100 years Null-Serie

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 minutes ago, pippy said:

They still do. Pretty much an essential service and not just for roll-film. When using (say) 5"x4" E6 it's common practice to shoot one extra sheet at the 'correct' exposure and hold development of three others (usually bracketed at -1/2 Stop : Correct : +1/2 Stop) until this first sheet has been examined.

Philip.

One of the advantages of living in London. I've never had this facility since I left ('83).

[willeica]

On 8/7/2023 at 7:47 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

It wasn't stated by me, to whom you were replying - hence my puzzlement.

Stated by Roland. No need to be puzzled.

William 

[willeica]

On 8/7/2023 at 9:51 AM, beoon said:

Not an undiscovered notebook, but I have seen a drawing of another prototype camera. Unfortunately I have been asked not to share this drawing.

There is more information out there for sure 

Bring a photocopy to Wetzlar, Alan. We won't tell anyone 😀 . What is needed, of course, is information that cross corroborates. 

William 

[willeica]

On 8/7/2023 at 6:37 PM, derleicaman said:

So far this has been a very interesting discussion with many contributions from the participants here. This is exactly why I enjoy going on the LUF!

However, I think we are losing sight of a few fundamental facts, and I was struck by this in general a few years ago when I first learned of M875.

The basic facts are that Barnack was hired by Leitz on the recommendation of Emil Mechau. Mechau had worked at Carl Zeiss and there met Oscar Barnack. Mechau had been working at Zeiss on the development of a flicker free motion picture projector. Motion pictures were seen as having a huge future, and Leitz was planning on getting in on the action. Mechau left Zeiss in 1910 to work at Leitz, who showed more interest in the development of his projector than Zeiss did. Leitz needed a Master Machinist in the Microscope Department, and Mechau remembered Barnack from his time at Zeiss. Everyone knows this part of the story, where Barnack was reluctant to go to Leitz, as he suffered from poor health and felt that an employer would not be interested in someone who would have to take several months off per year because of this. Mechau was personally involved in the negotiations with Ernst Leitz I and II to hire Barnack, and the rest as they say is history.

Barnack was hired by Leitz, and began work there on January 1, 1911. Soon, Barnack began work on an all-metal 35mm motion picture camera, which Roland shows in his previous posting. As the film stocks were variable as to their light sensitivity, and as Roland points out, Barnack may have been treating the film stock to increase its sensitivity, a reliable method was needed to make a test of a short strip of film stock before shooting an entire roll of motion picture film and finding out that your “guess” on exposure was wrong! Hence, the creation of M875. It was never intended to be a full-fledged camera, merely a means of testing exposure with a short film strip. And here is where serendipity comes in. This device actually made serviceable photographs on the short strip of film! M875 as it now exists, is a light-tight housing for the short film strip, with a removable bottom cover for loading film, a tube with what appears to be a gravity shutter, and an back door flap. That’s it. There is no lens mounted on it, only a tube with a ring that can be tightened with a small screw. It is assumed this is where the lens was mounted. There is no focal plane shutter on this device, only the sliding guillotine over the body opening. One school of thought argues that the drop shutter approximates 1/40 of a second of the motion picture camera. It also should be pointed out that the 1/40 of a second for all motion picture cameras at this time was the “target” or ideal speed, when the reality was that these cameras were hand-cranked by the operator and the actual speed could vary quite a bit from the ideal. This became known as “over” or “under” cranking the camera, with the effect being some of the comical action of the subjects being seen in these early motion pictures. The other school of thought believes that a leaf shutter (Compur type) lens combination was used mounted on this tube. This would obviate the need for a focal plane shutter, and one could argue that there was a dual train of thought on the path of coming up with a functional camera. The parallel product lines of the Compur Leica and the Leica I would give some credibility to this line of reasoning. No one can absolutely know for sure exactly how M875 was used. Was it handheld, or mounted vertically to the side of the motion picture camera as some have argued to allow the drop shutter to function? Did M875 give Barnack the actual idea of the small camera he eventually developed, or did he develop this in parallel to the Ur? Again, no one knows for sure. The only thing we do know for sure is that both the Ur and M875 were developed in the short period of time after Barnack’s hiring in 1911, all the while working on the development of the motion picture camera.

