The long and winding road: from the Ur-Leica to the Handmuster (Nr. 100)

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The long and winding road: from the Ur-leica to the Handmuster of 1920 

It is not so easy to figure out via what route Oskar Barnack finally arrived at his Ur-Leica of 1914.
The available evidence suggests that he arrived at this intermediary stage in a roundabout way.
In my analysis there are four sources of inspiration.
I realise that this may not always correspond with received wisdom:

• The heavy plate camera that he carried in 1905
• The miniature cameras available in 1912, especially the British Vestpocket Ensignette and the very similar VP Kodak
• The 1912 exposure tester as a complement to his movie camera; one thing leads to another
• Strategic guidance by Ernst Leitz I and II

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Roland Zwiers]

Inspiration 1 - The heavy plate camera of 1905: a desire to create a lighter and more portable alternative

The story of the heavy plate camera is mentioned in Barnack (1931) and repeated several times by Dr Paul Wolff.
One need not doubt Barnack’s desire for a lighter and more portable alternative.
But this cannot be the whole story.
In 1912 his inspiration to create something new must have been related to the problems and solutions that were present in 1912.

In 1931 Oskar Barnack was invited by Curt Emmermann to write a contribution for the first issue of Die Leica.
One can sense that Curt Emmermann needed a lot of convincing before Oskar Barnack agreed.
So when Barnack included his anecdote and implied that this was the reason for creating the Leica, editor Emmermann could not be too critical.A good journalist should have asked the question: why carry a heavy 13x18 plate camera in 1905 in the first place?
In 1905 there were good quality folding Kodaks on the market.
Even with German lenses and high quality shutters.
And why still embark on a Leica project in 1912 in the middle of a miniature revolution?

[Roland Zwiers]

Inspiration 2 - The miniature cameras available in 1912, including the British Vestpocket Ensignette and the VP Kodak

This brings me to the second source of inspiration.
In 1912 Oskar Barnack was in the middle of a miniature revolution. 
One can say this revolution already started in 1898 with the introduction of Kodak rollfilm cameras.
One can also point at the 6x4,5cm Gaumont Blocknote (a miniature plate camera) of circa 1906.

In the period after 1906 one good miniature camera after the other came on the market.
Some even had miniature focal plane shutters.
Some used miniature plates.
Some used roll films.

In 1909 a crucial British innovation was the Vestpocket Ensignette, a roll film miniature camera with a miniature size roll film.
In 1912 this miniature gets a very enthusiastic review in a German photo magazine.
All the advantages of a miniature camera are already explained in detail.
The appeal of this camera gets an enormous boost when Ensign provides a complementary enlarger for 9x14cm postcard size prints.

Eastman Kodak is not happy with this British innovation.
It counters with the 1912 Vestpocket Kodak, which uses the slightly bigger 127-film.
still the proportions of the VP Kodak negative are about the same as those of the VP Ensignette.
The complementary Kodak enlarger also prints on 9x14cm paper.

Now I would be very surprised if Oskar Barnack (or Ernst Leitz I and II) was unware of this miniature revolution that was taking place between 1898 and 1912.
One can see that several features of the Ur-Leica are derived from the VP Kodak.
I will give some graphic examples in a follow-up posting. 
One interesting clue is the negative size of the Ur-Leica, which is not 24x36mm.
The negatives of the Ur-Leica are 38mm wide.
Why would this be so?
I infer because negatives of 38mm wide were more suitable for printing on 9x14cm paper.

[Roland Zwiers]

Inspiration 3 - the 1912 exposure tester as a complement to his movie camera; one thing leads to another

On this subject I already made a contribution in the posting Die Mutter der Ur-Leica.

The design of the M875 exposure tester as described by Georg Mann (1992) is clearly inspired on the VP Kodak that was introduced in early 1912.

I therefore infer that the exposure tester dates from the second half of 1912.

 

The exposure tester is not mentioned in Oskar Barnack's Werkstattbuch.
The many references to 'MikroKino' have nothing to do with the exposure tester.
MikroKino refers to 'Mikrokinematographie', that is the combination between a microscope and a 35mm movie camera.
In German literature one can find instances of this innovative combination from 1908 onwards.
in French literature there are even much older sources.

During 1912-1914 Oskar Barnack was working on the infrastructure to make this combination possible:
the microscope itself, the miniature ('Liliput') arc lamps, the stable set-up (Mikrokino-Gestell), an apparatus for viewing the image while filming. 
One should not confuse elements from this infrastructure with the exposure tester function.

