Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

August 2nd, 1933 The AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER a 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER o Jetters to the Editor The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of his correspondents . A PICTORIAL COINCIDENCE. Sir, — I was most interested in Mr. Dilworth’s data of his picture of the Voltaire-, perhaps you would pass the following particulars on to him. Taken about 4.30 p.m., February 1933, i/25th sec. at f / 4 . 5 , Selo panchromatic roll film, with Alpha filter. Ensign roll-film reflex. I do not know whether Mr. Dilworth is a resident of Liverpool or district ; if he is, and is not already a member, the Liverpool Amateur Photographic Association would be very pleased to welcome him as a member, and I am sure he would find their Tuesday demonstrations both interesting and instructive. Incidentally, I am really only a beginner, and it was through the co-operation and encouragement of some of the more advanced workers which prompted me to submit to your worthy paper. My enthusiasm knew no bounds when I received a Certificate of Merit in the Intermediate Section and then Third in the Advanced. Mr. Dilworth can therefore take a tip — do not suffer from an inferiority complex — send them in, " The A. P.’s” criticisms are worth pounds. Thanking you. —Yours, etc., HANNAH HARTLEY. NEW “ MINIATURE ” CLUB. Sir, — -You will be pleased to hear that the “ Miniature ” correspondence in “ The A.P.” has led to the decision to form at least one new circle in the Photographic Miniature Postal Portfolio, the rules of which club appeared in a letter from C. S. Grant in your issue of 21st June. The formation of the new circle has been entrusted to me, so I shall be pleased to hear from any of your readers who are interested. The letters should be addressed to 18, Ewelme Road, London, S.E.23. All the rules, and the practice of circulating prints no larger than 12 square inches on 7X5 mounts, will be the same as in the original P.M.P.P. — Yours, etc., GEO. A. SLIGHT. “A.P.” ARTICLES. Sir, — In the article “ Round an Old Parish Church,” by Henry Walker, in your issue of June 28th, 1933, the author advises the study of a handbook of architecture. I have come across a most interesting book, History in Stones, by C. E. Statham Norton (Sheldon Press, 3s. 6d.), which contains a wealth of information simply written and profusely illustrated with examples from English — mainly village — churches. Readers who wish to add interest to their photographic rambles which almost invariably include a visit to an old parish church, will find History in Stones an excellent guide. While writing to you I should like to say — as a reader since the early days of "Focus” — how much I still enjoy reading "The A.P. and C.” So many periodicals of to-day seem afraid to begin an article or story in the middle of a page, with the result that concluding portions have to be hunted for through the journal. It is an abominable and exasperating method of presenting reading matter which must annoy countless busy readers. Fitting things in may be one of the trials of an editor’s life, but you, sir, surmount the difficulty, and in consequence give us an eminently readable journal. Long may the old " A.P.” flourish ! — Yours, etc., A. L. SPENCE. EXPOSURE METERS. Sir, — My thanks to several readers for helpful hints on the use of the Justophot. I had discarded mine, but tried again on the fines suggested, with gratifying results. For interiors or dull fight outdoors, an increase of the meter reading of ij or 2 times, for exposures requiring T. or B., seemed requisite. It is hardly fair to the meter to use it for snapshot work on bright snow scenes or strong sunlight. The readings vary in many cases) due to eye strain. The shutter also, although nicely marked in split seconds by the makers in playful mood, may be at variance with actual fact. In addition to faults already dealt with I found, in below-zero weather, that it was necessary to hold my breath while taking an observation, to avoid obscuring the lens by condensation of the same. A wipe with a soft rag was all that was necessary. A companion to this meter, to deal with extremes of fight or dark, is the B.W. Diary. — Yours, etc., ROBERT LEAKE. (Nelson, British Columbia). MINIATURE FILMS. Sir, — May I be allowed to reply to F. G. B.’s letter on " An Experience with Miniature Film ” in a recent issue of “ The A.P.” by protesting against his unqualified condemnation of the results from these small cameras ? As a user of a Leica for over two years, who has exposed several thousand negatives, will he permit me to say that if he has been unable to get a dozen consecutive exposures free from defects it is definitely not the fault of his tools if he has, as he says, followed out instructions closely and used the proper tank and developer. I use the Leica tank and Perinol developer at 1 in 50 strength, temperature 70° for 20 minutes for ortho film and 25 for pan. films, and I (touch wood) have yet to have my first film with markings on it, except for an occasional one caused by the pointed end of the film being allowed to scratch the film during the washing or drying. The remedy is easy. Wash in the tank and clip a weight on the end of film immediately on removing from the tank so that the film cannot roll itself up again. Naturally, drying should not be done in an atmosphere where dust is flying about. But by passing a specially kept soft damp wash-leather down both sides of the film on hangingup, the surplus moisture is removed and drying then takes only a very short time. I have been using Press cameras for thirty years, both focal-plane and reflex, and definitely now prefer my Leica for certainty of result and also quick working. I will guarantee any time to get three good negatives with the Leica while other Pressmen are only getting one and changing their slide. I have actually done this on several occasions on test. The only thing necessary for good reliable results is care right through the proceedings, and I agree that these negatives won’t stand the haphazard treatment some of my earlier Press plates got when pressure of time necessitated my sending the un¬ developed plates to the papers to be developed, and got results that looked as if the negatives had been the ball in a football match. I do not claim to be in any way more competent than the average photographer, and if I can over a space of two years automatically get good clean negatives it must prove that there must be something wrong with F. G. B.’s methods, in spite of his long experience) if he was unable to secure a dozen con¬ secutive good negatives, and I feel his letter should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. I will go to the extent of saying that if I had to go on a long expedition and was only able to take one camera, that camera would be the Leica, and I should have more confidence in the uniformity of results than with any other of my sixteen or so cameras I possess or that are obtainable. One person’s detrimental criticism can do more harm than a hundred persons’ praise, and F. G. B. should have been more sure his own working was blameless before he let loose such an unqualified condemnation of what is one of the most useful types of camera that can be found. There is a limit, we know, to the size of the resulting print that these small cameras will give, but for Press work I enlarge up to whole-plate and 12 X 10, on glossy paper, and for pictorial work I have got really good results up to 36x24 in. — Yours, etc., H. L. KETTLE. 115 23