100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

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.

In English terminololy there is the useful distiction between pull and push factors. 

A push factor was the active role of Eastman Kodak in a cartel/ trust that forced independent filmstudios to pay fees for patent rights.
Film studios that refused to pay this (ultimately illegal fee) could not buy the Kodak 35mm cine negative film.
As this Kodak film was the best film on the market, the inability to use it was a severe handicap.

To make matters worse, the trust would actively sue independent film makers that refused to pay the fees.
In this process the trust could even confiscate equipment!
So this may have indeed been a push factor for independent film studios to move away from New York/ Rochester (the traditional centre of the American filmindustry) to Hollywood.

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

A pull factor may very well have been the sunny weather and the intense sunlight in California.
With very slow cine negative film it comes in handy that a very bright light source is freely available.
I don't know, however, how important this pull factor was in practise.

If most scenes were filmed in broad daylight, then this must have been an important consideration.
But I feel that even in Hollywood most scenes were filmed indoors with the help of strong arc lamps. 

This technology - colour blind film with arc studio lights - would be the dominant technology up to the mid 1920s.
It rested on a very interesting technological complemenarity:
colour blind film was very sensitive for the colours blue, violet and ultra violet.
arc lamps gave intense light in the colours blue, violet and ultra violet as well.

That the reproduction in grey tones of the colours green, yellow, orange and red was completely unnatural, was of course unfortunate.
But film studios had professionals to deal with this problem.
Reddish faces were powdered white, compensatory make-up made a big difference. 

It is intersting to observe that in June 1914 Ernst Leitz II still visited New York instead of Hollywood.
He had his wife with him.
Still in my analysis he was also on a business trip, looking for new opportunities on the American market. 
Had the centre of gravity already moved to Hollywood, then I suspect Ernst Leitz would have included this location in his schedule.

 

Roland  

 

 

[willeica]

19 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.

Nagel had the Contessa business and I have a collection of Contessa cameras from the 1920s which trace the journey towards Zeiss Ikon which, of course, involved others. When I post here I am not writing a PhD thesis and I deal with stuff at a ‘top line ‘ level. I don’t accept that what I said was inaccurate as it was written from the perspective of Nagel’s involvement, which I thought was obvious. I would also say that some of the greatest geniuses in many fields did not have the benefit of a big formal education, but actually benefited by having a so-called ‘lesser education’. 
 

I would agree, however, that Zeiss and Kodak are two hugely significant companies. Back in the 1920s and 1930s Leitz/Leica was only a little flea on the photography field, by comparison with Zeiss, but Leica survived, helped, not in the least, by design decisions taken by a ‘mechanic’ called Barnack. As for Kodak it was definitely the most significant company in the history of photography from the 1880s up to the ‘digital turn’, notwithstanding its often reprehensible business practices.

William 

Edited July 27, 2023 by willeica

[Roland Zwiers]

I don’t accept that what I said was inaccurate as it was written from the perspective of Nagel’s involvement, which I thought was obvious. 

William,

One problem is that in this thread the perspective is changeing all the time.
My original perspective was the period 1923-1925, that is the period of the test series Leicas.
In my manuscript, that you have seen before, this is a subperiod of 1910-1927.
So 1910-1922 as the lead-up to the test series of 1923-1925 and 1926-1927 as the immediate follow-up.
This allows me to include a stock-flow chart (1924-1926), to deal with the Perutz Fliegerfilm of late 1926, to discuss Dr Paul Wolff's acquaintance with a Null-Serie Leica, and so on.

Very often you have very interesting comments that are not part of this perspective.
As these comments are interesting as well, I try to reply as well as I can, even though I will keep trying to steer back to my original 1910-1927 time frame.

This Nagel perspective is a good example.
For you it is obvious why you make this comment.
It also relates to the earlier discussion on the 1932 Agfa-Leica cassette, which was strictly off-topic from the 1910-1927 point of view.
So I was very happy that you also steered back with your question on the brass reloadable cassette for the Null-Serie Leica.
That brought us back in Null-Serie territory again.

