100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Scenario 4 (continued):

There is no gap between 1912 and 1914. Oskar Barnack did not retire his 13x18 outfit in 1912, but kept using it in 1914.

In this scenario its is very well possible that Oskar Barnack acquired the miniature camera back for 13x18 plates in the course of 1914.
Then he had to make a suitable lens plate for a short focus lens.
This lens plate had to be positioned as close as possible to the focal plane shutter of the 9x18 Stereo Minimum Palmos camera.
Then it was time for experiments.
He could have used a fine grained 13x18 plate, but the slow speed would have forced him to use a tripod.
For use as a hand camera, he would have used a fast, but relatively grainy 13x18 plate.

And so, at the end of the day, he found himself in the worst possible situation.
Simulating a handheld miniature camera with a 13x18 plate must have led to results that were inferior to the cheapest miniature camera on the market.
This disappointment may very well have motivated Oskar Barnack to finally get rid of his beloved 13x18 outfit in the course of 1914.
It would equally have motivated him to take his Liliput-project even more seriously.

[Roland Zwiers]

A working hypothesis on the period 1911-1914 (1)

This contribution started with the observation that at the end of 1911 Oskar Barnack first embarked on a panorama camera for 35mm cine negative film.
Between the end on 1911 and early 1914 he finished this camera, used this panorama camera, and designed complementary accessories.
Only in January 1914 we find the first reference to a Liliput hand camera for cine negative film.
And this camera was only finished in March 1914.

Van Hasbroeck (1987) assumes that the panorama camera was introduced after the Leica I of March 1925.
Although this is a wrong assumption, I still embrace the logic of it.
A keen amateur photographer with growing-up children would normally prefer a general-purpose hand-held camera to very specialized equipment.

Ulf Richter (2009) and Helmut Lagler (2022) refer to the work notes of Oskar Barnack that place the panorama camera in 1911/1912.
But they do not discuss why in 1911 Oskar Barnack would have given priority to the 35mm panorama camera rather than to the Ur-Leica.
In this contribution I have used four scenarios that may serve as building blocks for a working hypothesis.

[Roland Zwiers]

A working hypothesis on the period 1911-1914 (2)

My working hypothesis is that in the period 1911-1914 Oskar Barnack was pursuing three routes simultaneously.
First, he kept using his 13x18 outfit.
Second, he designed and used a panorama camera for 35mm cine negative film.
Third, he was also interested in Liliput alternatives.
Many Liliput alternatives were already on the market, but somehow, he was not yet convinced of their usefulness.

In this context parting with his 13x18 outfit would mean losing the panorama function.
This function could not easily be replaced by affordable equipment on the market.
And so, he first designed a panorama camera for perforated 35mm cine negative film.
In the meantime, he could still work with his 13x18 outfit, using the 9x12 reduction back for general purpose photography.
In the meantime, he could also have made use of a hand camera that was already on the market.
He may even have experimented with 35mm cine negative film in combination with a miniature hand camera.

During 1914, he was still pursuing the three routes.
The panorama camera and its accompanying accessories had been completed and were in use.
The 13x18 outfit got its last chance in combination with a new reduction back for small-sized negatives.
Oskar Barnack (1931) is very explicit that this experiment was not successful.
This must finally have convinced him to retire his beloved 13x18 outfit.
From then on, he could really focus on the further development of the Ur-Leica.   

[Roland Zwiers]

 

Work in progress!

This working hypothesis combines in a plausible way information that has so far been overlooked.
A visit to the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar may yield additional information and this could lead to an alternative working hypothesis.
Crucial information could also be derived from the family albums of Oskar Barnack and the many pictures that Conrad Barnack referred to in his letter of 1960.

Again, this is work in progress.
It is also a preparation for a PCCGB research presentation later this year.
And who knows it is the beginning of a PhD-project if only I could find an interested Professor or University.

To be continued.

Roland

[willeica]

This is said to have been Barnack's Nettel Camera. I presume you have seen these before. It was sold with No 105 seen in the last photo. 

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!

William 

[pedaes]

14 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

PCCGB research presentation later this year.

Off topic, but I enjoyed your article in the latest PCCGB magazine which arrived today. I do not know how you find the time!

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

William,

 ln his Ietter of 1960 Conrad Barnack indeed assumes that his father's 9x18 stereo camera was produced by Nettel.
This is not correct.
Van Hasbroeck (1987), Ulf Richter (2009) and Oscar Fricke (recent correspondence) identify this camera as a Stereo Minimum Palmos.
Early advertisements for a 9x18cm Minimum Palmos camera appear in 1903.
In 1904 the 9x18 camera is called Stereo Minimum Palmos, see next slide.

