Photography in 30s - the LEITZ Style

[martinsantos]

I really don't know if this is the correct place, or the Golden Era forum. My idea is to show part of an whole system of photography, the Leitz system. We always think first, about photrography in 30s and 40s, in those Speed Graphic. And forget about this genuine product of design of those days.

The first Leica appeared in 1924. Soon became a huge sucess, and the acessories in new developments appeared. It wasn't a "luxury" camera, but a practical, efficient one. And almost indestrutible.

Here is one Leica model III, from 1937 (the lens is a Summitar from 1950).

Just a few very obscure cameras used 35mm (cine) film for photography those days. So all equipment - to develop film, enlargers, film cassetes, etc, must be created. And so they did.

Cine film could be bought at 40s in special cassetes, like today. But is much cheaper (more than 50%) to buy bulk film and reload in the special Leitz cassetes. As today, you culd buy film in 100 feet spools or 400 or 800 feet (this for movie cameras). The old Double X Pan from Kodak is still manufactured in this way.

The handling must be in the dark. But the cassete become absolutely light-proof. It opens when you lock the camera, and vice-versa. This little winder is to help handling the film. And no chance to scratch the film!!

The spool is in its place, and together the two parts on the cassete. Each come inside the other.

 

[martinsantos]

As Dr Strange convinced me (look next post), let's take the old crank camera and take photos outside. It's a beautiful afternoon.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Must we? A quick search brought up dozens of sites devoted to Leica history, some of them with utterly insane amouts of detail.

I know Leica fans work themselves up to nearly religious levels of fanatic devotion, but some of us (like me, a working photographer since the 1960s) just don't care...

(Sorry, I don't want to shoot you down. Go ahead if you must. There's no denying that Leicas are definitely wonderful machines, but they're hardly the most significant cameras of the last century, and I'm tired of seeing them endlessly portrayed as such just because their fans have the loudest voices.)

 

[martinsantos]

Maybe you're right.

Or better, really you're right.

 

[Lexybeast]

Sounds like we've got a Nikon SP fan in the house!

 

[martinsantos]

...Or Zeiss Contax?

Sad to get this type of answer.

 

[Bonneville]

Sad to get this type of answer.

I agree. I was looking forward to the Leitz story. Not all of us are "working photographers from the 60's". With respect if you don't find the post interesting you should move along as others may find it enjoyable.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Fine, I'll stay out of it. Go ahead and tell the tales of the mighty ubercamera...

 

[martinsantos]

Fine, I'll stay out of it. Go ahead and tell the tales of the mighty ubercamera...

Dear Dr Strangelove.

I don't know you, but I started to visit and participate this forum because it's funny and additive. We can find others with the same interests, share opinions and dislikes. readed a lot of older threads, and never found such a reaction like yours here! And even so agressive.

Never told that Leitz camera is "mighty"; you're putting words in my mouth (or fingers). You asked, so I'm answering you.

1- This is a forum about 30s and 40s. Leitz Cameras is a typical product of those years. The theme is absolutely correct and adequate in my opinion.

2- Photography in 35mm is a very relevant point in arts and journalism in those years. And Leitz had a high importance in this, too.

3- YES, Leica is one of the most influential cameras in XXth Century. Did you ever used a 35mm camera? That's because somewhere in time a guy called Barnack created the Leica.

4- Leica was the very first system of photography.

5- My plan was to write not so much about the camera and lens, but a lot about darkroom, films... A thing you didn't see. And ever didn't gave me time to.

6- You started at 60s in photography, as you said... OK, you used to use Contarex, Leicas M, Rolleiflex. A Barnack Leica for you, probably, is just a piece of junk. But is what I have, I use, I like and I know. So, whay don't start yourself your own thread about the "most influential camera" of those days, with your own pieces? I'll be glad to read and ever to participate.

7- Of course in google you will find a lot os things about Leica. Very better than I can write with my poor English. But you can find too a lot about hats, Rolleiflex, cars, etc - all things you find too here. Why just me have "won the lottery" with your comments?

8- A lot of Leica fans are very fanatic about. But do you really think that I have a "loud voice" about? I just made a thread!!!