The next logical step would be to make an actual camera with a lens having an adjustable aperture in a focusing mount, and a reliable shutter and advance mechanism for the film used in the camera. This was Barnack’s Lilliput camera, which we call the Ur. M875 was found in a cabinet that Barnack kept in his office at the Hausertor Werk after his death. In this cabinet, Barnack also kept various notes, drawings and note books. Barnack’s successor, Wilhelm Albert came into possession of the cabinet and its contents. At some point, Leitz included these items in its Archives, and named the exposure device M875. While not as important in the story of the Leica as the Ur, M875 nevertheless should be considered as an important stepping stone in the development of the Leica, and not forgotten.

Again, I will remind everyone that we need to examine the development of the Leica from the point of view of the time period prior to 1914, not the present day.

I have asked that M875 be made available for our visit in October, when we can all take a look at it and have it as part of our discussion.

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!

Thanks Bill. I wrote to Tim at the weekend and , among many other things, I asked that M875 and related documents be shown to our group in October. Just a few thoughts. Firstly, a guillotine shutter operating under gravity should be at least as consistently accurate as a clockwork Compur type shutter, unless, of course, the guillotine shutter gets stuck. If it is focus related, I think the door at the back may have been for checking focus (if indeed focus check was needed for a film strip test) on a conventional ground glass screen. I believe that by the time the Leica camera appeared they may have had a focus check device that allowed focus to be checked through a very small hole. Everything was evolutionary and sometimes revolutionary back then. Other thoughts include whether this might have related to aiding film loading or, given its location, shape and size, whether this might have been part of a pressure plate set up? 

The cine camera is on display on a tripod in the museum. It is a large device with many parts. I cannot see us being allowed to examine it, but there are plenty of photos of the interior. I think Malcolm Taylor may have done some when he repaired the camera. Here is a photo I took of the cine camera in September 2021 on the day the museum opened. It was in the same location when I was there at the beginning of June this year. 

 

As regards the lens mount on the Ur Leica, I would like to see the Mikro Summar and the mount shown separately, but I doubt if we will ever get a chance to see that.

William 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

On 8/9/2023 at 6:40 PM, willeica said:

Stated by Roland. No need to be puzzled.

William 

It was stated that Barnack copied the VPK. I was only responding to that by saying that the two cameras were quite different.
Stated by Roland. No need to be puzzled.

William,

I don't mind robust discussions.
But I do mind that you start a discussion by putting words in my mouth that I didn't use.
And to so misrepresent my views that they become a very easy target for a critical reply.

My view starts with the observation that post-war Leica literature too easily takes Barnack (1931) for granted.
In 1931 Oskar Barnack was invited by Curt Emmermann, the editor of the new magazine Die Leica, to relate how the Leica came about.
Oskar Barnack provides an anacdore from 1905, when he was carrying a heavy plate camera up hill.
And so post-war Leica literature keeps accepting this anaecdote as the motivation for Oskar Barnack to embark on his Ur-Leica.
This amounts to saying that Oskar Barnack created the Ur-Leica in a vacuum, without knowing what was going on in the outside world.

Now when one studies pre-1914 literature one can see that the first miniature revolution already started in the 1890s.
That by 1912 this first miniature revolution was well advanced.

Oskar Barnack must have been well aware of the cameras (and the features of these cameras) that were on the market by 1912.
You are free to disagree.
But then you imply that other people at Leitz (Ernst Leitz I, Ernst Leitz II, etc.) had been missing this miniature revolution as well.

So in my working hypothesis in 1912 Oskar Barnack did not start from scratch.
The first miniature revolution had filled his head with a whole library of ideas.
And being a creative tinkerer he created something new by combining features of several cameras.

One camera with interesting features had appeared in the first half of 1912.
It was the VP Kodak, a miniature camera for 127-film.
It was Eastman Kodak's anwer to the very succesful British VP Ensignette of 1909.
So in my analysis Oskar Barnack also made use of features of the VP Kodak; first for the M875 exposure tester and later for the Ur-Leica of January 1914.  

From a technological point of view the Film Palmos of 1900 must have been an even more important source of inspiration.
This miniature camera combined roll film (6x9cm), with a focal plane shutter (speeds up to 1/1000), with a precise helicoid focussing mechanism, with engraved distance settings.
Moreover, this camera already had a coupling between film transport and the tensioning of the focal plane shutter.
It may even have been the reason for why the 1914 Leitz Patent application was refused!

