that still have to be combined.

Kodak's market power
Up to 1909 or so Kodak had an enormous technological and commercial advantage compared to the competition.
Kodak could make the best quality by far.
And because increasing economies of scale Kodak could produce this high quality film at very low cost.
In the absence of competition Kodak could have profit margins of 100% or more.
So the price at which Kodak could sell its cine film depended on the (much higher) cost price of the next best competitor.

Now if you have market power, you make use of it.
And here geo-political considerations stepped in.

French, German and British producers/ consumers didn't like to depend solely on Kodak film and Kodak powerplay conditions.
And so around 1909 there were more and more producers of 35mm cine film in the UK, in France and in Germany.
Belgium (Gevaert) would join the club a few years later.

Second building block: cartel agreements?
In photographic literature I sometimes find suggestions that Kodak, Agfa, Gevaert and Pathe/Lumière examined possible cartel agreements.
AFAIK these were not concluded.
World War I would divide the world market between Kodak (most of the world) and Agfa (continental Europe). 
After 1918 Kodak would create joint ventures in Germany and France, whereas Agfa would buy the American Ansco. 
So it seems that there was fierce competition on the American and German home markets.

Third building block: the difficulty of producing celluloid filmbase
35mm cine film depends on a high quality celluloid base.
Kodak and Ansco had patents for producing this celluloid base and used this for their own film production.
[But AFAIK Ansco did not produce 35mm film]
In the USA there was also one specialised producer of the celluloid film base, the American Celluloid Company.
This American Celluloid exported the celluloid film base to European producers.
For this it had a depot in London managed by Guiterman.

So European producers of 35mm film generally depended on imported American celluloid film base.
In this way Europe either depended on one dominant American player (Kodak for the complete 35mm film) or another (for the film base).
 

Fourth building block: independence of American imports
I get the impression that the UK didn't mind to be so dependent on American producers.
So for a long time (maybe even up to 1946) Britain did not have a major producer of celluloid film base.
Britain either bought the Kodak film or the celluloid film base from the American Celluloid Company.
British producers of 35mm cine film would coat the american film base with their own signature emulsions.

In Belgium, France and Germany several film producers wanted to be independent of the American film base.
So before 1914 Agfa and Goerz had integrated production facilities that combined their own film base with their own emulsions.
This was a very capital intensive affair!
Smaller producers had no choice but to keep importing the film base from the USA.
And so at the outbreak of war in August 1914 these smaller producers were faced with a sudden stop of a major input.

Relevance for early Leica photography

This sketch is not complete and raises many questions.
It is important for early Leica photography, as Oskar Barnack was not able to use foreign cine negative film after August 1914.
And so he more and more depended on Agfa cine negative film, as Agfa would soon become the sole manufacturer for Germany and Austria-Hungary.
According to Max Berek (1948) one such Agfa film was the wartime Fliegerfilm that was used for aerial reconniassance photography.
Oskar Barnack may have used this film for his 1917 pictures in the Black Forest.

To be continued.

Roland
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

10 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Ed,

You raise a very big subject, namely the strategic value of celluloid based 35mm film.

• Strategic in the sense of market power (Kodak versus the rest).
• Strategic in the sense of dual use (The use of Agfa Fliegerfilm for German aerial reconnaissance cameras during 1915-1918)

The subject of market power is so big and obscure, that I cannot even formulate a plausible hypothetical story line.
I can only share some building blocks that still have to be combined.

Kodak's market power
Up to 1909 or so Kodak had an enormous technological and commercial advantage compared to the competition.
Kodak could make the best quality by far.
And because increasing economies of scale Kodak could produce this high quality film at very low cost.
In the absence of competition Kodak could have profit margins of 100% or more.
So the price at which Kodak could sell its cine film depended on the (much higher) cost price of the next best competitor.

Now if you have market power, you make use of it.
And here geo-political considerations stepped in.