9- And photography for me isn't my living. I'm an amateur, only. Like to write in this forum, an opportunity to see and do something I like. Momments to be happy! Not something to start fighing about anything, or to read the kind of commentary you did.

regards,

Martin

 

[Doctor Strange]

Martin - You totally misunderstood me. I am not criticizing YOU in the least. Go ahead and continue with your Leica essay. There's no need to justify your reasons for doing it. And I have never denigrated Leica: their cameras are indeed wonderful instruments, there's no question about that. It's the endless fanatical shouting about their cameras that annoys me, and I have no more patience wih it.

So, I'm sorry: I did NOT mean to imply that you're wrong to celebrate Leica cameras. I just meant to say it's unnecessary: there are thousands of pages out there celebrating Leicas at levels of detail that are downright scary.

Leicas are good cameras. They are historically significant cameras. But they are not the be-all and end-all of cameras that they are frequently depicted as being. That's what gets me angry.

I am criticizing the thousands of Leica cultists I've had endure in twenty years of spending too much time on photo mailing lists and forums. Fanatics of all stripes scare the heck out of me, and the nearly religious devotion of Leica fans is no different. There are MANY other worthy photographic sagas beyond the Leica Myth, yet it continues to get vastly more coverage than it arguably deserves.

You know, it's entirely possible to have been a great photographer without ever having used the holy-grail Leica camera. My father learned photography in the 1930s, did photography in the Army Air Corps in WWII, and had a small commerical-photo business from 1946 until early in this century. He used many cameras over the years - Graphic 4x5s, Mamiya medium-formats, Nikon 35mms, etc. - yet he never had a Leica. To my knowledge, he didn't even handle one until the 1990s. (Frankly, he didn't even start accepting 35mm as a worthy format until the late 1960s: everything "important" was shot on 4x5 sheet film.)

And please, don't lecture on me Barnack. Yes, the Leica was the first 35mm camera. But arguably even more important than the early Leicas and Contaxes was the development of the standard rewindable 35mm film cartridge... for the Kodak Retina (made by German Nagel in 1936). 35mm would never have had its enormous success without this innovation, which - gasp! - E. Leitz had nothing to do with. (The introduction of the Nikon F SLR system in 1959 was also just as important as many of the Leica innovations, especially in changing the minds of pros and photojournalists who were still using Speed Graphics and Rolleiflexes.)

And two other things. I am Doctor Strange, not Doctor Strangelove. There's a big difference: one represents the pursuit of knowledge of the universe, the other Nazi meglomania.

And I am not a professional photographer either. However, I grew up working daily in my parents' photo studio, and was therefore a pro in my youth during the 60s and 70s. Besides doing old-school photography daily, I read all the photography magazines constantly during those years. And I have been an avid amateur since then, and still shoot and process/print b/w film on a regular basis. I have also spent MUCH time researching and discussing photographic topics online, and with companion photo buffs, for decades. I have been engaged photographically for fifty years, and I know whereof I speak...

 

[martinsantos]

I agree that fans are boring. From every aspect of life.

A friend of mine is a nikon fan. Love those reflex. I hear paciently - ever if I really dont't care about TTL metering, autofocus, etc. And I do not like Nikon results. It's another school and another idea about photography.

Cameras are to take photos, not to stay in diplays. Usually the typical camera fan/collector uses little his object of "love". I use all of them, all the time. If another guy uses his cameras in this or that way, is not my trouble - and Barnack has nothing about it, too!

It's the same that condemn Harley Davison because Hell's Angels.

I think you get the camera you really fell well photographing. OK, likes Rollei? Use it. Prefer Contax? A great one; Robert Capa left Leica to stay with Contax II. You will be in good company. Speed Graphic? Weegee is a master and never needed a smaller film or electronic flash. Each camera has its problems and virtues - there is no "myth" inside the leica or any other camera. Get it or leave it.

I could add a lot of other little fine cameras that are always a pleasure to shoot: Italian Ducatti Sogno. Zeiss Baby Ikonta or Super-Ikontas. Zeiss Contessa. All those folding Voigtlanders. Or ever the little Boldavit.

But please, before start criticizing Leitz, me, or whatsever, wait I start writing!

