100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Roland Zwiers]

Equipment for a 6,5x9 cm plate camera?

In 1914 6,5x9cm was a regular format in Germany.
During his work for Zeiss Palmos, Oskar Barnack even produced an advanced Minimum Palmos plate camera for this format.
Would this format have been suitable for copying and/or enlarging Ur-Leica negatives?

In the image in the next slide, I have put two Leica IIIf filmstrips on a 6,5x9cm frame.
One can see that in principle the frame is big enough for the four negatives, but then there is insufficient space for the perforations.
So, would Oskar Barnack have experimented in this direction?

[Roland Zwiers]

Four Leica IIIf negatives on a 6,5x9cm frame
Note that part of the perforations fall outside the frame.

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]

So far, here is not much evidence that points in this direction.
In the Leitz Archive I found two examples where the filmstrips have been cut, but not by enough so as to fit in a 6,5x9cm frame.
Moreover, one of the filmstrips has three negatives instead of two.
On the other hand, additional space could have been saved by overlapping the perforations.

One may feel that this was not a good solution.
On the other hand, if such experimental routes were not followed, how to explain the cuts through the perforation area?

This 2x2-negative solution would have been more promising with the quarter plate format of 8,2x10,8cm.
But this format was not current in Germany.

 

[Roland Zwiers]

At [A] one can see that part of the perforation areas has been cut away.
At [B] one can see additional V-shaped cut-outs that I have discussed before.
Were these cut-outs necessary for keeping the negatives in place?
At [C] we have the cut-away corners that are a regular feature of Oskar Barnack’s negatives.
Was this helpful for putting the negatives in a frame?

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]

9x12cm?

The next step would be copying and/or enlarging equipment for the regular 9x12 cameras.
As discussed before, a 9x12cm frame would have been helpful for the panorama camera with negatives of 22 perforations.
But would it also have been helpful for the Ur-Leica?

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!

In a 9x12cm frame Oskar Barnack could even have placed three (Ur)Leica negatives in line.
The example pictures have been made with a Leica IIIf in combination with a dark red filter.
Six negatives in one 9x12 frame seems efficient, but with a regular enlarger lens for a 9x12cm negative the magnification of an individual Leica negative must have been inadequate.
A good way out would have been to place a Leica negative in the centre of the 9x12 frame and to use an enlarger lens with a much shorter focal length.
This may have been possible with a filmstrip of three negatives as well.

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 5,5x8 cm format of the 1912 Ensignette II?

Two Leica negatives fit nicely within the 5,5x8cm frame of the British Ensignette II camera of 1912.
In this way Oskar Barnack could have made use of the corresponding enlarger with minor adaptions.
The disadvantage of this route was that he would obtain 6x9cm enlargements instead of the postcard-size for which the enlarger had been designed.

The negatives on the next slide are made with a Leica IIIf in combination with the Nooky close-up accessory.

[Roland Zwiers]

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]

Later equipment designed by Oskar Barnack

Page 115 of the Werkstattbuch mentions an order of 25 enlargement lenses.
This is the same page that famously specifies several 1923 recipients of a Null-Serie Leica!
This has been discussed earlier in this thread.

In the upper part of page 115 one can read:

25 Vergrössrungsobjektive bestellt b. Zack 1:7 64mm 6/1 22 =>
25 enlargement lenses ordered via Zack, specifications 1:7,7 f=64mm.

The date seems to be 6 January 1922.

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 assume that these lenses were used for a similar postcard sized enlarger as the one that was made for the Leica I in March 1925.
The text on the next slide is from a contemporary Leica review.

[Roland Zwiers]

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]

Ulf Richter (2009) shows a design drawing from 3 November 1927 for a similar enlarger (“Vergrösserungs-Kasten” for the 6x9cm format.
The enlarger features an f=64mm lens.

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]

Now there is every reason to believe that many negatives from the period 1914-1922 were copied in a later year using numbered safety film and post-1922 equipment.
This is a major complication for analysing early Oskar Barnack negatives. 
It also explains why this contribution is only a first step in a new research area.
There are simply too many unknowns for formulating a plausible working hypothesis.