French, German and British producers/ consumers didn't like to depend solely on Kodak film and Kodak powerplay conditions.
And so around 1909 there were more and more producers of 35mm cine film in the UK, in France and in Germany.
Belgium (Gevaert) would join the club a few years later.

Second building block: cartel agreements?
In photographic literature I sometimes find suggestions that Kodak, Agfa, Gevaert and Pathe/Lumière examined possible cartel agreements.
AFAIK these were not concluded.
World War I would divide the world market between Kodak (most of the world) and Agfa (continental Europe). 
After 1918 Kodak would create joint ventures in Germany and France, whereas Agfa would buy the American Ansco. 
So it seems that there was fierce competition on the American and German home markets.

Third building block: the difficulty of producing celluloid filmbase
35mm cine film depends on a high quality celluloid base.
Kodak and Ansco had patents for producing this celluloid base and used this for their own film production.
[But AFAIK Ansco did not produce 35mm film]
In the USA there was also one specialised producer of the celluloid film base, the American Celluloid Company.
This American Celluloid exported the celluloid film base to European producers.
For this it had a depot in London managed by Guiterman.

So European producers of 35mm film generally depended on imported American celluloid film base.
In this way Europe either depended on one dominant American player (Kodak for the complete 35mm film) or another (for the film base).
 

Fourth building block: independence of American imports
I get the impression that the UK didn't mind to be so dependent on American producers.
So for a long time (maybe even up to 1946) Britain did not have a major producer of celluloid film base.
Britain either bought the Kodak film or the celluloid film base from the American Celluloid Company.
British producers of 35mm cine film would coat the american film base with their own signature emulsions.

In Belgium, France and Germany several film producers wanted to be independent of the American film base.
So before 1914 Agfa and Goerz had integrated production facilities that combined their own film base with their own emulsions.
This was a very capital intensive affair!
Smaller producers had no choice but to keep importing the film base from the USA.
And so at the outbreak of war in August 1914 these smaller producers were faced with a sudden stop of a major input.

Relevance for early Leica photography

This sketch is not complete and raises many questions.
It is important for early Leica photography, as Oskar Barnack was not able to use foreign cine negative film after August 1914.
And so he more and more depended on Agfa cine negative film, as Agfa would soon become the sole manufacturer for Germany and Austria-Hungary.
According to Max Berek (1948) one such Agfa film was the wartime Fliegerfilm that was used for aerial reconniassance photography.
Oskar Barnack may have used this film for his 1917 pictures in the Black Forest.

To be continued.

Roland
 

Relevance for early Leica photography

[This sketch is not complete and raises many questions.
It is important for early Leica photography, as Oskar Barnack was not able to use foreign cine negative film after August 1914.
And so he more and more depended on Agfa cine negative film, as Agfa would soon become the sole manufacturer for Germany and Austria-Hungary.
According to Max Berek (1948) one such Agfa film was the wartime Fliegerfilm that was used for aerial reconniassance photography.
Oskar Barnack may have used this film for his 1917 pictures in the Black Forest.]

Because it was getting late I finished this paragraph too quickly. 
The relevance for Leica photography would extend well into the 1930s.

During 1915-1918 Agfa obtained a monopoly position 35mm cine negative film in the German and Austrian-Hungarian markets.
In war-time Germany 35mm cine negative film would also become dual use: for propaganda films at home and for use in aerial reconnaissance cameras
(Fliegerfilm; initially unperforated 35mm film).

Agfa had to increase the quality of the Fliegerfilm in terms of grain, speed and orthochromatism.
As Max Berek (1948) observed, this came at the cost of shelf life/ keeping quality.
But when during 1915-1918 Oskar Barnack could make use of this special Fliegerfilm, this must certainly be visible in the quality of his Ur-Leica photography during this period.

At the same time during 1915-1918 Agfa struggled with the problem that key ingredients for 3mm film (camphor, nitrate, pure cotton wool) could not be imported anymore because of the British naval blockade.
So Agfa had to made do with substitute inputs (In German: Ersatz).
These were usually of inferior quality.
 