So I would like to keep the discussions in this thread as far as possible in this 1910-1927 timeframe.
That will help to avoid confusions with perspectives.

 

Roland 

  

 

 

 

[willeica]

10 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I don’t accept that what I said was inaccurate as it was written from the perspective of Nagel’s involvement, which I thought was obvious. 

William,

One problem is that in this thread the perspective is changeing all the time.
My original perspective was the period 1923-1925, that is the period of the test series Leicas.
In my manuscript, that you have seen before, this is a subperiod of 1910-1927.
So 1910-1922 as the lead-up to the test series of 1923-1925 and 1926-1927 as the immediate follow-up.
This allows me to include a stock-flow chart (1924-1926), to deal with the Perutz Fliegerfilm of late 1926, to discuss Dr Paul Wolff's acquaintance with a Null-Serie Leica, and so on.

Very often you have very interesting comments that are not part of this perspective.
As these comments are interesting as well, I try to reply as well as I can, even though I will keep trying to steer back to my original 1910-1927 time frame.

This Nagel perspective is a good example.
For you it is obvious why you make this comment.
It also relates to the earlier discussion on the 1932 Agfa-Leica cassette, which was strictly off-topic from the 1910-1927 point of view.
So I was very happy that you also steered back with your question on the brass reloadable cassette for the Null-Serie Leica.
That brought us back in Null-Serie territory again.

So I would like to keep the discussions in this thread as far as possible in this 1910-1927 timeframe.
That will help to avoid confusions with perspectives.

 

Roland 

  

 

 

 

Roland, I’m not the only one to ‘drift’ here. This started as a topic about fliegerfilm, but has exploded out into about a thousand different directions, The issue of the cassette is an important one and was a factor in some of the issues which arose with the early Leica test models from 1923/24 . I hope that 121 has the original cassette which Ottmar Michaely referenced in the context of No 105. I also hope to get some pictures of what may be in No 121 from Lars Netopil. The first question will be whether it was ever adapted to take a standard FILCA as No 105 was. We had lengthy discussions on the forum about this adaptation matter before the auction of No 105 last year. You will glad to hear that we have had two more volunteers for our research team for October.

William 

[pgk]

4 hours ago, nitroplait said:

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.

I believe that it was primarily due to the light as evidenced by outdoor movie sets and locations, and of course the weather! No doubt there were secondary reasons which might have helped.

[Roland Zwiers]

Roland, I’m not the only one to ‘drift’ here. This started as a topic about fliegerfilm, but has exploded out into about a thousand different directions, The issue of the cassette is an important one and was a factor in some of the issues which arose with the early Leica test models from 1923/24 .

William,

The Fliegerfilm discussion is of direct relevance for the test period 1923-1925,
According to the Perutz-Leica legends the Perutz Fliegerfilm was available years before March 1925.
Oskar Barnack would even have oriented himself on the Perutz Fliegerfilm!
So, according to the legend, the film must have been available for Null-Serie Leicas.

Pre-war primary sources, including from Otto Perutz itself, show otherwise.
The Perutz (Spezial) Fliegerfilm was introduced in late 1926, so after the market introduction of the Leica in March 1925.

Similarly, the Leica cassette discussion is relevant for the period under consideration.
After all, after 1918 Oskar Barnack had to create a cassette for the Handmuster / Kisselbach camera of 1920.
And similar ones for the Null-Serie and the Leica I.
 

Where we started drifting was with the Retina cassette of 1934.
That discussion belongs to a different period/ perspective. 
So I did my best to steer back to the technological bottlenecks of 1910-1927. 

Roland

 

 

 

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Roland, I’m not the only one to ‘drift’ here. This started as a topic about fliegerfilm, but has exploded out into about a thousand different directions, The issue of the cassette is an important one and was a factor in some of the issues which arose with the early Leica test models from 1923/24 .

William,

The Fliegerfilm discussion is of direct relevance for the test period 1923-1925,
According to the Perutz-Leica legends the Perutz Fliegerfilm was available years before March 1925.
Oskar Barnack would even have oriented himself on the Perutz Fliegerfilm!
So, according to the legend, the film must have been available for Null-Serie Leicas.