 

[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]

Note that in that from January 1902 onwards Oskar Barnack was working for Zeiss Palmos, so that he must have had intimate knowledge with the production of this 9x18 stereo camera.
lt also follows that in 1903-1912 (Conrad Barnack’s account) Oskar Barnack was using a new and state-of-the-art camera.

Oskar Barnack must have preferred the Stereo Minimum Palmos to the 6x9 Film Palmos, even though the bigger stereo version (with two lenses) was much heavier and significantly more expensive.
Moreover, in 1905 he had already adapted this camera to suit his own requirements so that he could use it as a 9x18 camera for stereo and panorama work,
as a more or less regular 9x12 camera, and as a 13x18 camera for other experiments.

So, in my working hypothesis, Oskar Barnack was really fond of his 13x18 outfit and only retired it in the course of 1914.
After a famous failed experiment with small negatives on a course-grained 13x18 plate!

To be continued.

Roland

[Roland Zwiers]

Pedaes,
William,

Both of you are members of PCCGB and so have received my article on Johan Steenbergen, shareholder of Ihagee, in the period 1904-1915.
[It is published in Photographica World].

Note that my latest working hypothesis on Oskar Barnack deals with his camera use in 1911-1914.
This is a very similar period!

In fact, for these contributions I had to study the same pre-1918 photo literature!
Looking for subject A led to crucial information on subject B.

You never know what you can find inside a rabbit hole 🙂

Roland

 

 

 

 

[willeica]

4 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

 ln his Ietter of 1960 Conrad Barnack indeed assumes that his father's 9x18 stereo camera was produced by Nettel.
This is not correct.
Van Hasbroeck (1987), Ulf Richter (2009) and Oscar Fricke (recent correspondence) identify this camera as a Stereo Minimum Palmos.
Early advertisements for a 9x18cm Minimum Palmos camera appear in 1903.
In 1904 the 9x18 camera is called Stereo Minimum Palmos, see next slide.

Note I wrote 'said to have been' as I was taking this from an auction listing. Yes this is the Palmos -  see below - this is the best image quality that I have and it may not include all variants. As you can read German this will make more sense to you.

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 your Steenbergen article. Are there some parallels with Barnack that I should look out for? Apologies if you have mentioned these already.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

"I have your Steenbergen article. Are there some parallels with Barnack that I should look out for? Apologies if you have mentioned these already."

William,

The most important parallel is that both Leitz and Ihagee were affected by the Great War of 1914-1918.
This is a long story.
Ihagee even closed down a few weeks before Armistice Day and was resurrected only a few weeks later.
Leitz had to switch to war prodction and many capable employees, including Max Berek, were sent to the front.

In Ur-Leica terms Oskar Barnack had no access to foreign made 35mm cine negative film anymore.
In Germany the Agfa factory in Wolfen obtained a monopoly position for cine film (positive and negative) in general.
Because of the British naval blockade Germany could not import American cotton and other inputs.
And so Agfa Wolfen had to find alternative inputs (in German: Ersatz) that were usually of inferior quality.

This meant that the user of the Ur-Leica was confronted with a deteriorating quality of German-made 35mm film with no posibility to obtain higher quality film from foreign producers.
The same applied to German-based users of the Null-Serie Leica.
Prof. Klute and Dr Paul Wolff did not complain without reason.
This situation would last up to 1926 (!), when foreign-made 35mm film were allowed on the German market again. 
In 1924-1926 German 35mm films, especially Toxo and Perutz, had also increased in quality.

Interestingly, during 1915-1918 Oskar Barnack must have obtained pieces of the Agfa Fliegerfilm that was produced in Wolfen.
These were still high quality, but with a limited shelve life.
Max Berek (1948) refers to this.
Oskar Barnack could obtain this Agfa Fliegerfilm possibly because Leitz was producing parts for the Flieger Kamera (aerial reconnaissance camera) that was designed by Oskar Messter.
Possibly because Leitz produced stereo viewers for analysing Flieger negatives in stereo.
The first model of this Flieger Kamera used unperforated 35mm film.

This shows again the fluctuating quality of 35mm film available in Germany between 1914 and 1926.
So the period of the Ur-Leica, the Null-serie, and the introduction of the Leica I.

In my analysis the deteriorating/ fluctuating quality of 35mm film created problems for the development of the Leica, especially between 1914 and 1924.
These problems were to a high extent Leica-specific problems.
Other miniature cameras would not use 35mm cine negative films (but dry plates, roll film, flat film, filmpack)  and so had other options.

Roland

 

  

 

 

 

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

"I have your Steenbergen article. Are there some parallels with Barnack that I should look out for? Apologies if you have mentioned these already."

William,

The most important parallel is that both Leitz and Ihagee were affected by the Great War of 1914-1918.
This is a long story.
Ihagee even closed down a few weeks before Armistice Day and was resurrected only a few weeks later.
Leitz had to switch to war prodction and many capable employees, including Max Berek, were sent to the front.