One missing link is the prints made by Oskar Barnack in the period 1914-1922.
Size matters!
Were his negatives printed to 6x9cm, to 9x12cm, to some in between size?
This could tell us a lot about the enlarger in use.  

Additional insights and observations are more than welcome!

To be continued.

Roland

[willeica]

That is a lot to process, Roland. The cuts in the edges of some of the rolls are probably for alignment purposes.

As regards enlargement that is 'a large topic' if you can pardon the pun. With contact printing there was no enlargement but as far back as the 1860s von Monckhoven and others showed projection methods to gain enlargement using nature light. Then there were bellows like devices which were usually horizontal, followed by tower type enlargers. With the advent of electric light the vertical types with which we are familiar today started to appear. As 'small negative-big picture' was an objective, Leitz began to turn its attention to enlargers. I enclose a quick snap of some of the initial pages about enlargement in Laney's large guide. 

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!

Just a word of warning, you are heading down a serious 'rabbit hole', but you have been here before.

Good luck.

William 

Edited July 13 by willeica

[Roland Zwiers]

"Just a word of warning, you are heading down a serious 'rabbit hole', but you have been here before."

William,

Thank you so much.

I must admit that I don't know this expression.
Does it relate to 'eat more than one can chew'? 

Indeed I hoped that the hole would not be that deep.
I did not even succeed in formulating a plausible working hypothesis!
 

• But it is still possible to make progress if we can find original prints by Oskar Barnack from the period 1914-1920 or so.
  If the size is smaller than 9x12cm, that would be important information! 
• Another route is finding out about the equipment for his 35mm panorama camera of 1912.
  In his worknotes he describes various copying and enlargement devices that he created in 1912-1914.
  Have all gone lost?

New information for me was that after starting employment at Leitz, Oskar Barnack first aimed at creating a 35mm panorama camera.
And when this camera was finished, he continued with the complementary equipment for the panorama camera.
The Liliput project had to wait for about two years.

In Leica literature I have found no explanation for this.
A photographer would normally begin with the general purpose camera.
And when this camera is performing well, one would consider a more specialised follow-up model.

Roland

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Carlos cruz]

I didn’t quite understand at the beginning  what was considered kino panorama camera, was it the ur leica, panorama meaning two cinema frames or it describes negatives (as in post 796).Those look as if they could have been early tests of ?transport mechanism. Probably a 35 mm cassette used on larger format camera. Apart from their different sizes, the negatives seem to be recopied at later date- look at  last negative with Agfa markings along perforations, the other thing is shape of perforations the longest strip seems to have BH perforations the lower ones have more rectangular sprocket holes (?Kodak standard) probably negative strips’ corners were cut to make archivists’ work easier or to facilitate loading of adapted plate cassettes.

Have you seen any panoramic strips with more than one photo on it? Or at least well defined borders of the frame? That could help us understand if this panoramic cassette had mechanism to advance frames or was it crudely adapted plate cassette holding single strip that had to be reloaded in the darkroom.  Whatever the truth the cassette probably used sort of frame or rail to cover perforations and help film strip stay flat. Could be that cassettes would hold ?three strips with individual dark slides? 
If he had studied history of art he’ll probably never start with 1:5 format to begin with. The formats with aspect ratio close to or over 1:3 only started to show mid 19th century and were quite popular especially in Germany for religious paintings that could satisfy bourgeoisie’s horror vacui and fill up empty walls over sofa or over the doors. The ultra panoramic format probably proved impractical for most motifs and didn’t make it into future research. It lacked the miniature camera (you still had to use regular plate camera, and enlargements asked for non standard paper sizes)but it proved that you could get a goof quality image on 35mm film.  I am just curious if he already had transport mechanism in the works or these were just first tests using cinema film in photography. 

With his new “substandard” 35mm  format enlarger was an important piece of whole project I’d risk saying that as important as camera itself. Back then people would use contact printing for 1:1 scale copies from bigger negs. Only making enlargements for special occasions. Nobody would want a camera that offered prints size of postage stamp. Probably professional photographers had enlargers or had a way to convert camera into enlarger.(most early film movie cameras were built as camera and projector)  enlarging his tiny negs was crucial to whole project. I don’t believe that printing multiple 35 mm negs onto one sheet of paper was actually a thing, you pointed out interfering perforations, but bigger problem was image quality, you have to treat each frame according to the density of the negative (and these are times when you didn’t have any sensible light meters available) so if you had image quality in mind it’s better to print individually. 

