The international photographer (Jan-Dec 1935)

May, 1935 The INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER Seven Left — Tit for tat — Karl A. Barleben, Jr., and George V. Moran, both course. Seems that Barleben's camera is a bit larger than Moran's, a which recently arrived in America. — Leicaphoto by Richard E. Stichler. goes in for the bigger things in photography and examines a gian States. This dummy — the camera, of course — is used for show win Leicaphoto by Richard E. Stichler. Upper Right — When candid pho everything in sight, including each other. f:2, 1 /20th second, DuPo Eckes. Lower Right — The man behind the camera — a mirror picture 1 /20th second exposure at f :2. — L of the E. Leitz Organization, shoot each other — photographically, of nd no wonder. It's a giant, three foot advertising display dummy Center— What's this— the Model X Leica? No. Karl A. Barleben, )r., t dummy display Leica three feet long on its arrival in the United dow advertising. Have you seen it in your local dealer's window yet? — tographers get together — you can't keep these boys from shooting nt Superior film, feeble indirect lighting. — Leicaphoto by Dr. Wm. P. made with the aid of one Photoflood lamp. DuPont Superior film, eicaphoto by Karl A. Barleben, Jr. on some which I have come across. One of the most frequent questions has to do with lenses. It is a fine thing for the photographer to realize that his lenses are made of more than just a piece of glass. He should know what focal length is, he should be familiar with his diaphragm stops, and all other relevant matters. But so often I am asked about the construction of the lens, the curvature of the various elements, the amount of absorption, refractive indices, the exact color correction, the composition and formulas of the glass of the various elements, and many other similar questions. To a limited few workers who have special activities in mind, I can see where such questons, if intelligently put, can be of value, but when the average amateur asks such questions out of idle curiosity, I believe it is time to put a stop to it for several reasons, the most important of which is that such information does not in the least assist hm in securing better pictures. Secondly, manufacturers are all agreed that optical information of a technical nature is not to be divulged to the amateur. To begin with, each make and type of lens is built from a different formula and each is made somewhat differently. The relative merits of each may be of some value to the man who is undecided as to which one he needs for his particular work, but even then, questions such as have been just mentioned briefly have no part in such information. Thirdly; lens formulas are patented. It is, frankly, no one's business how a lens is made, or why, or what. The main question is: Does the lens produce the image as the customer wants it? If the answer is yes, that is all he need concern himself with. All lenses today, as offered by reputable manufacturers, are in every way most satisfactory. The beginner need not worry about his optical equipment if it has a well-known trade-mark. There are lenses, however, which produce slightly soft images. Others, in fact most, produce clean-cut, wire-sharpne^. It sometimes happens that an amateur wants a sharp-cutting lens but buys a camera equipped with a slightly soft lens. Not understanding his lens as he should, he complains. Had he an understanding of the lens before he made his purchase, his troubles would never have arisen in the first place. He who wants a sharp lens and gets a soft one, makes the loudest complaint. He also, like as not, starts on an energetic "knocking'' campaign, telling his friends that such and such a lens is no good. Rumors spread, and soon that particular lens has a bad reputation. Now it so happens that some photographers need a soft lens in their work, for example, portraitists. These soft lenses are made for them, and naturally, when a man who wants a sharp lens gets a soft one, he feels wronged. Yet it is all a point of using the proper kind of lens. To illustrate this point, I might mention the Hektor 50mm. f:2.5 lens for the Leica camera. Here is an ideal lens when used for purposes for which it was designed. This lens has had adverse criticism hurled at it during the past few years, although previously it was accepted as a most admirable objective. The true story of the Hektor is that it is slightly soft at wide aperture. When stopped down to f:6.3 or more, however, its sharpness is faultless. When the Summar 50mm. f:2 lens was introduced, the Hektor fell into disfavor because the former boasted of crisp sharpness at all apertures. Nevertheless, before the Summar made its appearance, the Hektor was accepted as a perfect, moderate-speed lens. The Hektor is still a fine lens, especially for those who understand its characteristics and make full use of them. The very slight softness resulting from using it wide open pleases portraitists and pictorialists alike. If crisp sharpness is wanted, it need only be stopped down to f:6.3 or more. But because the Summar and newer designed lenses offer a complete sharpness at all apertures, the Hektor has lost a good deal of favor which it once had. This is a typical example of how popularity can change overnight. Workers attempt to compare the Hektor and Summar, never considering, apparently, that there is a considerable difference in their prices. This is an angle of psychology which is most interesting to study. The public jumps to conclusions without first working out the reason, cause, and effect. The manufacturer, as usual, "gets it in the neck." Technical details about lenses are of no importance, as has been previously mentioned. True, one man made an exhaustive test of representative lenses and published his results in an annual of photography a little over a year ago. His article was illustrated with graphs and charts. Great interest was shown in this work, and ever since manufacturers have been bombarded with questions about their respective lenses. I question the advisability of publishing such material in a generallyread magazine or annual, for it has a decidedly disturbing influence upon the average amateur. He becomes confused and like as not disappointed when he sees how variable lenses really are. When he learns that his particular lens is sharper at one aperture than another he is about to give up, because he didn't know this before. There is an important psychology in all this, and without the amateur having such evidence presented to him, he is supremely happy with his camera. When he sees, however, that his lens has certain characteristics which are not ideal in every respect, he becomes disgruntled. Before he knew this, he was happy with his equipment. Such technical information is really for the opticians and not for amateur photographers. Whether a lens is applicable to certain uses or not is something very definitely within the limits of the amateur, and he should know from the start on authoritative information just what sort of lens he should buy. The rest he can safely leave to the opticians who design and make them. Another question, which might be considered even more serious, concerns itself with emulsions and developing formulas. Here indeed we come into something serious. For example, now and then I receive a letter asking what the resolving power of the photographic emulsion is! To begin with, no particular emulsion, make or type, is indicated. How can anyone answer such a question? Another asks as to what is the best developing formula. No> emulsion is indicated. Now speaking in terms of technique, it is well-known that the best results are obtained by matching the developer to the particular emulsion concerned. The developing time is worked out to conform to a definite gamma, and this, in turn, depends upon the type of subject in the picture and the kind of results expected. Offhand, we might say that there is no "best" of anything. As for developing formulas, the question must be qualified. Is fine (Turn to Page 24) Please mention The International Photographer when corresponding with advertisers.