What was the reason for the exposure tester?
Around 1910 there were many good exposure testers on the market.
Some used optical means (grey-wedge), some used chemical means (based on the discolouring of photopaper after exposure).
There were also exposure guides, usually in the form of table: in July/at 12 o'clock/ in bright sunlight/ at the beach/at aperture 8/ without a filter/ one can use shutter speed 1/100.

So why did Oskar Barnack have to invest his own exposure tester? 
Around 1910 Eastman Kodak 35mm film was arlready very reliable, also between batches.
So if Oskar Barnack used Kodak cine negative film,  he could have settled for a good exposure meter on the market.

So why did he still feel the need to create something new?
I can think of a few reasons.

He did not use Eastman Kodak film but other makes.
After 1910 more and more competitors entered the lucrative 35mm market, but the production quality was usually not as good as that of Eastman Kodak.
But even more significant: production quality and film speed was not uniform between batches.
This may already have been an important reason for the 1912 exposure tester.

A second reason may have been that Oskar Barnack experimented with self-sensitising regular colour-blind cine negative film.
By bathing a colour blind film in an Eosine solution (or similar sensitisers)  the film would be sensitive to the colours green, yellow and orange as well.
But this lasted only a few days.
And the consequences in terms of film speed must have varied between makes and batches.
The only way to deal with this was to use the same film in an exposure tester.

In my opinion a suitable exposure tester had to meet only a few conditions:

• The same 35mm film as used in the movie camera (perforation not absolutely necessary for the test strip itself)
• A shutter speed  of about 1/40 sec in accordance with the effective shutter speed of the movie camera
• A lens mount that would accept the lens of the movie camera, say the 3.5/50 Kino-Tessar

 

As far as I can see the exposure tester M875 as described by Georg Mann meets these three criteria.
That the gravitational shutter would have become unsuitable after a while, is besides the point.
That may very well have inspired Oskar Barnack to embark on follow-up projects:
the Photo Kamera of 1913 and the Ur-Leica of 1914!

[Roland Zwiers]

Inspiration 4 - Strategic guidance by Ernst Leitz I and II

A fourth source of inspiration deserves more attention:
active encouragement if not strategic guidance from Ernst Leitz I and II from the very beginning.
Leica literature stresses the encouragement by Ernst Leitz II after his return from the USA.
Back in Germany he would have remarked that the Ur-Leica was a promising project for the future,
something to keep in mind  (‘Im Augen behalten’).

The case for emphasizing much earlier encouragement on the part of Ernst Leitz I and II rests on several observations.
In 1906-1914 Ernst Leitz senior and junior must have observed the increasing availability of good quality miniature cameras.
The VP Ensignette, the Goerz VP Tenax and the VP Kodak were proven designs that combined not too small negatives with superior optics,
orthochromatic emulsions,  day-light loading systems, and complementray enlargers.
The advanced versions of these cameras were expensive to buy and expensive in use.
But Ernst Leitz II did not have to economize on the costs of a hand camera.
Why then would he have preferred to use an experimental Ur-Leica on his June 1914 visit to the USA?

Ernst Leitz II’s decision to bring the Ur-Leica with him shows that he took Oskar Barnack’s Liliput project deadly serious even before his journey to the USA.
This brings us to the cooperation between Oskar Barnack, the inventor, and Ernst Leitz I and II, the entrepreneurs.

Dr Paul Wolff (1941) sketches a picture in which Oskar Barnack had been wasting precious time with tinkering on a not so realistic project.
But suppose all this early tinkering had the explicit encouragement by Ernst Leitz I and II from the very beginning.
Suppose that Ernst Leitz I and II really liked to employ Oskar Barnack (even with his poor health) because of his innovative ideas for 35mm photography and cinematography.
Suppose that they foresaw that the chemistry between Mechau and Barnack might result in complementary innovations around 35mm cine film?
Innovations that might lead to a welcome diversification of the product range.