One very big problem was to find a substitute for pure collon wool, which is chemically identical to cellulose. 
Now ordinary wood also contains 50% cellulose, but the other half contains of lignose.
So during 1915-1918 Agfa had to make significant efforts to purify the cellulose sufficiently so as to use it as an ingredient for the celluloid film base.
Ccontemporary magazines on cinematography show that the quality did suffer.
But on the other hand, when Agfa is your sole supplier, you are already happy to be served in the first place!

Sometime after November 1918 American imports of pure cotton wool must have been possible again.
At the same time Agfa likely discontinued the production of Fliegerfilm as the Versailles treaty stipulated that Germany had to disbandon its airforce.
[Because of this the Dutchman Antony Fokker would move his airplane factory to Holland.]

Now the period November 1918 to June 1924 was very turbulent in Germany.
There was a revolution, an occupation and a period of hyper inflation.

Suppose the import of cotton wool was no problem after November 1918, both logically and financially.
[Germany had to pay in US dollars.]
In that case Agfa could quickly increase quality levels again.
The experience gained with the Fliegerfilm could be used for the production of a higher quality cine negative film.

Still in this turbulent period it must have been difficult for innovative German competitors to enter the market for 35mm cine negative film again.
Renewed American imports of the celluloid film base would have had a lower priority for German policy makers than the renewed import of cotton wool.
[During the war the quality of German clothing had suffered enormously.] 
And in the first years Agfa would not be very willing to help competitors with celluloid film base.

So in the first years after November 1918 Afga would maintain its monopoly position on the German market.
The table (courtesy Manfred Gill of the Agfa Museum in Wolfen) makes this clear.
When the first German competitors arrive on the scene, were are already entering Null-Serie territory!

Now it is good news that from April 1922 onwards there was a second supplier of cine negative film (Goerz).
From March 1923 another supplier (Lignose) enters the scene.
These producers must have solved the problem of how to produce the celluloid film base by themselves.
Kodak, Agfa and the American Celluloid Company could not hide their technological secrets forever.

But by 1922-1923 other major problem presented themselves:
The French occupation of the Rhineland and the beginning of hyper inflation.
These problems created financial and logistical problems for new entrants on the 35mm cine negative market, like Otto Perutz in Munich.

In 1922 Otto Perutz announced its intention to start production of 35mm film in a few months' time ('at the instigation of the Bavarian film industry"),
but this was not to be so.
Production of 35mm cine negative film was delayed until the beginning of 1925.

It is very well possible that Otto Perutz had to wait for a reliable German supplier of celluloid film base before it could introduce its high quality 35mm Grünsiegelfilm on the market.
This may very well have been Nobel in Düren (also the producer of the Toxo-Kino-Film), as this producer advertised its celluloid film base as well.
The city of Düren was in the French occupied Rhineland.
Other possible candidates are the Belgian Gevaert and Agfa itself, in case Agfa would be willing to supply domestic competitors.  

This 1925 Perutz Grünsiegel film would become a very popular Leica film, especially for amateur use.
Many professionals would come to prefer the later Perutz Spezial Fliegerfilm (introduced at the end of 1926) because of its even finer grain and higher orthochromatism.
But this Perutz Spezial Fliegerfilm had a rather hard gradation which required special development techniques.

So a very important observation is that the Gerrman market for 35mm cine negative film was in extreme turmoil during the years 1918-1924.
Logistical, financial, technological and geo-political bottlenecks occured simultaneously.
With the benefit of hindsight, this was hardly an ideal period for testing the Null-Serie of 1923!

So when we can find feed-back from Null-Serie recipients (Dr Paul Wolff, Prof. Klute) on this period, it is important to keep the wider context in mind.

Roland

 

 

10 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

 

 

10 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[nitroplait]

@Roland Zwiers - your interesting text in the previous post got hidden inside the quote.

