4 ms·

It took twenty years from prototype to success: > By 1913, Barnack had news to record in his workshop journal: “Lilliput camera for cine film completed.” > Af

by bambax 4y ago

It took twenty years from prototype to success: > By 1913, Barnack had news to record in his workshop journal: “Lilliput camera for cine film completed.” > After World War I postponed the development of Barnack’s 35mm camera, Ernst Leitz II moved forward with the project. > In 1923, Leitz produced 23 Leica 0-Series cameras, which had a fixed 50mm f/3.5 lens. > Released at the Leipzig Spring Fair in 1925, the Leica I (also called the Leica A) began to impress photographers. > By 1933, Leitz had sold 100,000 of its new Leica cameras It's also amazing how long it took to diffuse into the rest of society; in my family in France, people were still buying bizarre and unpractical compact medium format cameras well into the 50s, and used them until the end of the 70s at least. I still have them, and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long.

shrx 4y ago
> ... and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long. Medium format film still provides greater resolution and enables some processing techniques not feasible with 35 mm film, for example making contact prints possible.
2b3a51 4y ago
"I still have them, and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long." Well, I can give you some answers that my dad would type here if he was still around... The folding 120 film camera fits in your pocket [1], takes a wide range of films (slide, negative, different speeds and even with colour different tone characteristics). Many but not all roll film cameras of the 1950s and 60s took 12 square images on a 120 roll. So you did not have to turn the camera sideways at all. The negative is large enough to make contact prints from without an enlarger and give them away to friends and family members. 2¼ inch slides could be viewed in cheap slide viewer that you held up to the window more easily than 35mm. The larger negative area means the images are more forgiving of processing in your bathroom (I used to love the reticulation effects from using water that was too hot), and gives you more potential for cropping if you had an enlarger. The larger size of the camera means that the precision needed in the optical and mechanical parts is slightly lower and so cameras could be cheaper. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+roll+film+camera+balda https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+roll+film+camera+bal... Mind you I used a Pentax and a Nikon like everyone else in the 80s and 90s...
- bambax 4y ago
  Maybe some of this is true but I'm talking of cheap medium format things, with a cheap lens, and nobody in my family (before me) ever processed film in their bathroom. I suspect they bought these because that's what everyone around them bought, without giving it much thought.
  - 2b3a51 4y ago
    True enough, people tend to buy what they see and can afford. We see that even now with laptops &c. My point exposure forgiveness of the larger negative and lower precision requirements in the camera still stands I think. Did your relatives get their photos processed at the chemist? Did they ever get enlargements of selected frames done? (Amazing how the cheaper smart phone has totally changed the way people use photographs - in less than a decade really) PS: don't underestimate the Cooke-Robinson triplet lens stopped down to around f/8. The main issue with the cheapies was flare and the absence of lens coatings.
    - bambax 4y ago
      I'm really talking about my two grand parents. One was an artist that took wonderful pictures that were enlarged and that are still hanging in my home. The other wasn't and his pictures were all out of focus and mostly pointless (and also, yes, many of his pictures had a flare which rendered half of it over exposed ;-)
      - 2b3a51 4y ago
        50% is a pretty good success rate! Have a look at the grain pattern in one of the enlarged prints. Cheers
- kranke155 4y ago
  I am also not sure whether good quality low grain film was likely easier to achieve in 120 format? Bigger film - low grain. And since the lenses were bigger, perhaps also easier to manufacture vs high quality low size high precision 35mm lenses ?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MarkusWandel 4y ago
Could it simply be the prints? When my dad briefly played with 35mm photography while working in 1950s Switzerland, what you got by default when you had your film developed was contact strips. I guess enlargements were made by hand, and thus expensive, so the contact strips were it, for those photos (and of course my mom threw out the negatives about 40 years later, right before my siblings and I got into b&w photography with darkroom equipment and all). I can totally see the local photofinisher just making contact prints of those medium format pictures, and those going into the album, and... well, we've always done it this way, why change?
Finnucane 4y ago
In the 1930s, Argus created a line of cheap Leica knockoffs that were quite popular, selling millions over a few decades. Agfa got into the 35mm game fairly early. 120 cameras tended to be either cheap instamatic-type cameras, or high end pro cameras like Rolleiflexes. Japanese makers like Nikon and Konica introduced high quality 35mm rangefinders pretty soon after they could scale up the postwar manufacturing.
numpad0 4y ago
120/220(6x6 medium) films produce much better image than 135(35mm). 135 films are already much better than more modern, smaller formats, but it is a compromise downwards from mediums.
- trm42 4y ago
  One thing that's forgotten nowadays is that the old and even older 35mm films were a lot more grainier the ones we have now. 35mm started to gain bigger traction in the 60s and after that as the film stocks improved. Also 24-36 photos for the same price are probably more inviting compared to medium format's 10-16 photos depending on the frame size. I love to shoot medium format but have couple of 35mm cameras laying around although the 36 frame rolls are too much for me and I decided that when I get the current 35mm stash shot, I'll buy bulk loader, empty containers and start creating that 10-16 frame rolls to get the amount sane and rolls developed more quickly.
cesaref 4y ago
Leicas were always expensive cameras - I think in the 30s we're talking the equivalent of a months wages, so these were never made and marketed as consumer products for the average consumer. The professionals at the time were using 5x4, so things like the Crown Graphic for press photography, or rolleiflex TLRs shooting to 120 format film. There were a number of relatively cheap TLRs about, and the folding cameras you refer to, both using 120 format (which I think Kodak launched in 1901, so predating Barnack's work). It's not clear to me when 35mm became ubiquitous. The growth of cheap consumer cameras came post world war II from Japan and Germany as their hi-tech industry was repurposed. In addition, post WWII people as a whole didn't have disposable income for consumer purchases, and we're really looking at the mid to late 50s before things start booming.
- anta40 4y ago
  I think lots of photojournalists in the 60s switched to 35mm because it allowed them to shoot more frames, and 35mm is sufficient for newspaper. On the otherside, pros working for magazine/fashion industry/etc still used medium/large format.

by bambax 4y ago

shrx 4y ago

> ... and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long. Medium format film still provides greater resolution and enables some processing techniques not feasible with 35 mm film, for example making contact prints possible.

