100 years Null-Serie

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, sandro said:

That thread is still there, William: 

Lex

Thanks, Lex. I was thinking of you last week as I was staying in the same hotel as you were in for our 2018 visit to Wetzlar. I see that the registry entry which I found in 2022 is also in that thread. 

There are many unresolved mysteries surrounding the cassettes and spools used in very early 35mm Leitz prototypes. I suspect that the Ur-Leica was spool to spool which means it had to loaded and unloaded in the dark. One person I know has told me the 0 Series was spool to spool , but Ottmar Michaely ( who has worked on almost all known 0 Series cameras and to whom I spoke several times last week) has told me that there was a cassette for the 0 Series which eventually became scarce and some cameras such as No 105 had to be altered to allow the use of the FILCA. Maybe there was some confusion between us as regards the terms 'cassette' and 'spool'. Any research that is done on items in the Leica Archive should include fact checking with Ottmar who has worked on most of the significant early Leitz 35mm prototypes. I also believe that when he retires within the next few years that Peter Karbe may work in the archive. I was told some years ago that some of the optical archives were, for historical reasons, kept in Peter's Department. Some of the items which we were shown on Friday had been previously part of an earlier Ernst Leitz Museum, such as below.

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 have no idea if there are linking catalogues, but I suspect that if they do exist a lot of work would be required to make any conclusions.

 

As regards the film types used, the first task is to identify which negatives are original and which are copies made later. Identifying unmarked film strips from over 100 years ago will not be an easy task. there are a lot of issues to be examined including the shapes of sprocket holes etc. There are downsides, upsides, risks and costs associated with anything like this. And, of course, the items are the property of Leica AG or a subsidiary and nothing can be done without the agreement of the current owners. This may be frustrating for researchers but it represents the 'real politik' of the situation and we have to work within those parameters. I believe that the people in Wetzlar know that a lot of expertise exists outside the company, but I have come across similar situations with institutions before and often slow progress can speed up as knowledge and trust build up. 

I have to give some thought to what might be the most fruitful way of pushing forward the research that is needed and this will involve getting a number of people in Wetzlar on board and, most of all, not interfering with the massive amount of work which they have to do and which is often interrupted by general non research visits to the archive. 

One good thing about the past week is that the humble FILCA (spelt 'Filca' here) has made it into the Leica 100 Year book which was published in Wetzlar last Thursday.

William 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Roland Zwiers]

On 6/29/2025 at 2:25 PM, BernardC said:

Your source is probably referring to "short ends," which are unexposed leftover negative stock from motion picture production. This happens when there isn't enough film in the camera for the next shot; the exposed roll is sent to the lab for processing, and the unexposed "short end" is saved. These short ends can be used for shots that require less footage (cut to a clock ticking...), and anything left after production is sold. The amount of film stock needed for a Leica corresponds to 3 or 4 seconds of motion picture run time (assuming 18 or 24 fps in the silent era), so these short rolls would have been readily available at the time.

What's interesting to me is that the rolls were colour-sensitized. Motion picture stock from that era would have been blue-sensitive (orthochromatic), which required heavy makeup and other tricks in order to look right in the finished motion pictures. I've read about "hyper-sensitization" for astro photography, which had to be exposed and processed quickly, so I assume that the colour-sensitization process was similarly unstable and had to be shot and exposed within a few days.

BernardC,

Thank you for your reply.

Blue-sensitive film would be called ordinary film, which was only sensitive to ultra-violet, violet and blue.
Nowadays we would call this type of film colour-blind.

The next step was to make this film sensitive to the colours yellow and green.
This generation of film was called either iso-chromatic (aiming at equal sensitivities to blue, yellow and green),
or orthochromatic.

Orthochromatic plates and films still were far to sensitive to violet and blue than to yellow and green.
And so a yellow filter was required to improve the colour balance.
The Lifa filter factory in Augsburd designed yellow filters for each orthochromatic film/ plate on the marek so as to arrive at colour-correct results.
[In German: tonrichtig]
[All this is covered in my article: The colour of black-and-white, which is situated in 1914]

Self-sensitizing black-and-white film was possible in an eosin-solution.
The same applied to self-hypersensitizing.
In both cases the improvement would only last a few days.

In the next slide I will reply to unexposed short-ends of 35mm film.

