The second miniature revolution

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The first appearance of the 35mm Perutz Fliegerfilm in the Leitz catalogue of November 1926.

Curt Emmermann (January 1928) observes that Leitz is acting as an agent for the 35mm cine negative films by Agfa and Perutz.
A similar 35mm cine negative film produced by Gevaert could not be obtained via Leitz.

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]

 

High quality cine negative film in 1928

In 1926 with appearance of the Perutz Fliegerfilm high quality Leica photography came within reach.
In 1928 Leica literature this Perutz film is indeed regarded as the best possible Leica film.
But the competition was not sitting on its hands.
According to Gevaert historians, the Perutz leadership could be maintained for only one year.

Indeed, in January 1928 Curt Emmermann mentions that the Gevaert film combines a higher speed with an even finer grain.
The reason that Emmermann still prefers the Perutz Fliegerfilm has to do with its much better orthochromatic properties.

A good example of the quality of 1928 cine negative film is a prize-winning Leica picture that was published in the American Annual 1929, see the next slide.
It is not known what film was used.
Note that the Leitz advertisement speaks of ‘standard cinema film’.
Also note the fine grain and the good colour rendition of the dark brown hair.
This is proof of a highly orthochromatic film.

[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]

Discussion with the late Knut Kühn-Leitz on early Leica films

When I approached Knut Kühn-Leitz (Leica-nobility indeed!) on this subject he was at first so kind as to listen to me.
I pointed out that suitable Leica films were already produced in the late 1920s.

Knut Kühn-Leitz disagreed and sent me the following quote by Dr Paul Wolff in the 1934 edition of “Meine Erfahrungen mit der Leica”:
The translation in English reads as follows:

“So, the grain was there! It was the be-all and end-all of us first Leica-users.
Normal cine film in the Leica, at that time still weakly orthochromatic and not free from halation - it was a cross!
Yes, postcard size pictures were just possible, not really inspiring, but one already walked around with the idea that one day it might be different.”

Knut Kühn-Leitz referred to the common wisdom that Dr Paul Wolff only embarked on Leica photography after 1926.
And so, he inferred that the films that were available in the late 1920s must still have been of poor quality.

I replied that this quote must refer to the period 1923-1924 instead.
In this period Dr Paul Wolff must have had a prototype Leica on loan from Oskar Barnack.
In this period the available cine negative films on the German market were indeed of poor quality for Leica photography.
 

This is moreover confirmed by Null-Serie user Prof. Klute, see the contributions by Alan.
And it is also evident from a 1924 (prototype) Leica picture made by Dr Paul Wolff himself, see the next slide.

Unfortunately, Knut Kühn-Leitz was unconvinced.
He did not want to talk to me anymore, but was still so kind as to introduce me to his co-author Ulf Richter.
Since then, I have come to know Ulf as a giant.
We do not always agree, but we have frequently shared and discussed information on early Leica history in a friendly and respectful way.

[Roland Zwiers]

The poor quality of 35mm cine negative film in 1924.

Dr Paul Wolff published this picture in 1939 so as to demonstrate the progress that he had made with Leica photography in the course of 15 years.

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]

Does new research based on overlooked primary sources have added value?
Is verification of common wisdom a no-go area?
Isn’t an independent reality check long overdue?

My research on the development of the Leica did not start with post-1950 Leica literature at all.
Instead, I studied pre-1945 and pre-1918 literature, also with a view on the development of the miniature camera in general (the first and second miniature revolutions).
But when I compared my findings with post-1950 Leica literature, I found several instances where fact and fiction were not clearly separated.

I hoped that my findings would be of interest to the editors of Leica magazines.
Unfortunately, this was not always the case.
Despite several attempts in the past three years, I have not been able to land one of my contributions in Vidom.

When we had an opportunity to meet in person, the editor of Vidom rejected my working hypothesis approach on ‘100 Years Null-Serie’.
He used the word ‘speculation’ every other sentence.
When I objected to this qualification he replied:

’30 years of Leica literature cannot be wrong!’.

If he is right, then verification of common wisdom is a no-go area.
On the other hand, unverified legends may well distort our understanding of the development of the miniature camera.
Isn’t an independent reality check long overdue?

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

William,

You are well aware of my travails.
You are also well connected with Wetzlar.

Is it possible that as President of LSI you can form a bridge?
So as to facilitate independent research based on a scientific approach?

Roland

[willeica]

13 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

n this way I have invited William several times to disprove a working hypothesis on the basis of his extensive knowledge of post-1950 Leica literature.
So far Willliam has not been able to do so!
He (ultimately) agreed with me all the time.

I'm not sure what this means. I agree with most of what you say, although, occasionally, I have looked for proof to support your conclusions. I am not sure what 'post -1950 Leica literature' means - produced after that time or relating to cameras made after that time? If the latter, there are people here who know a lot more about 1950s Leicas than I do e.g. Luigi Bertolotti. My main interest is in cameras produced up to about 1935.

I believe that I introduced you to Ulf Richter in October 2023. Ulf is lively and has his own views on many matters. I recall him having a lively 'discussion' with Jim Lager. Nevertheless, I use his book (as translated by the late Rolf Fricke) a lot.

I did not know Knut Kuhn Leitz, but some people that I know knew him e.g. Bill Rosauer and Frank Dabba Smith. I know nothing about his views on early 35mm film stock. I introduced you to Mark Osterman, formerly of Eastman House, who knows a lot about early film and has recently created some rolls which have the same characteristics as those produced in the 1920s. He is testing those in a Leica I Model A from 1928. 

I have been very busy lately, having given talks over the past 2 weeks; 1. on a collection of 5.5 million photographs for the National Library of Ireland and 2. on early colour photography for the International Early Colour Group, which includes researchers from major museums and universities - Vogel and the orthochromatic to panchromatic transition featured in that and I have now got some ex Kodak contacts to consult with when I can find the time. I am also involved with getting ready for the LSI Conference in Montreal in October and in various matters relating to my assuming the Presidency of that society.

I may go to Wetzlar over the Winter, but I have nothing planned for the time being.  As you know, one thing I am interested in is the Anastigmat-Elmax-Elmar transition and I have discussed that with Peter Karbe. That would probably be on my list of things to look at. 

William 

Edited September 21 by willeica