It is a shame, so I have pasted it in below (maybe a moderator can correct your post and delete this?):

Quoted from post #284:

 

Relevance for early Leica photography

[This sketch is not complete and raises many questions.
It is important for early Leica photography, as Oskar Barnack was not able to use foreign cine negative film after August 1914.
And so he more and more depended on Agfa cine negative film, as Agfa would soon become the sole manufacturer for Germany and Austria-Hungary.
According to Max Berek (1948) one such Agfa film was the wartime Fliegerfilm that was used for aerial reconniassance photography.
Oskar Barnack may have used this film for his 1917 pictures in the Black Forest.]

Because it was getting late I finished this paragraph too quickly. 
The relevance for Leica photography would extend well into the 1930s.

During 1915-1918 Agfa obtained a monopoly position 35mm cine negative film in the German and Austrian-Hungarian markets.
In war-time Germany 35mm cine negative film would also become dual use: for propaganda films at home and for use in aerial reconnaissance cameras
(Fliegerfilm; initially unperforated 35mm film).

Agfa had to increase the quality of the Fliegerfilm in terms of grain, speed and orthochromatism.
As Max Berek (1948) observed, this came at the cost of shelf life/ keeping quality.
But when during 1915-1918 Oskar Barnack could make use of this special Fliegerfilm, this must certainly be visible in the quality of his Ur-Leica photography during this period.

At the same time during 1915-1918 Agfa struggled with the problem that key ingredients for 3mm film (camphor, nitrate, pure cotton wool) could not be imported anymore because of the British naval blockade.
So Agfa had to made do with substitute inputs (In German: Ersatz).
These were usually of inferior quality.
 

One very big problem was to find a substitute for pure collon wool, which is chemically identical to cellulose. 
Now ordinary wood also contains 50% cellulose, but the other half contains of lignose.
So during 1915-1918 Agfa had to make significant efforts to purify the cellulose sufficiently so as to use it as an ingredient for the celluloid film base.
Ccontemporary magazines on cinematography show that the quality did suffer.
But on the other hand, when Agfa is your sole supplier, you are already happy to be served in the first place!

Sometime after November 1918 American imports of pure cotton wool must have been possible again.
At the same time Agfa likely discontinued the production of Fliegerfilm as the Versailles treaty stipulated that Germany had to disbandon its airforce.
[Because of this the Dutchman Antony Fokker would move his airplane factory to Holland.]

Now the period November 1918 to June 1924 was very turbulent in Germany.
There was a revolution, an occupation and a period of hyper inflation.

Suppose the import of cotton wool was no problem after November 1918, both logically and financially.
[Germany had to pay in US dollars.]
In that case Agfa could quickly increase quality levels again.
The experience gained with the Fliegerfilm could be used for the production of a higher quality cine negative film.

Still in this turbulent period it must have been difficult for innovative German competitors to enter the market for 35mm cine negative film again.
Renewed American imports of the celluloid film base would have had a lower priority for German policy makers than the renewed import of cotton wool.
[During the war the quality of German clothing had suffered enormously.] 
And in the first years Agfa would not be very willing to help competitors with celluloid film base.

So in the first years after November 1918 Afga would maintain its monopoly position on the German market.
The table (courtesy Manfred Gill of the Agfa Museum in Wolfen) makes this clear.
When the first German competitors arrive on the scene, were are already entering Null-Serie territory!

Now it is good news that from April 1922 onwards there was a second supplier of cine negative film (Goerz).
From March 1923 another supplier (Lignose) enters the scene.
These producers must have solved the problem of how to produce the celluloid film base by themselves.
Kodak, Agfa and the American Celluloid Company could not hide their technological secrets forever.

But by 1922-1923 other major problem presented themselves:
The French occupation of the Rhineland and the beginning of hyper inflation.
These problems created financial and logistical problems for new entrants on the 35mm cine negative market, like Otto Perutz in Munich.