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

The price of unexposed short-ends of 355mm film

I owe this primary source to Manfred Gill of the Agfa Museum in Wolfen.
The footnote 26 refers to an internal Agfa conference from 17 to 20 January 1922.
That is very near our beloved Null-Serie!

The text can be translated as follows:

The material was sold by type. Up to six categories were intended for sale as perforated or unperforated goods.

[table]

The short pieces that were spliced together in the copy shop became difficult to sell over time.

 

In the table you encounter the noun Klebestelle/ Klebestellen
This refers to the number of splices.
the more splices, the lower the value of the film per meter.

 

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!

[Roland Zwiers]

On 6/29/2025 at 2:49 PM, Carlos cruz said:

I am afraid that again I will only muddle the general picture and give us more questions and doubts than straight answers.

 Film is usually produced in wide rolls, usually at least  305 m long, that’s where you have to cover base with emulsion in single or multiple layers in total darkness, and cut it to demanded widths 5x4, 9x12, 120, 35, 16 adding perforation, paper backing, spools etc. By 1914 I believe that most European countries were self sufficient re manufacturing film base, emulsion and already have adopted 35mm BH standard (just few hours train ride from Wetzlar on türkenstrasse in Munich first German camera following BH standard was developed in 1917) I don’t think that there was place for more than one manufacturer who provided the whole service. Usually you had one big producer who supplied manufacturing and some smaller enterprises that would buy from them cut, packed and market it at slightly inflated prices. The emulsion recipes and developing techniques probably varied across the major players. According to legends the film coming from the middle of the huge roll is usually the best with most uniform emulsion layer. There was not one film speed scale that everyone agreed on.   (I remember a nice advice for 1920’s  cine amateurs how to develop night/interior scenes- put a drop of mercury and in developing tank with film and let evaporate in warm place) Probably major buyer of photographic stock was cinema, so raw stock was perforated and depending on use of material was cut and packed in 305 m cans for cinema copies, 122 or 60 m for shooting in cameras.  I think that Leica had to buy multiple rolls of at least 60m for testing. 
Don’t know enough about history of Leica but I vaguely remember that film cartridge as we know today (ixmoo etc) wasn’t there at the beginning, it probably started with simple spools, something similar to so called day load spools used in motion pictures. Reading through this thread it occurred to me that actually film cartridges were very important discovery that facilitated advent of 35mm photography. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the notes concerning negatives didn’t concern camera/lens but rather observations on film types and developing techniques. Once you had a lightproof box that could transport film by repeating increments and expose it through timed slit  to light coming from the best lens you could afford to make (whole 5/4 lens element dilemma) more important was to make sure that general public was ready to accept whole idea of microphotography, back then it was a risky novelty, and depended heavily on quality of film and optimal development. I can’t imagine that whole enterprise dangled on short ends donated or bought for a song. If you were to introduce revolutionary idea you had to base it on best possible stock, with reliable, repeatable effects, small grain film with adequate speed, (DIN didn’t consider classifying film speeds until 1934, so it was probably Scheier scale or some other long forgotten exotic one) fliegerfilm name ticked  alll the boxes, it made promise of being something ultra modern, advanced and reliable. Something that Leica desperately needed - a fast stock with small grain that would allow to make pictures in totally new way, with small pocket camera, without tripod with imposing number of pictures per load. Enlargers were the other important support for this revolution.
 

The price of ”arms length” of film giving you 30/40 pictures probably was much cheaper per picture than any single plate cameras could offer.  Motion picture material since bought in bulk and not needing individual package had best price per meter ratio,  economically  you couldn’t make better decision.  Just repack big rolls into smaller cartridges et voilà. 

Couldn’t find much information on toxo or Agfa flieger film, I suspect that majority of aerial reconnaissance was rather made with bigger formats, and whole fliegerfilm thing could be a just a short lived  army experiment or even marketing stunt. On the other hand If one looks at French army project to use flocks of pigeons equipped with cameras for aerial reconnaissance I can believe anything. 
 

 

Carlos,

Thank you for your reply.
I cannot possible answer all your questions.

In Germany before the conversion to DIN-speeds, Scheiner-grades were used.
The measurement of scheiner speeds contained a subjective element.
In this way film producers could advertise very high film speeds, speeds that were completely unrealistic for regular use.
This was called the period of Scheiner-inflation.