Pre-war primary sources, including from Otto Perutz itself, show otherwise.
The Perutz (Spezial) Fliegerfilm was introduced in late 1926, so after the market introduction of the Leica in March 1925.

Similarly, the Leica cassette discussion is relevant for the period under consideration.
After all, after 1918 Oskar Barnack had to create a cassette for the Handmuster / Kisselbach camera of 1920.
And similar ones for the Null-Serie and the Leica I.
 

Where we started drifting was with the Retina cassette of 1934.
That discussion belongs to a different period/ perspective. 
So I did my best to steer back to the technological bottlenecks of 1910-1927. 

Roland

 

 

 

The testing of the Leica went on much longer than just up to 1927. The ‘test’ cameras sent to external parties were only part of the story. The camera was a long way from being a ‘fully finished product’ and Barnack was a constant tinkerer. There was ongoing mechanical and optical testing in the factory and you will find evidence of that in the Leica Archive. The notes about the FILCA from 1931 are a part of that. It was only after 1932 or 1933 that the camera started to fully settle down as a long term product and I’m not talking about the added rangefinder. Richter’s book details a lot of this in house testing and I hope that he will respond positively to my invitation to him to join us in Wetzlar. The one use cassette was mentioned as it was a factor in the long term success of the Leica. 
 

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

The testing of the Leica went on much longer than just up to 1927. 

William,

I fully agree!
The story is so big that one has to work with subperiods.
That's why my current perspective is on the technological bottlenecks for Leica photography in the period 1910-1927.
With 1923-1925 as a very relevant subperiod because of the overlap between the test cameras of 1923-1924 and the start of series production in 1924-1925.

The connection between the test cameras of 1923-1924 and series production in 1924-1925 is even more fluid than I thought when I started this posting.
In the period January-March 1925 Curt Emmermann and Willy Frerk still received test cameras!
Thanks to Alan I now know that Curt Emmermann received his test Leica in early February 1925.

The next research period will be 1928-1934.
As you say, this period witnessed further breakthroughs for Leica photography:

• in Leica hardware (interchangeable lenses, coupled rangefinder, very fast lenses, many more accessories),
• in software (the Perutz Spezial Fliegerfilm, the first 35mm Agfacolor film, the very fast Agfa Superpan film)
• in skills (Dr Paul Wolff had a different approach than Curt Emmermann),
• in artistic style (Neue Sachlichkeit, candid photography),
• in competitors (Contax, Retina)
• in external environment (Kodak regained access to the German market, Agfa did so in the USA)
• and so on.

I simply lose my way if I have to deal with all these subjects and all these time-frames at the same time.
That's why my reseach is now focussed on the technological bottlenecks for Leica photography in the period 1910-1927.
I do not aim at a PhD thesis either (at least not yet 🙂 ), but everything I post has already been carefully researched.
This is not yet the case for the period 1928-1934.
There is a lot of literature, especially pre-war photo-magazines and publications by Dr Paul Wolff, that I still have to read and internalize.
But first things first.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 
 

[derleicaman]

Perhaps this is a dumb question at this point. Have you William and Roland, consulted the Helmut Lagler books? Might it be a good idea to contact him to see if he would like to join our group? I have the first three volumes which I picked up at Haus Friedwart last October, and I am eagerly awaiting volume 4. Ed Schwartzrreich lent me his advance copy of volume 4. These volumes contain an incredible amount of information, which addresses many of the points brought up here.

I also just got the latest issue of Vidom yesterday. I have not had a chance to look at it in depth yet, but there is an aricle in it about early Leitz cassettes which may be relevant here.

[Roland Zwiers]

Have you William and Roland, consulted the Helmut Lagler books? 

Bill,

Not yet.
I only found out about these books in the course of this thread, so only a few weeks ago.
How can I order them? 

Once I can finish the 1910-1927 project, I can change to a new [1928-1934] perspective 🙂
There are still a few things to discuss. that belong to the 1910-1927 time frrame.
So I am not ready yet.

