Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

July 26th, 1933 The AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER to 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER a |etters to the Editor The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of his correspondents . MINIATURE FILMS. Sir, — I am sorry for F. G. B., and no doubt he for his part pities the many photographers like me who can get boundless pleasure out of their hobby without 100 per cent perfection in 100 per cent of their negatives. I have used a 9x12 plate camera for years, and I doubt whether I have ever made twelve consecutive exposures without spot or blemish. Apart from unavoidable defects in panchromatic material (which are surprisingly rare), dust will " be dust and bubbles bubbles, try as I may. I take all the care I can, use a spotting brush when necessary, and go on enjoying myself and getting manypictures which please meand myfriends. I have recently taken to a Contax, and under approximately the same conditions of working I suppose I get just the same number of spots per unit area of negative as before, and they are of about the same size. But as the 36-exposure film is equal in area to three of my plates, and as the worst spot can spoil only one negative, I get a much higher proportion of clean negatives than before. Of course, the greater enlarge¬ ment of the Contax prints would make visible spots that would not show in prints of equal size from the other camera, but I find in practice that the trouble on the negative is not with very small marks but with those perhaps a millimetre or more in diameter. All my early efforts at Contax enlargements were disgustingly messy and spotty, but I trace this not to the negatives, but to recurring deposits of dust from inside the enlarger settling upon the glass film-holder. Frequent polishing of the glass surfaces resulted in prints quite as clean on the average as those previously made from the 9X12 plates. Incidentally, will F. G. B. “ guarantee ” with a “ normal ” Press camera to get perfect negatives in theatre photography (actors in motion) with the ordinary stage lighting ? After all, great lens aperture combined with portability and defining power does give unique opportunities to the owner of a " minia¬ ture,” and if he is anxious lest a precious negative may be imperfect he can often duplicate the exposure and still save on the cost of a single quarter-plate. Congratulations are due to you for your " Miniature Camera” Number. My 9x12 Zeiss is in for a long rest, if not for your advertisement columns. — Yours, etc., C. P. “WAKE UP, ENGLAND!” Sir, — The letter published in last week’s " A.P.” from your subscriber Mr. Braithwaite is most opportune and refreshing. Thousands of your readers no doubt feel the same way about it. While Leica is " blazing the trail almost literally from Pole to Pole,” the biggest photographic manufacturers in this country have been busily engaged in " blazing the trail ” of free gift coupon cameras and photo finishing (D. and P.) from Land’s End to John O’Groats. The slogan, " Wake up, England ! ” especially coming as it does from such an authoritative source, should be practically applied, instead of being practically ignored. — Yours, etc., R. S. HEPBURN. THE SERIOUS WORKER AND SMALL CAMERAS. Sir, — As one who has had considerable experience with the miniature type of camera, and what I believe to be in the interests of all those readers who may be contemplating the purchase of one of these instruments without previous know¬ ledge of them, may I be allowed to endorse all F. G. B. says in his letter in this week’s issue, and to add that I believe that anyone who has not a sound technical knowledge of photo¬ graphy, i.e., anyone not already able to produce with a fair degree of certainty, a correctly exposed and developed negative at will, and has not had, in addition, a good experience of the type of negative required for enlarging, is " putting the cart before the horse ” in purchasing this class of instrument ? To the merest tyro, who perhaps imagines that he can quite easily produce similar enlargements as shown by the manu¬ facturers of these cameras, " or gains his impressions from what can be done on the cine screen,” my advice is, stick to a camera not smaller than the popular 3J-X2J, and “ don’t imagine.” To the skilled worker — -well, I do not think he will require any advice. My opinion is, that the popularity of the tiny cameras, is not so much in their use as in the purchasing of them by those who have not sufficient knowledge of the essentials required for this class of photography, and by those who are quite satisfied with an accidental good picture and plenty of spotting, in return for the novelty of using so small a camera. I venture to say that the camera smaller than the V.P. sizes has not come to stay, and that the ideal in smallest sized instruments will be reached in a precision roll-film camera with an ultra-rapid lens, taking two pictures on 3JX2J film. The cameras nearest to this on the market now are obviously not intended for the serious worker. — Yours, etc., P. H. G. MINIATURE PRINTS. Sir, — -Mr. Slight’s letter is an encouraging one. The minia¬ ture print is not receiving the recognition due to it. To extend, to completely unearth its possibilities, additional clubs are necessary. To extend for the purposes of unearthing possibilities was perhaps alone behind the writing of my letter. What recognition is “ due to it ” ? I hardly know. Is there any essential difference between a miniature — suppose by a master — and one of a size generally favoured by him ? Size, as size, we are told, has nothing to do with it. That doesn’t say much, and, I consider, scarcely conceals a belief (which I myself cannot stifle) that an enlargement has the advantages. Suppose there is something essentially characteristic in a miniature. Then beside it an enlargement of itself is at a disadvantage ! I have been treating the miniature merely as a small print, guided by large prints and pictures ; I have had little time to work it out, so to write, as a distinct and necessary branch of the art. Perhaps there is nothing " distinct and necessary ” about it beyond that arising from size, which can, and may, render the miniature distinct and necessary. Unless the miniature is distinct and necessary, then I am very much afraid that it will not receive much attention by masters, and will remain, in the words of Mr. Slight, “ a great help when it comes to producing large prints and lantern slides.” — Yours, etc., C. S. GRANT. DEVELOPING FACTORS. Sir, — -You have published in The Amateur Photographer recently, correspondence dealing with the time of development of panchromatic plates, for providing negatives suitable for enlarging on chloro-bromide paper and correspondence on the time of development of Verichrome film. There are two points which your correspondents appear to have overlooked. 1. — The time of development of a negative to produce a perfect print of a low contrast subject may be twice the time of development of a negative to produce a perfect print of a high contrast subject. 2. — Differences of the characteristics of one batch of emulsion from another of the same type, may be sufficient to double the time of development to produce identical results. In both cases all other factors are presumed to be constant. It would therefore appear that using one type of developer, at constant temperature, and one type of plate and printing paper, under the worst conditions times of development in the ratio of four to one may result. This would more than explain the differences which your correspondents note. The above figures have been taken from Dr. B. T. J. Glover’s book “ Perfect Negatives,” and the correspondence published appears to be ample justification for the wider adoption of the principles which he advocates therein. — -Yours, etc., H. SMART. 91 23