Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

fa AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER p 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER o July 26th, 1933 racking a Photographer’s Bogey By CHARLES H. L. EMANUEL. IN my undergraduate days, ' the Oxford University Photographic Club was a very crude affair, and I was one of its crudest members when, at the end of the academic year there was a flight of my seniors, and, in my absence from a meeting, I was elected President. One of my first duties was to con¬ sider an application from the Scientific Society that we would assist at a soiree by giving a photographic ex¬ hibition. It was not until we had accepted the invitation that we appreciated that we should be lacking in material for a show of an ordinary nature. But the young mind is very elastic, and we resolved to give a show of photographic errors and faults. We compared notes and found we had sufficient negatives and prints to exemplify most of the shortcomings which had then been discovered. Our exhibition was a complete guide to under and over-exposures, to failure to release the shutter or uncap the lens, to light leakages in camera and dark-room, and to carelessness in the use of chemicals and water. But, since those days, things photo¬ graphic have marched, and the crop of a modern exhibition on similar lines to ours would be far greater than ours was. Just as in the medical world, as fast as a microbe is caught by the filter and is microscoped and catalogued, and a possible means for its extinction and suppression is evolved, another is found which had escaped the filter and the trouble begins again, so it is with photography. We think we have armed ourselves against every mishap, and lo, our work is wrecked again ! Nor is this entirely due to the worker. I question whether, for the normal amateur, one not desirous of photo¬ graphing express trains and such-like, the present plates and films have advantage over those of previous times. Certainly when I compare my present film negatives, either with the early roll films, or still more with those on glass, I am confirmed that I was better off then and got pluckier negatives with less flaws than I do now. The benefit only seems to come from an increase in speed (which I rarely require), and in a better render¬ ing of skies — even without the use of a screen. We suffer now in our film packs from “ tram-lines,” which can only be caused by some grit or roughness in the cover of the pack, and from insensitive spots which seem in¬ variably to come in the sky portion, where they are dodged with difficulty. These are only minor difficulties. Using one of the most expensive cameras on the market, I find that if I rely on the finder, my perpendiculars are hopelessly sloping, and the bubbles in the level must therefore be closely watched ; and this is a nuisance. But what breaks my heart is to find a good third of my year’s work spoilt by defects or markings in the films. Ignoring the wreckage resulting from films suffering from fog — I suspect stale stock — I cannot yet learn why sickle-shaped marks, either black or transparent, should mar my negatives. The suggestions are many, and include “ flare ” (but the lens is above suspicion, and the marks but rarely appear) and either a perforation or a bright spot on the iris diaphragm. A careful examination for a perfora¬ tion has hitherto yielded no results. The spot is still being searched for. The most disheartening occurrence this year was to find a dozen or so of really good negatives with a band of large granulations across each film. I am not the only sufferer from this cause, and my investigations may, I hope, be of use to others. The makers of the film disclaim all blame. They say, “You have kept these films in your camera in damp weather.” “ Guilty, my lord ! ” say I. But why shouldn’t I ? Am I to take my film packs out of the camera when it rains ? There are no instruc¬ tions on the packet to that end. And if I were to take the film pack out, what should I do with it ? There is not always a safe-deposit handy. I keep my camera in a particularly stout leather case which fits closely, and the inside of the case should be as dry as the average sermon. What better could I do ? Fortunately, I opened my heart to another specialist. He confirmed the view that the band of granulations was due to dampness in the air. I told him of the precautions I took and showed him the thickness of the leather case, and he told me that this actually increased the risk of granulation. It was due, he said, to condensation which fears neither leather nor metal. It forms inside the camera. If it rests on the lens it may soon dissipate. But it prefers to lie on the plate. If the camera with the film pack attached is left out of its case, the condensation will in all probability dry up without affecting the plate. But if you rush the camera to a safe-deposit or slap it into a practically damp-proof case when there is wet in the air, you prevent the dissipation and granulation appears ! So my next season’s troubles are likely to consist of something other than granu¬ lation on the film. We are asked by Messrs. J. H. Dallmeyer, Ltd., to announce that the price of the T.-P. Reflex camera with f/1.9 Dallmeyer Super-six anastigmat was erroneously advertised in our issue of 2 1 st June as ^74. The correct price is ^48 only. Full particulars will be sent post free to any reader mentioning The Amateur Photographer, who applies to Messrs. J. H. Dallmeyer, Ltd., of 31, Mortimer Street, Oxford Street, W.i. * * * A most comprehensive list of photographic apparatus and materials both new and second-hand is now issued by The City Sale & Exchange, of 59, Cheapside, London, E.C.2. The list consists of nearly 100 pages of closely printed matter. All the principal cameras and cine apparatus are illustrated and described, and hundreds of bargains are included in the " second-hand ” section of the book. Special terms are offered with the " City Sale ” guarantee. It is a catalogue that every reader of " The A.P.” should obtain forthwith. It will be sent free on application to the above address. Readers of " The A.P.” who have not yet availed themselves of the bargains obtainable at the " Holiday Camera Sale ” at Sands Hunter & Co., 37, Bedford Street, Strand, W.C.2, should do so promptly, and, in any case, should apply for the sale catalogue which will be sent free on application. Bargains in cameras and apparatus from a few shillings upwards are listed. * * * A new photographic studio which gives promise of becoming an art centre in Reading was opened by the Mayoress of Reading last week. It will be known as the Gilbert Adams Studio. Mr. Gilbert Adams is the son of Marcus Adams, the well-known child photographer. We wish the new venture every success. * * * A new catalogue has just been issued by Soho, Ltd., of Soho Square, London, W.i. It contains full particulars of the famous “ Soho ” reflex, and other Soho specialities, made by this firm ; in fact everything for the amateur and pro¬ fessional is included in this list of no pages. A copy will be sent free on application to the above address. 24 92