Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

December 27th, 1933 The AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER a 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER a h etters to the Editor The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of his correspondents . HYPERSENSITIVE ROLL FILM. Sir, — Now that the famous Ilford hypers'ensitive emulsion has made its appearance in the form of flat films, I think I am expressing the desire of a good many miniature picture enthusiasts when I suggest that Ilford, Ltd., should market the same product in the shape of roll films, if only in vest-pocket size. In making this plea, I am thinking particularly of theatre photography, a branch involving essentially the use of miniature picture cameras. With the panchromatic material available in roll film form to-day, it is necessary to use a fairly extreme aperture. There are, of course, two main objections to opening up one’s lens to an abnormal degree; one is the increased possibility of errors in focussing, and the other is a propor¬ tionate decrease in the depth of definition. Now, in propounding the following statement, I should like first of all to make it clear that I stand absolutely open to correction from those more qualified to judge. But I give it as my belief that theatre work is a branch of miniature picture photography that produces fewer enlargements than any other branch in existence. By this I do not mean enlargements up to postcard or quarter-plate, which any properly handled miniature negative ought to produce without a too apparent loss of definition. I am referring more especially to enlarge¬ ments up to and above whole-plate, in which, I repeat, theatre work seems to be singularly deficient. I think everyone who has tried introducing a plate or reflex camera into the stalls or the dress circle will agree that, in so far as amateur work is concerned, the stage remains the property of the tiny camera. It is for this reason, therefore, that I am putting forward such a suggestion with regard to hypersensitive material and V.P. roll films. Emulsion grain can, to a certain degree, be compensated for in development. Diffusion cannot be thus treated. The hypersensitive roll film would, by reason of the smaller apertures it allows, sharpen up the definition and hence produce enlargements hitherto apparently impossible. Trusting that this suggestion will receive some thought. — Yours, etc., N. SHORT. ASTROLOGY AND FACIAL EXPRESSION. Sir, — I am much interested in the Editorial in a recent “ A.P.” concerning “ Facial Expression.” I find that great zest is added to all forms of portraiture by a study of the “ ruling signs ” enumerated by the discredited science of Astrology. The Ancients were penetrating, and even humorous, in their allocation of the stars to the various types of humanity. They claimed, and modern investigation, it may be said, up¬ holds them, that certain signs and planets confer, each, a special cast of feature and its corresponding qualifications. To refer briefly to the examples mentioned, the sign Scorpio belongs to the doctor, and especially to the successful Harley Street practitioner. Is it not simple to connect the whisk of the scorpion’s tail with the injection of serum ? Sagittarius, bestowing the keen eyes, penetration and wit of the archer, rules the lawyer and the politician, and these are linked at times with Harley Street by the planet which belongs to all three in common, Jupiter, the lord of benevolence, affluence, social prowess and pompousness. The auctioneer must possess the “ pushing ” characteristics and self-assurance of Aries ; while the musician is inspired by Venus, and the writer by Mercury. In the light of these ancient studies, the art of portraiture becomes a very absorbing one indeed. — Yours, etc., MARJORIE LIVINGSTON. “ PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY ” OR “CAMERA CLUB.” Sir, — My experience was the opposite to that of “ Ninny,” whose letter appeared in “ The A.P.” of December 6th, and I trust that I may not be misunderstood when I say that whether photographic society or camera club, both, as the result of my experience, suggested to me sociability of a kind for which I have no stomach. A photographic society should have one central interest — photography. Photography should have brought the members together. Sociability, pure and simple, must have a central interest, no matter (at random) whether a dance, a dinner and dance, or a dinner and a concert, or what and why not. But when lectures and so forth, deliberately or otherwise, are for those whose interest in the society or club would flag and sag at once if the " social ” side were not as important as the photo¬ graphic (I take it), what sort of a society or club is it, and who does it cater for ? — Yours, etc., C. S. GRANT. BIG VERSUS SMALL PRINTS. Sir, — Apropos this argument as to the relative virtue of big versus small pictures, the majority of your correspondents seem to ignore the elementary scientific contradictions of the matter. On the one hand oculists have found the normal eye is at its best for reading, picture viewing and close-up work generally at a distance (or focal length) of ten inches from the object. A muscular effort is required to view things at their best, farther or closer, unless one is far or short-sighted. On the other hand, for a photograph to look “ natural,” or have its maximum plastic or stereoscopic effect, it should be viewed as seen by the lens that took it — that is, held the focal length of the lens from the eye. If one is to have contact prints with perfect harmony between the eye and the camera, a lens of ten inches focal length should be used. The majority of photographers find such an objective impracticable on the triple score of bulk, weight and expense. Fortunately, exactly the same satisfactory plastic effect may be obtained by enlarging from the negative of a shorter focus lens by the necessary ratio between the shorter focus and ten inches. If F equals focal length of the lens, and D equals number of diameters of enlargements, then D equals 10 divided by F. Take the Leica with its (roughly) 1 xij in. negative, and the standard 2-in. lens. In this case D equals 5, and the necessary enlargement measures 5 X 7 J in. For an average hand camera with a 4-in. lens, D equals 2 J and a 3 J x 2 J negative is enlarged to X5I, and parts of negatives proportionately. If the reader works out D for his own camera and enlarges accordingly, he will be surprised at the naturalness of the result. The Leica and such precision instruments are designed to give perfectly accurate focussing, so it is of little importance to them whether D equals 2 or 10, but the average hand camera user must not be, disappointed at the fuzziness of some of his results, remembering focussing with him is largely a matter of guess-work. He can always wriggle out of his mistakes by talking largely of soft pictorial effects. The fact that the Leica and other instruments of its class have reduced needle-sharp focussing to a certainty has pro¬ duced the curious paradox that the owners of the smallest cameras are the chief advocates of the big picture, while the bigger camera men express doubts on the matter and quietly keep to contact print size as nearly as possible. — Yours, etc., S. PIERCY. EXPOSURE METERS. Sir, — Without wishing to enter into any controversy with regard to the respective merits of various types of exposure meters I am merely writing, as an old hand, to say that it is news to me that the amount of light falling on any object/and not the amount reflected by it, should be measured. Your correspondent Mr. A. R. Turpin makes this statement, and so did another expert a few weeks ago. I am quite open to conviction, and meantime enclose Messrs. Dallmeyer’s advertisement from your current issue, of two new exposure meters. Are they also wrong when they refer to measurement of “ the light radiated ” from an object to be photographed as that by which the necessary exposure should be determined ? — Yours, etc., DOUGLAS TIMINS. 593 19