Against this background I infer that Oskar Barnack did not create the Ur-Leica in a vacuum.
He had been an interested observer all the time.
Doing so he accumulated knowlegde about the first miniature revolution and of the cameras involved.
And he created something new by combining features of several miniature cameras. the latest being the VP Kodak of 1912.

When you summarize this account with:

"It was stated that Barnack copied the VPK. I was only responding to that by saying that the two cameras were quite different."
"Stated by Roland. No need to be puzzled."
 

then you simply misrepresent my analysis/ working hypothesis.
That is painful for me as it does no justice to the added value of my research.

Roland

 

  

 

 

[willeica]

On 7/26/2023 at 6:56 PM, Roland Zwiers said:

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.

I have been asking you for some time whether you have used both a production Leica I Model A and a VPK. I had assumed that you knew why I was asking you this. Apart from the tubular shape of the body the cameras have little in common. The originality of Barnack's design stands for all to see. To imply that he was just a 'combiner' does his work a great disservice. Of course, he used features which were pre-existing as has every other camera designer that ever lived - we can give the original Daguerreotype camera a pass, but no others. 

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been asking you for some time whether you have used both a production Leica I Model A and a VPK.

William,

This question was not relevant for my story line.
In my story line I ask what was the inspiration for Oskar Barnack to begin with his liliput project in 1912.

 
And I conclude that in 1912 Oskar Barnack made use of the features of several Liliput cameras 
 

Then you change the perspective by changing the comparison from 1914 (Ur-Leica) to 1925 (Leica I).
The development from the Ur-Leica of 1914 to the Leica I of 1925 is another development, that I have dealt with in another chapter of my manuscript.

Why put words in my mouth that I didn't use?
Why misrepresent my storyline (com
 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

I have been asking you for some time whether you have used both a production Leica I Model A and a VPK.

William,

This question was not relevant for my story line.
In my story line I ask the question: what was the inspiration for Oskar Barnack to begin with his Liliput project in 1912? 
And I conclude that in 1912 Oskar Barnack made use of the features of several Liliput cameras.
The Ur-Leica was not created in a vacuum. 

Then you change the perspective by changing the comparison from 1914 (Ur-Leica) to 1925 (Leica I).
The development from the Ur-Leica of 1914 to the Leica I of 1925 is another development, that I have dealt with in another chapter of my manuscript.
 

 

• Why put words in my mouth that I didn't use?
• Why misrepresent my storyline, that deals with comparisons in 1912-1914, so that it looks like a comparison between the 1914 VP Kodak and the 1925 Leica I? 

Look at the steps in which the misrepresentations builds up:

What I said:
"as the M875 exposure tester and the Ur-Leica have features that derive from the 1912 Vestpocket Kodak.

• Note that the perspective is 1912-1914, not 1914-1925
• Note that I mention Ur-Leica, not the Leica I.
• Note that I mention: 'derive features from', not 'copy', or 'derive all the features from". 

How can you then arrive at:

"It was stated that Barnack copied the VPK. I was only responding to that by saying that the two cameras were quite different."
"Stated by Roland. No need to be puzzled."

I am still at a loss.

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matlock]

5 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I have been asking you for some time whether you have used both a production Leica I Model A and a VPK.

William,

This question was not relevant for my story line.
In my story line I ask the question: what was the inspiration for Oskar Barnack to begin with his Liliput project in 1912? 
And I conclude that in 1912 Oskar Barnack made use of the features of several Liliput cameras.
The Ur-Leica was not created in a vacuum. 

Then you change the perspective by changing the comparison from 1914 (Ur-Leica) to 1925 (Leica I).
The development from the Ur-Leica of 1914 to the Leica I of 1925 is another development, that I have dealt with in another chapter of my manuscript.
 

 

• Why put words in my mouth that I didn't use?
• Why misrepresent my storyline, that deals with comparisons in 1912-1914, so that it looks like a comparison between the 1914 VP Kodak and the 1925 Leica I? 

Look at the steps in which the misrepresentations builds up:

What I said:
"as the M875 exposure tester and the Ur-Leica have features that derive from the 1912 Vestpocket Kodak.

• Note that the perspective is 1912-1914, not 1914-1925
• Note that I mention Ur-Leica, not the Leica I.
• Note that I mention: 'derive features from', not 'copy', or 'derive all the features from". 