In early leica literature Curt Emmermann gives his Scheiner speeds after emperical testing.
this results in much lower speeds than advertised.
After the DIN-conversion Emmermann observes as a rule of thumb that DIN-values correspond to the old Scheiner-values minus 8.
So a film of 12/10 DIN would have been correctly measured as 20 Scheiner.

For a very long time (up to 1920-1922 or so) 20 Scheiner was the maximum film speed that was possible with the traditional emulsion techniques.
The Scheiner measurement equipment designed by Prof Eder even did not allow for a higher value than 20 Scheiner!
This brought Prof Neugebauer in conflict with Prof Eder once Neugebaurer measured film speeds highter than 20 Scheiner.
Prof eder disputed these higher film speeds on the ground that higher values than 20 Scheiner were theoretically impossible!

There is a big library on aerial reconnaissance photography in the period 1910-1924.
not only in German, but also in english and French.
From the French literature one can find admiration for the Fliegercamera designed by Oskar Messter.

Such an innovative camera hadnot been avaiable for the allied airforces.
British and American literature gives indirect praise., especially as far as the Tessar lens is concerned.
Because of the high 1;4,5 aperture of the Tessar lens that still covered a sharp image of 55 degrees, Germany had a crucial advantage for aerial reconnaissance photography.
This must have helped Germany to prolong a strategically hopeless war on two fronts.
{this is a big subject and work in progress.]

Roland

 

 

 
 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

19 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

One of the most interesting in the forum!@Roland Zwiers’s academic rigour in considering the broader history and business economy of the time is rare and his conclusions are thought provoking. I’m grateful he’s sharing it here. 

Paul,

Thank you for your kind words.

I hope that I can continue sharing my research findings on this Forum.

I hope that I can continue my independent research on Leica photography. 
That is to say: without having to acquire prior permission from the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.

I hope that the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar is prepared to facilitate my independent research by giving me access to sources like:
the Oskar Barnack Werkstattbuch, the delivery book 'Kamera",  the negatives and prints by Ernst Leitz II and Oskar Barnack.
Without these primary sources it is difficult to make meaningful progress.

I hope that LSI will facilitate independent research and help me to have good relations with the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar. 

It is also in order to make a confession 🙂
For me the Leica is one of several milestones in the development of the miniature camera.
So for me the Leica is not the beginning and the end.

Milestones from the 1890s are:

• the Goerz Anschütz camera
• the French 4x4cm stereo cameras
• the Kodak roll film cameras  

In the 1910s we have milestones like:

• the 6x9 Film Palmos for rollfilm, which was produced by Oskar Barnack in his years at Zeiss Palmos.
• a French stereo camera for 35mm film, featuring a scaled-down 1:4,5 Tessar lens
• the Oskar Messter Fliegercamera of 1915-1918 (requiring 35mm Fliegerfilm!)
• the 35mm Minnigraph of 1915 (in 1906-1907 Oskar Barnack admired an earlier prototype)

In my opinion, one cannot understand the development of the (Ur-)Leica if one does not study the wider context.
Moreover, after 1925 we have additional milestones like the Rolleiflex and the Kine Exakta.
in this way my research is focussed on the develoipment of the miniature camera, not on Leica or Oskar Barnack as such. 

Roland
 

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I hope that I can continue my independent research on Leica photography. 
That is to say: without having to acquire prior permission from the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.

I hope that the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar is prepared to facilitate my independent research by giving me access to sources like:
the Oskar Barnack Werkstattbuch, the delivery book 'Kamera",  the negatives and prints by Ernst Leitz II and Oskar Barnack.
Without these primary sources it is difficult to make meaningful progress.

Getting access to primary source archives is difficult for an independent researcher without accreditation. Are you connected to a university or institute that might provide reassurance to the Leica archive that you have genuine research credentials?

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Paul,

Thank you for this observation.
I am doing my independent research in my free time.
I tried to connect to a (technical) university in the Netherlands, but photographic history is not a regular subject.
Likewise photography as part of the history of innovation or technological progress does not exist.
Dutch universities regard photography as a hobby, not as a science.

A few years ago William Fagan was so kind as to introduce me to knowledgeble LSI-researchers.
[William knew me from my Leica-related research presentations for the Photographic Collectors Club of Great Britain (PCCGB)]

After several years (early 2023) this project resulted in a manuscript on early Leica photography. 
I shared this manuscript with several international Leica researchers, editors of Leica magazines and the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.
So I feel that the Leitz Archive has no reason to doubt my credentials.