I'm 33 now, started with photography at 9. Developing and printing at home. Making my own chemicals, and now trying to make my own photographic paper. And going back to Leitz, probably you will agree that the Valoy II or Focomat Ic enlargers are the finest. (by the way, I'm using the old and good B22 Omega).

Somewhat of the matter I think I understand.

By the way, I think you wrote a little mistake. Retinas are newer than Leica (1924) and Contax (1932). If I remember well, the reloadable magazines of both appeared with the cameras - an absolutely necessary acessory. Kodak, because Cabtree, didn't put ever a penny about 35mm photography - and first showed their 127 film.

Martin

 

[Doctor Strange]

Actually, I think we are mostly in agreement: the whole "Leica Mystique" thing is more about maintaining expensive collectibles than photography. And photography is really far more about skill than hardware... though you'd never know it from the gadgeteer mentality that generally pervades photo forums.

However, I believe I am on firm ground about the Kodak Retina. Certainly, Leica and Contax came earlier and proved 35mm was a valid medium... but each had their own proprietary - and different - cassette designs. The standard 35mm cassette, the one still in use today, was introduced for the Kodak Retina, and was taken up by countless camera designers afterwards. Leica and Contax switched to it in their later models when it had become the accepted standard.

I have used many different cameras over the years. Mainly Minox subminiatures (I always carry one - totally manual, not even a light meter or focusing aid), Olympus OM SLRs, and early Nikkormats and Nikons (nothing later than the 1971 F2 Photomic). Also assorted autofocus film (and digital) cameras belonging to family members, and Mamiya and Yashica medium-format cameras... also sheet-film cameras when I was younger. I still have working 4x5 cameras - a Graphic View II, a couple of Crown Graphics - and medium-format cameras, but haven't used them in ages. And we have tons of cameras lying around the studio for which nobody makes film anymore, or which otherwise aren't worth fooling with nowadays - those I keep just because they're cool machines.

The thing is, I learned long ago that it's all about the photographer's eye, not the hardware. I have taken great pictures with many el-cheapo cameras, and have often captured a great image in a single shot by moving into the right place and waiting for the right instant - sometimes even when surrounded by folks shooting in burst mode with their auto-everythings who don't get one as good. And of course, many a great shot is made in the darkroom, not the camera: it's amazing to me how many people don't realize the value of careful cropping, not to mention just showing your best half-dozen shots of something rather than fifty "eh" ones.

My main enlarger has always been a circa-1955 Omega D-3v, mostly with Nikkor or Computar lenses. Great results on everything from 4x5 negs down to Minox negs, and the "autofocus" (actually tracking focus, which automatically keeps the image sharp as you raise/lower the head to change size) works surprisingly well. I used a Durst M600 for a while too, but it's now just retained for backup use.

But no, I will not agree that Leitz enlargers are the best. That's the same elitist bushwa I'm objecting to in the first place. An enlarger or camera is just a tool. With reasonably good optics and construction/alignment, excellent results are possible on a wide range of equipment, including some very modest, unimpressive brands.

Anyway, don't let me stop you from continuing your Leitz story. I'm sure folks will find it interesting, even if I am perpetually underwhelmed...

 

[martinsantos]

Developing the miniature film - part one

n beggining of the XXth Century development of negatives was in trays. Negatives came as glass plates, sheet film or some roll films. So you would develop each negative individually, getting the best result in that particular photo wo the copies would be good.

In the "Manual do Photographo" (Photographer's Manual), printed in 1908 in Lisbon, the author says to the reader forget "spy cameras" as the Kodak: "takes to much work to develop the film in a tray".

With the miniature camera you have 36 different negatives. The film so must be developed in another way. All must have the correct exposure for the same time in developer.

This become the reason for another problem, the medition of light (theme for another post).

There are MANY types of developing tanks - I suppose that, if you are reading this thread, probably you know something about. So let's get what is a little different and from the 30/40s.

An interesting tank is the Leitz Rondinax. It is automatic, so you can put the film in the developing spool in the light. It has ever a thermometer (now a little out-of-tune, around 2oC below that the actual temperature, after 70 years or strong use). Takes few chemical, 150cc - but you need to make continuous movement if the film inside, by the reel outside.