This hypothesis assumes that the sequence of events was not a coincidence, but to a large extent the result of strategic guidance by visionary entrepreneurs:

• The employment of Mechau in 1910 followed by that of Barnack in 1911
• The cooperation between Mechau and Barnack on the movie projector in 1911 and 1912
• Barnack’s design of a complementary movie camera in 1912 and 1913 with follow-up accessories in the form of a tripod and a panorama head
• Barnack’s design of a 35mm panorama camera in 1912 with complementary enlarger and projection units
• Barnack’s design of an exposure tester in 1912
• Barnack’s design of a heating table, possibly for film development on location in 1913-1914
• Barnack’s work on the combination of a microscope with cinematography by means of a stable set-up, strong ‘liliput’ arc-light,
  and a devise for viewing the image while filming (‘ein Apparat zur Betrachtung des Bildes bei kinematographischen Aufnahmen‘.)
• Barnack’s stepwise design of a Liliput camera in 1913 and 1914, as a dual-use camera and exposure meter
• The patent application of May 1914, even before Ernst Leitz II departure for the USA
• The improved pre-production model of June 1914 (Mustermodell für Fabrikation (Verbesserung)) while Ernst Leitz II was still in the USA.

In addition to the sequence of events one can look at the timing.
By April 1914 most items on this list were either production ripe or in an advanced prototype stage.
This timing may not have been a coincidence as well.
In this way Ernst Leitz II could better prepare for his 1914 visit to the USA.
He even made sure that there was time left so that Oskar Barnack could explain to him the workings his latest prototype.

A fascinating clue in this respect is an April 1914 article in a German film magazine.
The article must be based on an interview between the author and Emil Mechau and/ or Ernst Leitz II.
The article explains that in April 1914 the Mechau projector was ripe for market introduction.
Mechau had already solved the technical problems at the time of the December 1912 cinematography exhibition in Berlin.
The projector was then produced by Ernst Leitz, but the novelty was not disclosed.
Instead the new projector was being tested in the Kaisertheater in Wetzlar for 1¼ years.
The editor assumes that as soon as this projector comes on the market, it will cause a revolution in cinematography
as even America would want to import the new projector.

 

The sequence and timing of the events mentioned above does not suggest that during 1911-1914 Oskar Barnack had been acting on his own.
Ernst Leitz I and II gave Barnack a free hand to act on his curiosity and intrinsic motivation.
But one can feel that their strategic guidance made sure that Mechau and Barnack were making sufficient progress up to April 1914.

At the same time Ernst Leitz I and II must have taken great care that Oskar Barnack would not overwork himself again, as had happened in 1912.
Barnack’s worknotes of August 1913 show a health-related holiday in ‘Bad Ems’.
This must have been a welcome time-out.
In 1917 Ernst Leitz I would also invite Barnack to holidays in the Black Forest.   

Between April and June 1914, possibly after having tested the Ur-Leica, Ernst Leitz II could make up his mind.
He decided to apply for a patent even before his departure for the USA.
And he asked Oskar Barnack to immediately prepare a pre-production model in his absence.
This entrepreneurial drive must have been directed at market introduction in 1915.
The start of war in August 1914 prevented this outcome.
After August 1914 Max Berek had to enlist in the German army and was not available for calculating a better lens until the end of hostilities in November 1918.

To be continued.

Roland

[zeitz]

Roland, you should include Barnack's employment at Zeiss.  During that period he proposed a small film camera for Zeiss to manufacturer.  His idea was rejected.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What was Barnack employed as at Zeiss and at Leitz? Did he have a job title? Do we know why Leitz employed him rather than anyone else?

[Roland Zwiers]

I agree that this is relevant.
But while being employed at Zeiss he must already have been inspired by:

Inspiration 1 - The heavy plate camera of 1905

Inspiration 2 - The miniature cameras available between 1898 and his employment at Zeiss.

The sources of Inspiration 3 9the exposure tester) and 4 (strategic guidance by ernst Leitz I and II) occured when he was working for Leitz.

The story that Zeiss rejected Oskar barnack's ideas is plausible.
Mechau must have informed Enst Leitz I and II about this.

In my hypothesis Ernst Leitz I and II were well aware of the miniature revolution since 1898.
So Mechau's observation was good advertisement! 
Ernst Leitz I and II really wanted to hire Oskar Barnack because of his innovative ideas.
His health was a concern, so they took extra good care of him!!
For Zeiss his poor health was the reason for not giving him a promotion that would give him access to health insurance/ health care.

In modern terminology we would say that Leitz was the corporate social responsible employer (CSR).
Zeiss wanted to keep Oskar Barnack (his qualifications were excellent!) but declined the financial risk.

 

Roland 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Prototype 1 of January and March 1914

Leitz (1933) places the first Leica with an 1:4,5 Summar lens in 1913.
The first time that Oskar Barnack’s work notes refer to a ‘Liliput’ hand camera is January 1914.
In June 1913 Oskar Barnack mentions a ‘Photo Kamera’, but what is its relationship to the ‘Liliput’ of January 1914?
I will discuss these issues in a later posting that will analyse in detail Oskar Barnack's work notes in the period 1912-1914. 