Since June 2023 I have been sharing parts of my manuscipt on this Leica Forum.
We are approaching 40.000 views.
So I feel that this Leica community is taking my research seriously.

Roland 

 

 

 

 

 

[sandro]

Roland, as you know I am always interested in your research and I am following this thread since it started. About thew sources and the Leica Archive. Public archival institutions are obliged to grant researchers permission to use availabe sources, as far as accessability allows. The Leica Archive however is a private organisation, not held to specific public regulations concerning granting people access to material and concerning the way the archival material has to be treated.

That said, I feel Leica has shown their interest in various topics of research, as I recall our fascinating visits to the archive with a selected group in 2023. Perhaps we should write a notice for the people involved about the various kinds of research you and a few others we know are doing and which sources are crucial to be studied. At the moment I am rather busy but when I have time I may try to write such a notice or report.

Lex

[willeica]

14 hours ago, sandro said:

Roland, as you know I am always interested in your research and I am following this thread since it started. About thew sources and the Leica Archive. Public archival institutions are obliged to grant researchers permission to use availabe sources, as far as accessability allows. The Leica Archive however is a private organisation, not held to specific public regulations concerning granting people access to material and concerning the way the archival material has to be treated.

That said, I feel Leica has shown their interest in various topics of research, as I recall our fascinating visits to the archive with a selected group in 2023. Perhaps we should write a notice for the people involved about the various kinds of research you and a few others we know are doing and which sources are crucial to be studied. At the moment I am rather busy but when I have time I may try to write such a notice or report.

Lex

Thanks, Lex

I agree with what you say. Leica's history is important for the company, but it has a lot of competing pressures and it is a commercial entity. Those of us wanting to do research must work around those and other parameters. I believe we have to assist in defining those parameters. I'll just throw down some thoughts here. 

Roland's ability to research is to be admired, but we probably need to define what we want to get from an overburdened and under-resourced archive, which is not an uncommon situation . A lot of the issues being discussed here do not apply to Leitz/Leica alone but were across the board in the early years of film photography. There were many attempts, for example, to create a 35mm stills camera and my estimate is that there were at least 40 in the period from 1905 to 1925, based on this list https://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html  . The unusual thing about the Leica camera is that not only did it succeed, but it has survived right down to our own time. It was not, as is often said, the first 35mm camera, but it was probably the first one to be truly successful and, therefore, it has that association. There were many factors in achieving that success in addition to overcoming the 'failings' of the film stock of the day, which 'failings' would have equally affected other manufacturers. These factors including some simple engineering features which meant that the camera could be repaired and developed eg. wind and cock, repairable canvas multi -speed focal plane shutter, excellent compact optical designs and, eventually, interchangeable lenses as well as built in rangefinders. None of those things were absolutely unique to Leitz/Leica, but the company from Wetzlar organised itself better than many others and it did have the guiding genius of Barnack for the first 10 years of manufacture, something which many companies, which started down the 35mm path before Leitz, lacked.  There were many design features which were developed by other companies not just for 35mm and these included spool to spool film winding, cocking shutters, focal plane shutters, built in rangefinders, helicoid focus, metal construction etc, etc and many of these were around before Barnack commenced his great work. Roland is right to mention Goerz Anschutz, French Jumelles camera manufacturers and Kodak and many others. The influence of those needs research outside of the Leica Archive, of course.

 

As regards film, the same thing applies and Roland is right to focus on the Kodak and Agfa resources. Barnack was initially frustrated with many of his friends who said that they did not know how to get 'good pictures' out of his Kleine Photo Wunder. The yellow filters made their debut (FIUNS, FILBY, FILGE and FILTU per Laney) in 1925 which indicates that the people at Leitz foresaw a need and a demand for these and, in different variations, they remained in Leica catalogues for many years. So there was an issue and Wolff and others would have experimented with different film stocks, preparations and chemistry.

Finally, moving on to the picture archive which is probably the most important aspect of the Leica Archive and should involved both archivists and conservators. Cataloguing is key as early photographs are not just important as regards the techniques and materials used. Equally important are identifying the photographers as well as the dates, places and contents, including people in the photographs. Depending on the size of the archive this can be a massive task which can take many years. My understanding is that not every photo in the archive is catalogued under a common system and in some cases they may not be catalogued at all. 