In Ur-Leica terms Oskar Barnack had no access to foreign made 35mm cine negative film anymore.
In Germany the Agfa factory in Wolfen obtained a monopoly position for cine film (positive and negative) in general.
Because of the British naval blockade Germany could not import American cotton and other inputs.
And so Agfa Wolfen had to find alternative inputs (in German: Ersatz) that were usually of inferior quality.

This meant that the user of the Ur-Leica was confronted with a deteriorating quality of German-made 35mm film with no posibility to obtain higher quality film from foreign producers.
The same applied to German-based users of the Null-Serie Leica.
Prof. Klute and Dr Paul Wolff did not complain without reason.
This situation would last up to 1926 (!), when foreign-made 35mm film were allowed on the German market again. 
In 1924-1926 German 35mm films, especially Toxo and Perutz, had also increased in quality.

Interestingly, during 1915-1918 Oskar Barnack must have obtained pieces of the Agfa Fliegerfilm that was produced in Wolfen.
These were still high quality, but with a limited shelve life.
Max Berek (1948) refers to this.
Oskar Barnack could obtain this Agfa Fliegerfilm possibly because Leitz was producing parts for the Flieger Kamera (aerial reconnaissance camera) that was designed by Oskar Messter.
Possibly because Leitz produced stereo viewers for analysing Flieger negatives in stereo.
The first model of this Flieger Kamera used unperforated 35mm film.

This shows again the fluctuating quality of 35mm film available in Germany between 1914 and 1926.
So the period of the Ur-Leica, the Null-serie, and the introduction of the Leica I.

In my analysis the deteriorating/ fluctuating quality of 35mm film created problems for the development of the Leica, especially between 1914 and 1924.
These problems were to a high extent Leica-specific problems.
Other miniature cameras would not use 35mm cine negative films (but dry plates, roll film, flat film, filmpack)  and so had other options.

Roland

 

  

 

 

 

I will look at the Ihagee piece again tomorrow and revert. There were several other German manufacturers who were dabbling with 35mm around that time, particularly Goerz- you will see several examples on the list which I posted here. If there was an issue with the quality of 35mm film available in Germany it would have affected companies like Goerz. Is there something intrinsic in 35mm film (apart from its smaller frame size) that would have made it more difficult to produce in Germany to a requisite quality than, say, roll film from that era? Many German manufacturers were happily producing roll film cameras during this period.

Finally, and this one is out of left field, is there any evidence that Ernst Leitz visited Eastman in Rochester during his 1914 trip to the US?  There is no photographic evidence that he did, but if Kodak was producing high grade 35mm film it would have possibly have been of interest to Leitz and Barnack. The other curve ball I will throw is that the quality of the output from Barnack's prototypes may also have improved as he improved the lens mounts and used different lenses. The Ur-Leica had a lens designed for use with microscopes which may not have been the best option with a general - to infinity- mount. I've been asking for a long time about the specifications of the mount on the Ur-Leica because I have an example of the Mikro-Summar which Barnack used and it is OK for close ups, but not particularly sharp when tested on an M10. Most of the Ernst Leitz 1914 images from the US that I have seen are, in fact, quite soft, but later images taken by Barnack are not. 

There is a lot to be explored.

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

Yes, there is still a lot of work to do.
It already helps that you do not challenge the added value of my independent research anymore.

After your return from the centennial celebrations, I had the impression that you were pushed to use your influence on this International Leica Forum to question the merits of my contributions.
In my interpretation (possibly wrong) I felt increasingly pushed in the corner by your comments:

 ·      Don’t share information with this Forum that the Leitz Archive may want to keep outside the public domain.
·       Don’t spoil the field for new researchers at the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.
·       First consult someone who knows more about this subject than you do.
·       Wait for the retirement of an eminent scholar on Leitz optics.
·       Your contributions on copying/ enlargement just lead us into rabbit holes.
·       Your contributions on colour/ black-and-white are not relevant for our understanding of the development of the Leica.

Of course, I may be wrong, possibly just over-sensitive.
Anyway, it is good to know that you are back again on the side of independent research!
As Vice-President and future President of LSI there is a lot you can do to bring together researchers from various countries, interests and research areas.
You could establish an LSI-research group that has a mandate for joint research with the new researchers at the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.
You could also help me to improve relations with influential German researchers who are allergic to the working hypotheses that I was able to share with this International Leica Forum.

Roland

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

Yes, there is still a lot of work to do.
It already helps that you do not challenge the added value of my independent research anymore.