On this place it must suffice that I equate the 'Liliput' camera of January 1914 with prototype 1, which must have developed into the still surviving Ur-Leica.
According to Oskar Barnack’s work notes the Liliput camera was ready in March 1914.
The defining features of prototype 1 (esp. as compared to the earlier exposure tester) are:
the use of perforated 35mm cine film,

• A negative size that corresponds to the length of 8 perforations (24,8x38mm)
• The use of a standard lens that covers the entire negative
• The presence of a focal plane shutter that includes a shutter speed of 1/40 of a second
• Tensioning the focal plane shutter is coupled to the film transport mechanisms
• A sliding cover on the standard lens

The coupling between shutter and filmtransport facilitates taking pictures in rapid sequence and prevents double exposures.
The sliding cover on the lens was necessary to avoid light from reaching the film when transporting the film between two exposures.
This light leak would occur as the curtains of the focal plane shutter did not fully overlap on transporting the film.
In combination the specified features allowed Oskar Barnack to use the Ur-Leica as a handheld miniature camera.

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Prototype 2 of April 1914

The next version is prototype 2 of April 1914.
This is the camera that Ernst Leitz II took with him on his journey to the USA that year.
Van Hasbroeck (1987) mentions that prototype 2 has gone lost. 
He even mentions a discussion with Ernst Leitz III on the possible differences between the prototypes 1 and 2,
but Ernst Leitz III couldn’t remember anymore.

Dr Paul Wolff (1941) suggests that Ernst Leitz II used Oskar Barnack’s Ur-Leica on his 1914 visit to the USA.
If so, then prototype 2 may not have existed at all.
However, this interpretation is at odds with Oskar Barnack’s work notes of April 1914 where he specifies ‘2 Liliput cameras ready’,
[April 2 Liliput Kameras fertig]
see [A] op page 21 of his work notes.
This confirms the existence of prototype 2.    

 

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]

The prototypes of May and June 1914

Oskar Barnack's worknotes suggest the existence of two additional prototypes in 1914.
For a proper discussion it is necessary to compare page 21 of Oskar Barnacks work notes with an undated file from the German patent office.
I found this patent file in Ulf Richter (2009).

In May 1914 [B] there is the notation: Liliput camera, patent application.
At [C] one can see that the patent application was received on June 12, 1914.
The application was refused [D] because it conflicted with existing patent rights (DRP 120441 and DRP 161634).
Ernst Leitz then settled for Gebrauchsmuster protection [E], which was granted (G.M. Nr. 636666).
In June 1914 Oskar Barnack mentions an improved Liliput camera for production purposes [F] (Mustermodell Liliput Kamera für Fabrikation (Verbesserung)).

Now this course of events looks relatively straightforward.
But there is an underlying problem relating to the patent office file.
It states that the Gebrauchsmuster application was extended up to 10 November 1920 [G] and that it ended only in 1923 [H].
This was not in agreement with the patent law of 1891, which was still valid in 1914.
And as far as I can see it was not in agreement with the new patent law of 23 April 1920 either.
A plausible explanation is that patents and Gebrauchsmusters had already been extended before 1920 as part of a provisional war-time arrangement.

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Patent issues

Fritz Hansen (1911) explains the patent law of 1891.
Patents could be granted for a period of 15 years.
For a Gebrauchsmuster the period was three years with the possibility of one three year extension.
This means that Ernst Leitz would have had to contact the patent office again before 12 June 1917.
The patent office could then grant an extension up to 12 June 1920. An additional three year extension after 1920 was not possible.

Now in early 1919 the German government considered a new law for the extension of patent rights.
Government reasoned that because of the war most patents would not have realised their expected commercial benefits.
This asked for some compensation period.
This period (the so-called ‘Ersatzzeitraum’) was based on the five years between 1 August 1914 and 31 July 1919.
As a rule patent rights that overlapped with this period would be extended by five years.
For Gebrauchsmuster protection the corresponding extension was four years.

The new law of April 23, 1920 would have big commercial implications.
For example many German lens makers had been waiting for the famous Tessar patent (granted in 1902) to expire in 1917
and again (after a provisional extension) in 1920.
In a front page advertisement of December 1920 Carl Zeiss Jena reminded these competitors of the renewed validity of the Tessar patent.

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!