In 1922 Otto Perutz announced its intention to start production of 35mm film in a few months' time ('at the instigation of the Bavarian film industry"),
but this was not to be so.
Production of 35mm cine negative film was delayed until the beginning of 1925.

It is very well possible that Otto Perutz had to wait for a reliable German supplier of celluloid film base before it could introduce its high quality 35mm Grünsiegelfilm on the market.
This may very well have been Nobel in Düren (also the producer of the Toxo-Kino-Film), as this producer advertised its celluloid film base as well.
The city of Düren was in the French occupied Rhineland.
Other possible candidates are the Belgian Gevaert and Agfa itself, in case Agfa would be willing to supply domestic competitors.  

This 1925 Perutz Grünsiegel film would become a very popular Leica film, especially for amateur use.
Many professionals would come to prefer the later Perutz Spezial Fliegerfilm (introduced at the end of 1926) because of its even finer grain and higher orthochromatism.
But this Perutz Spezial Fliegerfilm had a rather hard gradation which required special development techniques.

So a very important observation is that the Gerrman market for 35mm cine negative film was in extreme turmoil during the years 1918-1924.
Logistical, financial, technological and geo-political bottlenecks occured simultaneously.
With the benefit of hindsight, this was hardly an ideal period for testing the Null-Serie of 1923!

So when we can find feed-back from Null-Serie recipients (Dr Paul Wolff, Prof. Klute) on this period, it is important to keep the wider context in mind.

Roland

[willeica]

52 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Roland, the effects of two world wars and economic collapses cannot be underestimated. I'm still amazed that Kodak moved into Germany in the 1930s when the signs were not exactly positive, but they were probably assured by the presence of Dr Nagel who knew his way around the German camera industry which was centred around Dresden. Leitz was an outlier being located in Wetzlar and using a focal plane shutter. 

I mentioned earlier the film cassette for the 0 Series. I have never seen one of these and was not really aware of them until I had a discussion about No 105 with Ottmar Michaely last year. I think you have said that early Leica users/testers probably received a camera with a loaded cassette or cassettes. These were probably then returned with the camera to the factory for development. There are several issues here to be pursued on our visit to the Leica Archive, including both the cassette and the film used.

William 

[nitroplait]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are there any online resources showing detailed pictures of surviving Agfa paper cassettes?

I’m interested in how they were made/constructed but the contemporary ad images are not very informative.

My google skills are not good enough to retrieve something useful.

[beoon]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

 

I mentioned earlier the film cassette for the 0 Series. I have never seen one of these and was not really aware of them

I believe that number 121 still has an original 0 series film cassette. When the auction catalogue is released hopefully we will get to see it. That will also be new information to myself, October 7th is the auction date, so prior to the archive visit.

regards

Alan

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by beoon

[willeica]

1 minute ago, beoon said:

I believe that number 121 still has an original 0 series film cassette. When the auction catalogue is released hopefully we will get to see it. That will also be new information to myself, October 7th is the auction date.

regards

Alan

 

Thanks. I’m going to ask Lars for photos so that I can do an article which can go out after the catalogue appears. 
William 

[Roland Zwiers]

8 hours ago, willeica said:

Roland, the effects of two world wars and economic collapses cannot be underestimated. I'm still amazed that Kodak moved into Germany in the 1930s when the signs were not exactly positive, but they were probably assured by the presence of Dr Nagel who knew his way around the German camera industry which was centred around Dresden. Leitz was an outlier being located in Wetzlar and using a focal plane shutter. 

I mentioned earlier the film cassette for the 0 Series. I have never seen one of these and was not really aware of them until I had a discussion about No 105 with Ottmar Michaely last year. I think you have said that early Leica users/testers probably received a camera with a loaded cassette or cassettes. These were probably then returned with the camera to the factory for development. There are several issues here to be pursued on our visit to the Leica Archive, including both the cassette and the film used.