After your return from the centennial celebrations, I had the impression that you were pushed to use your influence on this International Leica Forum to question the merits of my contributions.
In my interpretation (possibly wrong) I felt increasingly pushed in the corner by your comments:

 ·      Don’t share information with this Forum that the Leitz Archive may want to keep outside the public domain.
·       Don’t spoil the field for new researchers at the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.
·       First consult someone who knows more about this subject than you do.
·       Wait for the retirement of an eminent scholar on Leitz optics.
·       Your contributions on copying/ enlargement just lead us into rabbit holes.
·       Your contributions on colour/ black-and-white are not relevant for our understanding of the development of the Leica.

Of course, I may be wrong, possibly just over-sensitive.
Anyway, it is good to know that you are back again on the side of independent research!
As Vice-President and future President of LSI there is a lot you can do to bring together researchers from various countries, interests and research areas.
You could establish an LSI-research group that has a mandate for joint research with the new researchers at the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar.
You could also help me to improve relations with influential German researchers who are allergic to the working hypotheses that I was able to share with this International Leica Forum.

Roland

I don't agree with any of the above. Any advice I give is to help you, not to help anyone else. I am not pushing you into a corner, but rather I am trying to steer you in a direction that might be useful to you. I am aware that many fields of academic research are full of paranoia, rivalry and jealousy and people who hoard information for themselves. I am not an academic and I am not like that at all. I am a sharer by nature which should be obvious from the many presentations I have done for PCCGB, some of which are available online, the over 70 articles I have written about Leicas and various aspects of photography and many other things which I do, including chairing Photo Museum Ireland, being an officer of Leica Society International and cataloguing for the Irish National Photographic Archive. In addition I have made thousands of helpful posts as regard vintage Leicas on this forum - it is not too difficult to find them. I receive not a penny for anything I do in photography, in fact all of it costs me considerable sums of money, but, as I said, I am a sharer by nature.

As regards the Leica Archive it is a body that sits within a commercial entity and it is constantly redefining its role, which currently is largely as a visitor attraction. The people who work there have many jobs to do as well as minding an archive . This is not uncommon in the world of archives. I am shortly going to give talk in my own country about an archive that contains 5.5 million photographs and has less than 2 FTE staff to manage it.  The Leica Archive has taken on some additional staff and hopefully more will join them soon. We should be grateful for this and at LSI we will work on building trust with them and there have been some signs lately that we are making progress with them. However barging in on them in an entitled fashion is not the way to go. They do realise that a lot of the expertise on early Leicas lies outside, particularly among collectors and enthusiasts. I would ask you to be patient and some of the things, you are looking for, will come I time.

None of this is criticism of you, but I could not let the incorrect things you have written or implied above go unanswered. Posting here is wider than just a conversation between the two of us, but many of the people on this forum are already aware of the work which I do.

On just one specific point, I would have thought that the colour sensitivity of film is significant for the research you are doing, not just for 35mm, but for all formats.

William  

 

[derleicaman]

Thank you Roland for all of the hard work you have been doing on this.

Two things come to mind after this latest round of postings.

First of all, Conrad must have been quite young during the period he writes about in 1960, many years removed from the actual events. In fact, he would have been 4 years old in 1912. I think this would be a big factor in whether his recollections for the 1912 - 1914 period of his father's work would have been accurate. I would certainly put more faith in the work notes that Barnack himself made at the time.

Second, where does the development of M875 fit into all of this? Yes, it was certainly conceived as a film testing device for the Leitz Cine camera Barnack was hired by Leitz to develop, as the company clearly saw a future for their cinema projector being developed by Emil Mechau. As you know, the M875 had a close resemblance to the Ur. Georg Mann gave it the name of Mutter der Ur Leica in the article he did on M875 in Vidom. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this.

[willeica]

4 hours ago, derleicaman said:

First of all, Conrad must have been quite young during the period he writes about in 1960, many years removed from the actual events. In fact, he would have been 4 years old in 1912. I think this would be a big factor in whether his recollections for the 1912 - 1914 period of his father's work would have been accurate. I would certainly put more faith in the work notes that Barnack himself made at the time

There is another tract by Conrad from 1949. I had a chance to look at it before the auction in 2022, but, as it was in German, I only gave it a cursory glance. It remained unsold after the auction. 

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 could ask the Leitz Auction guys if they know where this is now.

William 

Edited August 5 by willeica

[pedaes]

47 minutes ago, willeica said:

could ask the Leitz Auction guys if they know where this is now.

As Bill @derleicaman suggests, what credibility does it have?

[willeica]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

As Bill @derleicaman suggests, what credibility does it have?

I'm not suggesting it has any credibility, Keith, but it exists. We went through a huge amount of discussion on the credibility of Conrad in 2022, before someone paid €14.4 million for No 105, including the issue of Oskar with a 'c' etc, which you will note appears again here.

There is no harm in asking about this. If this were available I am sure we would all read it, particularly if it were translated into English.

William 

 

Edited August 5 by willeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sandro]

William, it would certainly make for interesting reading. And if it is still available somewhere I'd be happy to translate it.

Lex