You will recall that in 2023 they just took out boxes of prints and negatives associated with Barnack and showed them to us. Some had numbers and details e.g. mounted negatives, but many items such as prints were not numbered. My suggestion is that we should start with the Barnack associated images and offer to assist them with categorising and dating them, which may lead us to where we want to go. Any approach about this would need to be done in an orderly and respectful fashion and would have to be fully explained. For example, we would need to explain why we need to identify whether a negative is a copy or an original. 

The other thing would be to talk to them about what they consider to be their priorities and to see if we can reach common ground about a joint project. 

I'll leave it at that for the moment. The important thing is to get traction and not try to do everything all at once.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

In the past three to four weeks, I had not much time to look at this Forum.
At my work I had to finalise an advisory report.
At home I had family coming over from California!

So before replying to recent posts, I would like to build on earlier observations on the negatives of Oskar Barnack.
Originally, I aimed at formulating a plausible working hypothesis, but at this stage the picture is still too unclear.
It is better to formulate three questions for further research:

1.       For his early experiments with copying and enlarging (say 1914-1922), did Oskar Barnack make of use of his own equipment?
What is the overlap between the copying and enlarging equipment for his panorama-camera of 1912 and his prototype Leicas of 1914-1922?

2.       For his early experiments with copying and enlarging, did Oskar Barnack made use of equipment that was already on the market?
E.g. did he cut his filmstrips so as to fit already existing standards like the Block-Note (4,5x6cm), the Ensignette II (5,5x8cm), the Minimum Palmos (6,5x9cm), quarter plate, or 9x12cm?

3.       From 1922 onwards Oskar Barnack was already preparing for the Null-Serie of 1923.
This involved the design of a dedicated enlarger for postcard sized prints and a copying device.
How can we know that negatives from e.g. 1914-1917 were copied with pre-1922 or with post-1922 equipment?

This may well be new research area.
I hope hope that this work-in-progress is of interest for this International Leica Community.  

[Roland Zwiers]

The first step is what we can find out about his own copying/ enlargement devises in this period.
This leads to the various devices for his 35mm panorama camera as mentioned in his work notes (Werkstattbuch) in the period 1912-1914.

The second step is to compare his film strips with standards that were available in the period 1914-1922 (4,5x6cm, 5,5x8cm, 6,5x9cm, quarter plate, 9x12cm).
Is it possible that Oskar Barnack cut his filmstrips so as to fit one or more of these already existing standards?     

[Roland Zwiers]

[One] Equipment designed by Oskar Barnack for his 35mm panorama camera of 1912

In a letter written in 1960 (courtesy Oscar Fricke) Conrad Barnack mentions the versatility of Oskar Barnack’s heavy 13x18 camera.
But he does not mention the panorama function.
Conrad Barnack mentions that his father stopped working with his 13x18 camera around 1912.
It is interesting to observe that 1912 was also the year that Oskar Barnack finalised his 35mm panorama camera.
The Liliput camera (Ur-Leica) had to wait for 1914 and must have had a lower priority!

 

[Roland Zwiers]

The work notes of Oskar Barnack (Werkstattbuch) show that in the period 1911-1912 he was working on his panorama camera:

 16 December 1911: Panorama Kamera weiter gearbeitet => work on panorama camera, continued 

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!

1 April 1912: Panorama Kamera fertig => panorama camera finished

28-31 April 1912: Panorama Kamera in Cöln probiert => try-out of panorama camera in Cologne

 

[Roland Zwiers]

In the period 1912-1914 Oskar Barnack designs complementary equipment for the panorama camera:

28 June 1912: Vorführungsapparat f. Panorama => projector for panorama

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!

October 1913: Copiervergrösserungsapparat für Panoramafilm => copy-enlarger-unit for panorama film

March 1914: Kopierapparat für Vergrösserungen von Kinofilm in Panorama =>
copy-unit for enlargements from cinefilm in panorama

PM

April 1914: 2 Liliput Kameras fertig =>
2 Liliput cameras (= Ur-Leicas) finished

Note that the complementary equipment for the panorama camera was finalised before the second Liliput camera (presumably for Ernst Leitz II) was ready.
Wouldn’t Oskar Barnack have used this home-made panorama equipment for copying and enlarging (Ur)Leica negatives as well?