Roland

[derleicaman]

The books are available from the Museum Store at Leitz Park,and also from H. Lindemanns Foto-Buchhandlung in Stuttgart,and online at www.lindemanns.de. Price is around $100 per copy. They also have copies for sale at Haus Friedwart.

[Roland Zwiers]

Bill,

Thank you so much.
I know Lindemanns.
When the volumes are very heavy, I might better order them online.
In this way I am collecting a substantial post-war Leica literature collection as well!

Roland

 

 

[beoon]

Roland,

I have purchased all available volumes of the Lagler books from Lindemanns and found them very reliable.

My only caveat with these books is that they pull together a lot of existing information from previous books.

As I have a lot of the original books then as with what has been discussed earlier in this thread it repeats existing wisdom.

Alan 

[Roland Zwiers]

Alan,

I just bought the volumes one and two, dealing with the early periods.
When Leica experts recommend them, I have no choice but to take these sources very seriously. 
In this way my collection of post-war Leica literature is ever expanding.

You are right that in post-war Leica literature I keep finding the same 'common wisdoms'.
This includes common wisdoms that are not supported or even contradicted by reliable pre-war primary sources.
[I have already discussed why pre-war primary sources can be unreliabe as well.]  

One explanation is that a legend gains weight once it is repeated by a second or a third author.
With each additional citation a legend seems to become more plausible.
In this way, when a legend is never checked, it will become common wisdom by default. 

Roland
 

 

 

[Edward Schwartzreich]

Roland, you might want Volume three especially, as it goes by years through the period you study..

 

Ed

[Roland Zwiers]

Ed,

Could you give me the exact title?
I already ordered 1848-1929 (Vorgeschichte und Leica Erstproduction) and 1930-1953 (Leica Schraubsystem).

Roland

[willeica]

On 7/28/2023 at 6:37 PM, Roland Zwiers said:

Have you William and Roland, consulted the Helmut Lagler books? 

Bill,

Not yet.
I only found out about these books in the course of this thread, so only a few weeks ago.
How can I order them? 

Once I can finish the 1910-1927 project, I can change to a new [1928-1934] perspective 🙂
There are still a few things to discuss. that belong to the 1910-1927 time frrame.
So I am not ready yet.

Roland

Tim Pullmann drew my attention to the books in the Museum Shop when I was in Wetzlar for the sale of No 105 last year. I decided that they were too heavy to lug back. There were copies there last month when I was there- also in Villa Friedwart when I visited. I took the same decision again on weight grounds. I may order from Lindemanns who are very good to deal with. I don't speak German, but I have other Leica and general camera books which are entirely in German. My main interest would be in the early changes to the Leica camera and the lenses which were considerably more than most people think, even during the period of the I Model A. Angela von Einem's book is a starting point, but Jerzy and I found other changes to the Elmar. As you know I have invited Richter and Lagler to join us, but I have not heard from them yet. What would be useful to hear from them would be what their sources where and where the 'hidden treasure' might lie.

Tim phoned me on Friday and expressed concern about the numbers that would be coming on the 'general visits' as he is all alone. I repeat here once again that the archive is a completely unmanned entity, apart from Tim who has many other jobs to do.  At the moment we are up to about 180 attendees at the LSI Conference and if all of those wanted to see the archive, Tim would not be able to manage it. I have booked our group in for 11am on Wednesday 18th October, for what I hope will be an initial visit, and I will write to Tim on Tuesday about the headline items that we want to see. The important thing is to get in and then work from there. As I said, I have not heard from the German experts, but I will be in touch with Lars anyway about No 121. 

Meanwhile I am very busy with some projects here in Ireland and you will see from this that Wetzlar is not the only place with number limits, in this case it will be 25 and not 15. Trying to interpret 130 year old handwritten photographer's notes has not been easy and I have only just worked out what they mean or what they may mean. The same applies to Leica archive records.

https://strokestownpark.ie/event/william-fagan-talk-and-tour/

I will be doing a PCCGB Research Zoom about this, probably on 1 October as the next one after yours. We can rehearse some of Null Series etc issues on your Zoom on 27th August. I am going to tell David and Tim at PCCGB that I will be distributing the link for that Zoom to our Wetzlar Visit Group. Sharing information is the only way that we can really get to the bottom of the very many issues involved here.