William 

I'm still amazed that Kodak moved into Germany in the 1930s when the signs were not exactly positive

William,

In fact Kodak already moved into Germany in 1927 when it acquired Glanzfilm, a lossmaking producer of cine positive film.
From 1926 onwards foreign makes of 35mm cine film could be imported in Germany again.
But I suspect that import duties discouraged direct imports.
So Eastman Kodak must have reasoned: why not produce Kodak films in Germany if we want to capture part of the German market again?

Note that in 1928 Agfa took control of the American Ansco, probably for similar reasons.
American import duties must have made direct exports from Germany to the USA uncompetitive.

Agfa Ansco would become very succesful in the USA.
In 1938 it even obtained an Academy Award (Oscar) for the quality of its fast panchromatic cine negative films.

 

Roland

 

 

 
 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Anbaric]

16 hours ago, nitroplait said:

Are there any online resources showing detailed pictures of surviving Agfa paper cassettes?

I’m interested in how they were made/constructed but the contemporary ad images are not very informative.

My google skills are not good enough to retrieve something useful.

Not a picture, but you might find this description in the RPS Journal from August 1932 interesting:

https://archive.rps.org/archive/volume-72/733214

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 26, 2023 by Anbaric

[Roland Zwiers]

Exactly so, thank you for this fascinating review in a British photo magazine!
The film was encased in a cardboard spool-holder.
This means that the 1932 Agfa cassette was not re-usable.

Note that the reviewer implies amateur use 'simple enough for a youngster to manage',
but also states that he, a professional Leica photographer,  is already a user as well:
'which in this new packing is now in my own Leica"

This shows that the new Agfa cassette must have fulfilled a pressing need.
And so that this innovation must also have been quite succesful.
Which does not exclude that follow-up innovations embodied further improvements.
And that the 1934 Retina cassette set a new long-lasting standard.

Roland 

 

[LocalHero1953]

54 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

And so that this innovation must also have been quite succesful.
Which does not exclude that follow-up innovations embodied further improvements.
And that the 1934 Retina cassette set a new long-lasting standard.

 

Of course, commercial success does not always come from technical superiority. It can arise from marketing, access to a larger market and retail outlets, lower cost supplies, more efficient manufacturing etc. I have no knowledge about whether the Kodak cassette was technically better, but Kodak clearly knew how to exploit an already strong market position, and had the resources to do so.

Edited July 26, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[willeica]

4 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Exactly so, thank you for this fascinating review in a British photo magazine!
The film was encased in a cardboard spool-holder.
This means that the 1932 Agfa cassette was not re-usable.

Note that the reviewer implies amateur use 'simple enough for a youngster to manage',
but also states that he, a professional Leica photographer,  is already a user as well:
'which in this new packing is now in my own Leica"

This shows that the new Agfa cassette must have fulfilled a pressing need.
And so that this innovation must also have been quite succesful.
Which does not exclude that follow-up innovations embodied further improvements.
And that the 1934 Retina cassette set a new long-lasting standard.

Roland 

 

Here is the Agfa-Leitz cassette which I have shown in this thread, which I started and which contains a lot of useful information. 

My example shown here is a reloadable item, which could be called a rebadged FILCA D. It has a felt lined opening like the later Kodak cassettes. In the Leica II Model D manual from January 1933 there is a reference to the Agfa Leica one use film cassette, but no illustration. There are also instructions for the Leica Spool/Film Chamber Model B ( FILCA) for both subdued daylight loading film and darkroom loading film. Daylight loading films were said to have been available from Perutz, Mimosa, Gevaert, Kodak and Selo. Based on the text, the daylight opening films were paper backed and the paper backing was removed once the film was loaded. I can post the text, which should also be in the relevant manual on the LSI Archive, if anyone wants to see it. 

 

18 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I'm still amazed that Kodak moved into Germany in the 1930s when the signs were not exactly positive

William,

In fact Kodak already moved into Germany in 1927 when it acquired Glanzfilm, a lossmaking producer of cine positive film.
From 1926 onwards foreign makes of 35mm cine film could be imported in Germany again.
But I suspect that import duties discouraged direct imports.
So Eastman Kodak must have reasoned: why not produce Kodak films in Germany if we want to capture part of the German market again?