This course of events must have had consequences for the Leitz Gebrauchsmuster application as well.
For the precise consequences I am still looking for legal counsel.
Florian Mächtel (2009), Das Patentrecht im Krieg, wrote an interesting dissertation on this subject.
I hope that he is willing to discuss this subject with me.

For now it is sufficient to sketch the possible consequences for Leica prototypes in the period 1914-1921.

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Prototypes of 1914, missing or not?

In 1914 there may have been two prototype 3 models.
The first model is the camera that had to remain in the patent office.
According to Ulf Richter (2014) this was a requirement for the Gebrauchsmuster application.

  “(...) they didn't get a patent, only a utility model [Gebrauchsmuster].
The office had demanded that they send a sample because that was the law (...)”

There is one caveat here: the patent law of 1891, which still applied in 1914,
does not explicitly state that a sample ‘Gebrauchsmuster’ model had to be handed over to the patent office.
This is one short, specific and focussed question for the Leitz archive 🙂

The second model is the ‘Mustermodell Liliput Kamera für Fabrikation’.
This concerns the camera that must have stayed at Leitz in order to prepare for camera production.
One of these prototypes may have gone lost.
The other may still exist. It may very well be the camera as described in Ulf Richter (2009).

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!

With the outbreak of war in August 1914 plans for camera production were cancelled.
Oskar Barnack must have used this prototype for further experimentation.
The remaining camera indeed shows signs of heavy modification.

G. Rogliatti (1975) places prototype 3 closer to the production Leicas of 1924-1925 than to the Ur-Leica.
Likewise, Van Hasbroeck (1987) mentions circa 1918-1920.
However, a later date than 1914 is problematic as it contradicts both Oskar Barnacks June 1914 notes and the June 1914 patent application.
A possible explanation is that prototype 3 has been extensively modified in the period after 1914.
Because of these modifications many original features of 1914 have disappeared.

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Prototypes of 1917 and 1920?

According to the patent law of 1891, the Gebrauchsmuster protection could be extended once with an additional three year period.
So Ernst Leitz must have paid an additional visit to the patent office in 1917.
Would he have made use of this opportunity to present an updated prototype (even if there was no legal obligation to do so)?
I cannot exclude this possibility.
It is equally possible that he was still satisfied with the 1914 prototype that may already have been in the patent office.

Prototypes of 1920?    

During the war Ernst Leitz must already have made use of some provisional extension of the Gebrauchsmuster protection.
In early 1919 the German government announced its plans for new legislation that would prolong the Gebrauchsmuster protection by four years.
The law was adopted on April 23, 1920.
This was good news as it gave him extended legal protection while he was still making progress with the Liliput project.
Again, he may have needed two new prototypes.
One prototype for the patent office (possibly on a voluntarily basis), the other for internal use as a preparation for series production.

 

Of course, for the patent office he could also have used the 1914/ 1917 Gebrauchsmuster model that may already have been in their possession.
But for optimal protection it would have been wiser to hand in a new (or updated) model that reflected the 1920 state of affairs.

If there were indeed two 1920 prototypes, then one of these may have gone lost (but see further).
The second model still exists and is both known as the ‘Handmuster’ model and as the ‘Kisselbach’ camera.

These cameras of 1920 still did not have a self-capping shutter.
Because of this a lens cap had to be used between exposures so as to prevent light from spoiling the film.
The new light cap was connected to the camera body with a cord.
Interestingly, this solution allowed for the use of more regular push-on yellow filters in combination with orthochromatic films.
This facilitated colour-correct black-and-white photography.

 

Has the Gebrauchsmuster camera of 1920 indeed gone lost or has it survived in some other form?
Ed Schwartzreich points to the existence of a nickel-plated pre-Null-Serie Leica that has been on auction several times
and that may have been the missing Gebrauchsmuster camera of 1920.
According to Ottmar Michaely, who has disassembled this camera, the majority of the internal parts are from the time that the Kisselbach camera was made[i].

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!

All in all I cannot dismiss the possibility that there have been two sister prototype models in 1920.
The first model is the ‘Gebrauchsmuster 1920’ that may have been handed in to the patent office.
This camera possibly survived as the nickel-plated pre-Null-Serie Leica that has been on auction several times.
The second model is the ‘Handmuster 1920’, also known as the Kisselbach camera.
As both prototypes were for internal use, they may not have received a production number.
That may explain why Nr. 100 in de Leitz delivery book 'Kamera' of 1923 may have been dedicated to the Handmuster camera,  
but that the engraving was not applied on the camera itself.

 

---

[i] Ottmar Michaely in a 2022 e-mail correspondence.