[Roland Zwiers]

Empirical observations from three panorama negatives

At this stage it is important to make some empirical observations.
When we look at the three panorama negatives that I was able to find, it shows that they have 16, 20 and 22 perforations.
How can we explain the difference?

[Roland Zwiers]

At [A] we see handwritten frame numbers. This suggests that the films are from before 1930 or so.
At [B] ‘Agfa’ is printed on the film. This shows that this negative was copied in a later year than 1914-1922. The margin between the perforations and the image is slightly wider than with the 22-perforations negative. Has the copied negative been reduced in size?
Does this explain the reduced number of perforations (20 instead of 22)?

At [C] We see the cut-off corners that we have seen before.
Were these necessary for keeping the negative in place?

At [D] We see that the negative has been cut at both sides.
This must explain the reduced number of perforations (16 instead of 22).

Was this negative reduced in size so as to fit another copying or enlarging device?

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 Zwiers]

Empirical observations with negatives of similar length

In the image below I have cut similar filmstrips of 22, 20 and 16 perforations.
Now the longest filmstrip of 22 perforations still fits nicely on a 9x12cm frame.
It would even have fitted on a slightly smaller quarter plate frame (8,2 x 10,8cm), but this size was less current in Germany.

 

So why would Oskar Barnack have designed his own copying and enlargement equipment for his panorama camera if he could easily have adapted existing equipment for 9x12cm plates?Likewise, the filmstrip of 16 perforations fits perfectly on the 5,5x8cm frame of the British Ensignette II roll film camera.
Is this the reason that Oskar Barnack reduced the negative to this size?

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 Zwiers]

Did Oskar Barnack make use of his panorama equipment for copying/ enlarging Ur-Leica negatives?

This is a logical question that I cannot answer adequately.
From his work notes (Werkstattbuch) one can infer that home-made panorama equipment must have been available.

 

One can infer that this equipment was designed for negatives of 22 perforations.
How would this be useful for Ur-Leica negatives?
In the image below I compare a filmstrip of 22 perforations with negatives from a Leica IIIg.
One can readily observe that for copying work two negatives would be possible, but not three.
For enlarging a single Ur-Leica negative the panorama equipment would be very inefficient, as only a small part of the image circle would be used.
A solution for this problem may have been to centre the Leica negative in the middle in combination with an enlarger lens of a shorter focal length.
This approach may have required a film strip of two negatives.

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!

Indeed, many filmstrips in the Leitz archive have two negatives.
These could have been copied very well making use of the panorama equipment.
But why would so many of these filmstrips have the V-shaped cut-outs discussed before?
Moreover, many filmstrips still have three negatives in line instead of two.
All in all, I cannot exclude the possibility that the panorama equipment was only of limited use for Ur-Leica negatives.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

Did Oskar Barnack make use of third-party equipment for Ur-Leica negatives?

In a previous slide I already discussed the merits of existing 9x12 equipment for enlarging/ copying panorama negatives.
Would Oskar Barnack have used third-party equipment for Ur-Leica negatives as well?
Again, with current knowledge this question cannot be answered with any certainty.
But it is possible to share empirical observations instead.
For this I will make use of miniature cameras that were on the market in 1914.

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Contemporary miniature standards for Liliput cameras

A first group of contemporary miniature cameras made use of negative sizes of 4x6 to 4,5x6cm.
These include the French Block-Note (4,5x6cm) of 1904, the British Ensignette (4x6cm) of 1909 and the American VP Kodak (4x6,5cm) of 1912.
The producers of these cameras provided dedicated enlargers for postcard-sized prints.
If Oskar Barnack experimented with these enlargers, then he may have been forced to cut his (Ur)Leica film strip into individual negatives.

In the Leitz Archive I only found two single negatives, including one that has obviously been copied in a later period.
Most film strips have two or three negatives.
So, I infer that this was not his main route.
Of course, depending on the enlarger design, he may have used filmstrips of two or three negatives as well.

The image in the next slide shows the 4x6cm negative of the Ensignette would have been relatively efficient for a single 24x36mm negative.
But as far as I can see Oskar Barnack did not cut his negatives in pieces of one.
So, in this category he may very well have chosen the enlarger (Gaumont, Ensign or Kodak) that allowed for the use of two or more negatives.