 If I were to use 9x12 enlarger to copy 35 mm I’d make a  sandwich with two pieces of anti-newton glass and negative in the middle, put black paper around picture area and ready to print, with long lenses used on bigger cameras/enlargers the exposure time and print sizes were probably unsatisfactory. That’s why he needed shorter lens to keep enlarger compact and process quick. The sketch of enlarger seem to have a note “vergrossung kaste” ?ohne grieff- no column?  It kept whole contraption in line with main Leica idea- minimalisation.  The fixed distances and electrical bulb was to keep whole printing process simple enough for amateurs, and meant that only one enlargement size was possible. 
 

As always sorry for my chaotic ramblings, hope that some observations will be useful, all incorrect ignored.  

 

Edited July 15 by Carlos cruz

[Roland Zwiers]

Carlos,

Thank you for your reply!
There are no wrong questions, only wrong answers.
So I need some time to give you a good and interesting reply.

I can already say that I have not studied the 35mm panorama camera myself.
It must still be in the Leitz Museum.
Ulf Richter (2009) has two pictures of the panorama camera.
One can see that the camera used roll film, but it is not clear whether or not cassettes were employed.
A simpler system would have been spool-to-spool transport, like one of the options for the Contax I of 1932.
[Very likely, the Ur-Leica also used spool-to-spool transport.]

In the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar I found only three individual panorama negatives.
No 35mm panorama film roll with several negatives in line.
So I infer that the individual negatives have been cut from a longer film length.

In the 1890s, 1900s, 1910s there was an increasing number of "Liliput" cameras on the market with small negatives. 
The producers of these cameras provided dedicated enlargers so as to print to postcard size.
In my more elaborate reply I will show you examples from contemporary literature.

To be continued.

Roland

 

[Roland Zwiers]

 

Carlos,

Pictures of Oskar Barnack’s panorama camera are included in Ulf Richter (2009), see the next slide.
This is a fascinating source on the development of the Ur-Leica, the Null-Serie and the Leica I.
I have not been able to study this panorama camera myself.
So, I have to assume that the three negatives that I presented before have been made with this camera.
And I assume as well that the camera is taking negatives with a length of 22 perforations.
This obviously requires further empirical research.

 

[Roland Zwiers]

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

The quality of films around 1914

In another thread I made a clarification on the quality of dry plates and films in the 1910s.
This overlaps with some of your questions as well.
It is a subject that is relevant for the development of the Ur-Leica in 1914 and the Null-Serie of 1923.
And so, it is appropriate to include this material in 100 years Null-Serie.
This gives me an opportunity to add even more illustrations and background material.

[Roland Zwiers]

The first miniature revolution and colour-blind films

For this subject one has to start at higher level of abstraction.
One can see a first miniature revolution in the 1880s and 1890s.
This revolution is based on the new gelatine emulsion that allowed for pre-packed dry plates and films.
The photographer did not have to prepare wet plates on location anymore!
The new gelatine emulsion had a much higher speed and because of this it became possible to work with hand held cameras with build-in shutters.
The use of hand cameras subsequently led to a demand for ever smaller cameras.
So, in the 1880s and 1890s one can see ever smaller handheld cameras based on plates (like the French Jumelle) and roll film (Kodak).
In the same period, we see the beginning of cinematography based on 35mm film with a nitro-cellulose (celluloid) film base.
The ordinary emulsions for these cameras were still colour-blind.

Now by 1910 Oskar Barnack was well aware of the ongoing miniature revolution.
Since 1902 he had been working for Zeiss Palmos, a producer of high-quality handheld cameras.
Likewise, Ernst Leitz was well aware of the challenges of how to obtain colour-correct results with black-and-white plates and films.
This subject is covered in my article ‘The colour of black-and-white’, which is situated in 1914.

Unfortunately, post-war Leica literature does not pay much attention to this subject.
And so there are many misunderstandings.
This gives me an opportunity to clarify matters while making good use of pre-1918 Leitz literature.