Note that in 1928 Agfa took control of the American Ansco, probably for similar reasons.
American import duties must have made direct exports from Germany to the USA uncompetitive.

Agfa Ansco would become very succesful in the USA.
In 1938 it even obtained an Academy Award (Oscar) for the quality of its fast panchromatic cine negative films.

 

Roland

 

 

 
 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I was also talking about Kodak coming into the camera manufacturing  industry in Germany in the 1930s.  Dr August Nagel was a remarkable man who managed to sell out his camera business twice, firstly to Zeiss in the 1920s and then again in the 1930s to Kodak. I have examples of both his Contessa and Nagel cameras. In the case of the latter, I also have examples of Nagel cameras rebadged as Kodaks. The Retina cameras had parts which had their origins on Nagel cameras. The second time that he sold out, Nagel managed to stay on with the firm. Nagel also sold some of his self-named cameras equipped with Leitz lenses ( as well as Schneider etc) and I have some examples. The Contessa/Nagel/ Kodak cameras were equipped with Deckel Compur shutters, but Zeiss effectively controlled Deckel.  The picture I am trying to convey is that Kodak was coming into an industry in Germany where there were a lot of complex local relationships. It would have been very difficult for Kodak to have done the same as it had done in the US i.e. buy up all of the opposition, but the 35mm cassette was one positive takeaway for Kodak.

William 

[zeitz]

32 minutes ago, willeica said:

Dr August Nagel was a remarkable man who managed to sell out his camera business twice, firstly to Zeiss in the 1920s

William, you need to get a copy of Lawrence Gubas' book on Zeiss Photography.  Your statement does not give an accurate picture of the development of Zeiss Ikon and the role of August Nagel.  We have discussed before that the Dr attribution is a later honorary degree and does not reflect his standing at Zeiss when he was employed there.  Nagel did much better when he developed his own company.  August Nagel is a remarkable man.  But he did not have an advanced education and he worked in a very important position at a camera business that was subsumed by Zeiss. 

You guys also need to remember there were two big players in photography in the period - Kodak and the Zeiss Stiftung.  Kodak's presence in Germany was insignificant compared to Zeiss Stiftung's activity in photo industry consolidation.

[pgk]

On 7/24/2023 at 9:16 PM, Roland Zwiers said:

In the USA there was also one specialised producer of the celluloid film base, the American Celluloid Company.
I get the impression that the UK didn't mind to be so dependent on American producers.
So for a long time (maybe even up to 1946) Britain did not have a major producer of celluloid film base.

If you look at the wiki entry on celluloid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celluloid) it comments on the disadvantage of it being highly flammable and also makes mention of 'hazardous explosions' leading to factory closures. It is interesting that there was only one specialised producer in the USA. Perhaps not everyone wanted to make such a material? [Having lived not far from an explosives factory (now closed), I can confirm that in spite of innumerable safety precautions, accidents and explosions do happen, sadly, as they usually involve injury and loss of life. This factory consisted on many buildings seperated by a earth bank to prevent the sympathetic detonations of material in adjacent areas.]

[Roland Zwiers]

Yes, celluloid is related to gun cotton and therefore liable to explode.

Celluloid based 35mm film had the same problems.
Theatres that performed films regularly caught fire.
Once celluloid was burning it would continue to do so even under water!

So around 1910 there were already attempts to switch to a non-celluloid film base, like acetate.
This was not very succesful for many years.
And when it was implemented, it was laregly so for the cine positive films that were performed in the theatres.

For cine negative film (the film used for leica photography as well) celluloid remained the norm for much longer.
With the exception of cine negative film for use in amateur movie cameras.