How can you then arrive at:

"It was stated that Barnack copied the VPK. I was only responding to that by saying that the two cameras were quite different."
"Stated by Roland. No need to be puzzled."

I am still at a loss.

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you and William could take your constant squabbling away from this forum and continue it in private. What started as an excellent discussion has degenerated to a rather childish spat.

[Edward Schwartzreich]

From what Dr. Wolff had to say about Barnack, in  Dr. Leitz's 70th birthday book if not elsewhere at around the same time (1941), Barnack was forever tinkering, and Wolff wondered whether he would ever finish or come up with something useful.   Perhaps some of us have known someone like that.  

So, regarding M875.  For me it makes little difference whether Barnack tried first a gravity shutter, but then also a computer-like shutter as well.  Not a big deal.  He clearly had an idea and tried out various solutions.

Likewise I would have been greatly surprised if Barnack was unaware of just about everything in commercially-produced cameras circa 1912.  Bending metal around a form to create something like the Ur-Leica's shape, even if not from an appreciation, conscious or not, of what Kodak had done, seems to me like an obvious way of making a handy  (also like in "handheld") prototype.  Barnack CLEARLY appreciated the esthetics of his design. and would have appreciated those of others that tickled his fancy.     I recall a quote from him about placing the RF on the original Leica that went something like this: "most often when one adds some additional structure to their house it spoils the overall design, but here we added a rangefinder and don't you agree that it look even better?"    

So IMO Barnack was an omnivore when it came to design and function.  To argue that the Ur-Leica sprung fully armed from the head of Barnack is silly.  Synthesis was Barnack's greatest gift.  He grasped things right off (recall the story of his dismantling and reassembling one of those planetary motional models as an apprentice while the boss was out to lunch).  He perfected other peoples ideas (like the mechanical pencil).  

I  think the fact that Barnack was a genius throws us off what sorts of thinking processes he actually used.   That he had an idée fixe about his small camera, and could convince the Leitz's, father and son, of his vision, does not man that he might not scrap various notions that did not work out.  For example, I have always failed to see how the 2nd prototype, the one with the dial on its front, ended up as the Null Serie camera.  The innards were probably similar, but the camera looked different.  That "look" was discarded in the development process.

As I said previously here, Barnack's camera was not a new paradigm.  What was a new paradigm, as someone else here pointed out, came about because of a combination of Barnack's camera, precision manufacturing from Leitz, Berek's lenses, and improvements in emulsions and photochemistry.  That new paradigm took more than a generation to take hold (it did not occur in the U.S. in my own experience until SLRs, notable the Nikon F, emerged).   This all was an evolutionary process, and Barnack was one of the engines that drove it.

Ed

[Roland Zwiers]

2 hours ago, Matlock said:

Perhaps you and William could take your constant squabbling away from this forum and continue it in private. What started as an excellent discussion has degenerated to a rather childish spat.

Matlock,

First I apologize for my part in this spat.
But how would you feel if the outcome of a few years of painstaking research is obviously mis-represented by an influential Leica researcher? 
You must give me some space to defend the validity of my research.

Yes, I hope to continue with related subjects about the technological bottlenecks for Leica photography in the period 1910-1927.

Roland

[Matlock]

13 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Matlock,

First I apologize for my part in this spat.
But how would you feel if the outcome of a few years of painstaking research is obviously mis-represented by an influential Leica researcher? 
You must give me some space to defend the validity of my research.

Yes, I hope to continue with related subjects about the technological bottlenecks for Leica photography in the period 1910-1927.

Roland

Roland,

Please don't give up whatever you do but differences between you and William are best dealt with away from this forum.

Keep up the good work.

Peter

[Roland Zwiers]

Peter,

Thank you so much for your understanding.
The funny thing is: William and me are great friends!
So you can understand my dilemmas 🙂

I will continue with my research into the technological bottlenecks for early Leica photography.
I will continue to share my analysis in the form of working hypotheses with this Forum.
And I look forward to visit the Leitz archive in October with William and others so as to see what additional pieces of the puzzle we may find.

Roland

 

[willeica]

17 hours ago, Matlock said:

Perhaps you and William could take your constant squabbling away from this forum and continue it in private. What started as an excellent discussion has degenerated to a rather childish spat.