William  

[Edward Schwartzreich]

Roland,

 

You indeed ordered the correct ones: those you might need.  Those are Volumes 3 and 4.  

 

Nos. 1 and 2 are, in a sense, introductory and supplementary to the later historical volumes. 

 

Ed

[beoon]

21 hours ago, willeica said:

Sharing information is the only way that we can really get to the bottom of the very many issues involved here.

William,

Thank you for liaising with Tim regarding our visit. I agree absolutely with the sharing of information, even a small piece can be critical in piecing together the overall picture 

Alan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

Alan,

Indeed, one or two new pieces of the puzzle can lead to a much better understanding of the whole picture.
Your information on the feed-back by:

• Curt Emmermann ('I received my Leica in early February 1925') and
• Prof. Klute (the German 35mm films of the high inflation period left much to be desired)

were extremely useful!

They allow me to underline that the Null-Serie of 1923 is part of a more or less continuous series of test cameras between January 1923 and March 1925. 
The purpose of the test series must have changed over time.

At first to test the Handmuster design of 1920 with the new 5-element Leitz Anastigmat and the available 35mm cine negative films.

Results:

• the new 5-element lens is of good quality, but difficult and expensive to manufacture
• the quality of German 35mm cine negative films does not yet allow for good quality 9x14cm prints
• the camera needs an improved shutter

Oskar Barnack must then have cancelled the foreseen Null-Serie cameras 123, 124 and 125. 
He could better use the precious material for new prototypes with a self-capping shutter.
These cameras may not have been numbered.
One surviving camera may well be the Schäfer camera as described by Ottmar Michaely (2011)

So these few test cameras with the new shutter design were tested up to June 1924.

Results:

• the 5-element lens is still of good quality (still no discolouring of the glass, as may have occured with the original 4-element Anastigmat of 1920)
• the new shutter is working all-right
• in the meantime the quality of German 35mm cine negative film has improved: the quality of a 9x14cm enlargement is as good as a contact print from a larger negative.
  The new German film that first met the 9x14cm standard may well have been the Toxo-Kino-Film as produced by Nobel in Düren. 

Then came the crucial go/go-go decision of June 1924.
Ernst Leitz II decided to go ahead.
His decision must have rested on several observations:

• the Leica in combination with the new German 35mm cine negative film had passed the 9x14cm test
• the new shutter was working properly
• after 1,5 years of testing the new 5-element Leitz Anastigmat was still of good quality

So the feed-back from the test Leica recipients had been dealt with.
The camera was technologically ripe for production.
The decision to go-ahead now only rested on the question: is there a market for this expensive miniature camera?
Is this a viable business case?
Do I want to risk my familly capital on this project?
In June 1924 Ernst Leitz II, the entrepreneur, was willing to take the risk.

Still, he must have made one additional precuation.
The 5-element Anastigmat was too expensive to manufacture.
And so he asked Max Berek to design a 4-element Leitz Anastigmat.
The final expiry of the Tessar patent may or may not have been helpful for the switch to the simpler 4-element design.

In Leica literature there are several publication in which the round table meeting of June 1924 is discussed.
The participants are discussing the pros and cons in a lively way.
So I wondered: has a record of the meeting been preserved in the Leitz archive?
This is not the case!
This means that the record of the meeting (the words put in the mouth of the several participants) is a creative narrative based on post-war common wisdom.
And we have already discussed several situations where common wisdom is contradicted by reliable pre-war sources.

After the June 1924 decision to go ahead there have been additional test cameras, even up to March 1925.
So what was the purpose of the continued flow of test cameras after June 1924?

Very likely:

• the need to let as many employees as possible acquire assembly skills (assembly would remain a serious bottleneck throughout 1925)
• the need to have some employees acquire disassembly skills for future repair work
• the opportunity to sent additional test cameras to promising photographers like Curt Emmermann

It is very interesting to observe that a test camera was still being sent to Curt Emmermann in early February 1925.
And even on 4 March 1925 editor Willy Frerk received a test camera for the purpose of a review. 

Roland