In the early 1920s the German Glanzfilm experimented with cine positive film on acetate basis.
This was innovative, but must have been a high cost affair, making it difficult to be profitable.
So in 1927 Glanzfilm was an easy prey for Kodak Ltd. when it wanted to establish a production site in Germany.

 

Roland

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

4 hours ago, zeitz said:

William, you need to get a copy of Lawrence Gubas' book on Zeiss Photography.  Your statement does not give an accurate picture of the development of Zeiss Ikon and the role of August Nagel.  We have discussed before that the Dr attribution is a later honorary degree and does not reflect his standing at Zeiss when he was employed there.  Nagel did much better when he developed his own company.  August Nagel is a remarkable man.  But he did not have an advanced education and he worked in a very important position at a camera business that was subsumed by Zeiss. 

You guys also need to remember there were two big players in photography in the period - Kodak and the Zeiss Stiftung.  Kodak's presence in Germany was insignificant compared to Zeiss Stiftung's activity in photo industry consolidation.

You guys also need to remember there were two big players in photography in the period - Kodak and the Zeiss Stiftung.

The period that I have under consideration is 1910-1927, with the subperiod 1923-1925 that is relevant for the test series Leica.
In this period Kodak was only relevant for the pre-August-1914 period.
So only in the period of the Ur-Leica.
During 1910-1927 Zeiss was one of several major players on the German market, along side ICA, Goerz, Ernemann and Agfa.  

Pre-1914 Kodak still played a crucial role, as the M875 exposure tester and the Ur-Leica have features that derive from the 1912 Vestpocket Kodak.
Oskar Barnack was not that original.
In 1912 he found himself in the middle of a miniature revolution.
So he combined features of several 'Liliput' cameras on the market to arrive at his Ur-Leica.
In other words: Oskar Barnack made a new combination of existing ideas.

The next period to study will be 1928-1934.
In this period there is the Zeiss-Ikon merger, the Kodak film factory in Berlin, the Kodak cooperation with August Nagel, the introduction of the Retina, the integration of Agfa in IG Farben, the Agfa acquisition of the American Ansco, and so on.

 

Roland

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Of course, commercial success does not always come from technical superiority. It can arise from marketing, access to a larger market and retail outlets, lower cost supplies, more efficient manufacturing etc. I have no knowledge about whether the Kodak cassette was technically better, but Kodak clearly knew how to exploit an already strong market position, and had the resources to do so.

Paul,

Indeed, Kodak often used its market power to drive competitors out of the market.
A good example was the 1909 Vestpocket Ensignette, which was a very innovative British miniature camera for daylight loading roll films.
This camera very quickly became a worldwide hit.

At first Eastman Kodak replied by offering a Kodak film for this Ensignette camera.
AFAIK this was the first (if not the only) time that Kodak film was offered for a negative format that was not set by Eastman Kodak itself! 

The second reply was to introduce the slightly bigger Vestpocket Kodak in 1912.
As soon as this happened, Kodak forbade US retailers to sell the british Vestpocket Ensignette!
Retailers that refused to withdraw the Vestpocket Ensignette from their shopwindow could not sell any Eastman Kodak products anymore!
So Eastman Kodak would boycot these retailers!
That was a severe sanction in view of the popularity of Eastman Kodak film!

The introduction of the VP Kodak resulted in a format war with the VP Ensignette, a war that the Ensignette could only lose.
So in the early 1920s Houghton redesigned the VP Ensignette so as to accept the 127-film of the VP Kodak.
Capitulation indeed.

Around 1912 the VP Ensignette and the VP Kodak were the most popular 'Liliput' cameras of the day.
They introduced enlargers for postcard-size 9x14 cm prints.

Oskar Barnack clearly copied the film loading system of the VP Kodak.
And the 24x38mm negative size of the Ur-Leica must have facilitated printing on 9x14cm paper.

 

Roland

 

 
. 

 

[nitroplait]

It was once explained to me that the movie industry moved from the east coast to California due to the light, but learned later it really was to distance themselves from the straitjacket of Edison and Kodak business practices.