Not childish for my part, I'm just quoting Roland above. He is a person that I know well. I do a lot of pro bono work to help other photographers and researchers in the various roles which I occupy, VP of Leica Society International and Chairperson of Photo Museum Ireland and a few others. I have arranged a visit by Roland and other experts to the Leica Archive in October where we will be accompanied by people such as Jim Lager. I received a very nice email last night from Jim Lager thanking me for organising this. I get a lot of requests for help which I always try to fulfill. I will be doing a 300km round journey on Tuesday to speak about a 135 year old darkroom and I will be doing this for no recompense, not even any expenses.

All that being said, I do think that the 'intensity' level should be taken down here and even more so on the visit to the Archive where we need to treat the one person there, who has obliged us, with total respect. I would also remind everybody here that this is just a hobby and that we should not be so serious when sharing our opinions about Leicas and other old cameras and the history of photography generally. I used the 'football fan' analogy some time back, which confused Paul Ashley. I'm repeating it again here. We need to have our discussions here at a much less intense level. 

Roland and I will be on a PCCGB Zoom about this topic on 27th August, where we should have further discussions in a friendly manner, hopefully without any intensity whatsoever. Just a friendly chat about Leicas etc.

William 

[Pyrogallol]

“Just a hobby” !!

angels and pinheads comes to mind.

[beoon]

Roland,

On page 12 of the Leica Handbuch (March 1941 edition) there is a picture by author Fritz Vith dated 1925. It would be interesting to know when he received his camera. Perhaps the delivery books in the archive can help track this.

Regards

Alan

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 August 14, 2023 by beoon

[Roland Zwiers]

Alan,

This is very interesting information!

We know from Curt Emmermann that he received a test Leica in Early February 1925.
This may very well have been one of the cameras of Auftragsnummer 416 (19 January 1925) in the delivery book ‘Kamera’.
These cameras are matched to ‘Leitz Berlin’. 
So Ernst Leitz may have asked Bergmann, his agent in Berlin, to forward one of these cameras to Curt Emmermann.

Now Dr Paul Wolff also indicates that he obtained (instead of borrowed) one on the first Leicas in 1925.
He has several quotes that point in this direction.
So Dr Paul Wolff may have received a Leica from Ernst Leitz in a similar way as Curt Emmermann.
[In addition he also created the legend that he won his first Leica in 1926.
I have discussed that legend already.]

When Fritz Vith took Leica picturers in 1925 already,
[so far the earliest Fritz Vith picture that I knew of was from early 1927] 
then he must have been a Leica user in 1925 as well.

Then there are two possibilities:

• either we find his name in the 1925 delivery book 'Kamera',
• or he also received his Leica via Ernst Leitz in the same way as Curt Emmermann

If we do not find his name, then the second alternative becomes very plausible!

Roland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nitroplait]

15 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:When Fritz Vith took Leica picturers in 1925 already,

[so far the earliest Fritz Vith picture that I knew of was from early 1927] 
then he must have been a Leica user in 1925 as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or it is something as simple as a misprint in the 1941 handbook or someone misremembering 15 years later. 
Not unlikely- especially if other things don’t add up.

[Roland Zwiers]

Nitroplait,

It seems too early to say that other things don't add up.
It partly depends on the 1925 delivery book 'Kamera'.
If in 1925 Fritz Vith is mentioned, then it obviously adds up.
I hope to find out during our visit to the Leitz archive in Wetzlar.

But for me it would be even more exciting if he is not mentioned in 1925.
That would suggest that Ernst Leitz II must have had a very lucky hand in presenting four very late test cameras to the following four photographers:

• Dr Paul Wolff (early in 1925)
• Curt Emmermann (early February 1925)
• Fritz Vith (date ?)
• Willy Frerk (4 March 1925, leading to possibly the first Leica review of 31 March 1925)

The publicity generated by these fabulous four would play a crucial role for the success of Leica photography! 

Roland 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[beoon]

Roland,

Fritz Vith was a Wetzlar resident and he mentions this in the Leica Handbook, English edition of summer 1933. He possibly could have been given a test camera to use by either Barnack or Ernst Leitz in 1925. His first edition Handbuch of 1930 features photos by Barnack, Baumann etc, so he obviously was well connected with the factory.

Alan

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 August 15, 2023 by beoon