Soon photography at home became a fashion in 30s. And so appeared developers to miniature photography - very different than those for larger negatives. You could buy (as today) the developer ready-made - or do-it-yourself with the proper "ingredients".

"normal" developers are very alkaline - usually using sodium carbonate to make the development fast. A large negative does not need a severe enlargement: take a Rollei negative, 6x6cm. A little enlargement ratio of 5x give you an image of 30x30cm. The development can be vigorous and contrasty.

A miniature development needs a soft, slow development. 20 minutes isn't unusual (a normal developer makes its work in 5-8 minutes), ever more time. These were improvements frm the end of 30s.

Leitz ever published a developer formula in 1931 or 1932 - and it's became a kind of fashion for a while. It isn't a great developer, but the principle of two-bath is very useful.

Bath A:
Metol - 5g
Sodium Sulphite - 100g
Water to 1 liter

Bath B:
Sodium Siphite - 6g
Sodium carbonate - 15g
Water to - 1 liter

4 minutes in "A" bath, and without rinse to 3 minutes in "b" bath, with the usual films of those days, very very slow by modern standards - someting around 50 ASA would be a super-rapid film.

 

[martinsantos]

From the very beginning miniature photography meant "candid photography".

And "candid" are those photographies showing people, life, as it is. Photography showing our times, people in unposed images. Life as life really is. Soon ever those highly prepared and retouched fashion illustrations stated to simulate the "candid way".

Of course any camera can give you the chance to take "candids". The great photographer Erich Salomon did this with the Ermanox in late 10s and beggining of 20s. A camera using small plates and a huge lens to get the maximum aperture of f:2.0.

Leica camera brought the candid pics as a fashion since the very begining. A few photographers using the Leica stablished it as the most suitable equipment: Alfred Eisentaedt, Robert Capa, Cartier-Bresson, etc. At least before Contax II appeared, in 1935.

And this was certainly because the small negative turned possible speed lenses. It's easier (and cheapier) to make a large aperture lens with shorter focal distances than larger. And from the very beggining Leitz had luminous, fast lenses to use. Larger cameras usually had lenses 2 or 3 times slower - even those magnificient lens by Zeiss. And larger cameras are difficult to handle in hand at slow speeds.

The sucess came too because Leitz turned the little camera in the first system of photography, when started the changing the lens, in 1930. With the standadization, you could use any lens in any camera and always get the correct focus. This can be somewhat mushy today - but at those days quite an achievement!

Look in the photo for the "o" in the thread mount. It means the standadized mount, so any lens will couple perfectly.

In 1932 came the coupled rangefinder, with model II (in the picture above the little wheel under the "o" is the arm of the coupled rangefinder). And in 1933 came model III, with the slow speeds (before there was just 1/20s to 1/500s). From this model, the candid picture was really starting.

Discrete, noiseless, efficient, high quality lens, the Leica was the perfect instrument for candid photography.

The classic lens of 30s for Leica: Elmar 5cm, Summar 5cm, Elmar 3,5cm, Elmar 9cm, Hektor 13,5cm.

Here the Summar, and Elmars 3,5cm and 9 cm. The somewhat newer Summitar (an improvement over the Summar design) was showed in older post.

Just an example of "candid" by myself with the Summar and Summitar - not because they are good, but only because I know very well the lens used!!

My Summar is in a terrible shape - but still can give some good results.

With Summitar, in an orphanate:

 

[martinsantos]

Leitz soon started to make a multitude of accessories, always very well made. Most of it is about macro photography and to copy documents.

The old leica had two viewfinders. One to take focus with the rangefinder (two images must coincide when in focus), with a magnification of 1,5x. And another giving the actual image to be get my the normal lens - 5cm (like Summar, Summitar, etc).

If you're using another lens, you will need an acessory viewfinder. Like this "universal" viewfinder, for 35, 50, 85, 90 and 135.

The camera becomes a little big, but still very manuseable and practical. Here with the 9cm Elmar.

Again with my own examples these lenses.

Elmar 3,5cm : (in an orphanate here in São Paulo) It is one of the most famous lens - the preferred by Alfred Eisenstaedt. That famous photograph of a sailor kissing a nurse in NY, in V-J Day, was token with one of this.

Elmar 9cm: (the same orphanate) Also a great lens for portraits.