2b3a51 4y ago

"I still have them, and it's a mystery why anyone would subject to that when 35mm film had been available for so long." Well, I can give you some answers that my dad would type here if he was still around... The folding 120 film camera fits in your pocket [1], takes a wide range of films (slide, negative, different speeds and even with colour different tone characteristics). Many but not all roll film cameras of the 1950s and 60s took 12 square images on a 120 roll. So you did not have to turn the camera sideways at all. The negative is large enough to make contact prints from without an enlarger and give them away to friends and family members. 2¼ inch slides could be viewed in cheap slide viewer that you held up to the window more easily than 35mm. The larger negative area means the images are more forgiving of processing in your bathroom (I used to love the reticulation effects from using water that was too hot), and gives you more potential for cropping if you had an enlarger. The larger size of the camera means that the precision needed in the optical and mechanical parts is slightly lower and so cameras could be cheaper. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+roll+film+camera+balda https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+roll+film+camera+bal... Mind you I used a Pentax and a Nikon like everyone else in the 80s and 90s...

bambax 4y ago
Maybe some of this is true but I'm talking of cheap medium format things, with a cheap lens, and nobody in my family (before me) ever processed film in their bathroom. I suspect they bought these because that's what everyone around them bought, without giving it much thought.
- 2b3a51 4y ago
  True enough, people tend to buy what they see and can afford. We see that even now with laptops &c. My point exposure forgiveness of the larger negative and lower precision requirements in the camera still stands I think. Did your relatives get their photos processed at the chemist? Did they ever get enlargements of selected frames done? (Amazing how the cheaper smart phone has totally changed the way people use photographs - in less than a decade really) PS: don't underestimate the Cooke-Robinson triplet lens stopped down to around f/8. The main issue with the cheapies was flare and the absence of lens coatings.
  - bambax 4y ago
    I'm really talking about my two grand parents. One was an artist that took wonderful pictures that were enlarged and that are still hanging in my home. The other wasn't and his pictures were all out of focus and mostly pointless (and also, yes, many of his pictures had a flare which rendered half of it over exposed ;-)
    - 2b3a51 4y ago
      50% is a pretty good success rate! Have a look at the grain pattern in one of the enlarged prints. Cheers
kranke155 4y ago
I am also not sure whether good quality low grain film was likely easier to achieve in 120 format? Bigger film - low grain. And since the lenses were bigger, perhaps also easier to manufacture vs high quality low size high precision 35mm lenses ?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MarkusWandel 4y ago

Could it simply be the prints? When my dad briefly played with 35mm photography while working in 1950s Switzerland, what you got by default when you had your film developed was contact strips. I guess enlargements were made by hand, and thus expensive, so the contact strips were it, for those photos (and of course my mom threw out the negatives about 40 years later, right before my siblings and I got into b&w photography with darkroom equipment and all). I can totally see the local photofinisher just making contact prints of those medium format pictures, and those going into the album, and... well, we've always done it this way, why change?

Finnucane 4y ago

In the 1930s, Argus created a line of cheap Leica knockoffs that were quite popular, selling millions over a few decades. Agfa got into the 35mm game fairly early. 120 cameras tended to be either cheap instamatic-type cameras, or high end pro cameras like Rolleiflexes. Japanese makers like Nikon and Konica introduced high quality 35mm rangefinders pretty soon after they could scale up the postwar manufacturing.

numpad0 4y ago

120/220(6x6 medium) films produce much better image than 135(35mm). 135 films are already much better than more modern, smaller formats, but it is a compromise downwards from mediums.

trm42 4y ago
One thing that's forgotten nowadays is that the old and even older 35mm films were a lot more grainier the ones we have now. 35mm started to gain bigger traction in the 60s and after that as the film stocks improved. Also 24-36 photos for the same price are probably more inviting compared to medium format's 10-16 photos depending on the frame size. I love to shoot medium format but have couple of 35mm cameras laying around although the 36 frame rolls are too much for me and I decided that when I get the current 35mm stash shot, I'll buy bulk loader, empty containers and start creating that 10-16 frame rolls to get the amount sane and rolls developed more quickly.

cesaref 4y ago

Leicas were always expensive cameras - I think in the 30s we're talking the equivalent of a months wages, so these were never made and marketed as consumer products for the average consumer. The professionals at the time were using 5x4, so things like the Crown Graphic for press photography, or rolleiflex TLRs shooting to 120 format film. There were a number of relatively cheap TLRs about, and the folding cameras you refer to, both using 120 format (which I think Kodak launched in 1901, so predating Barnack's work). It's not clear to me when 35mm became ubiquitous. The growth of cheap consumer cameras came post world war II from Japan and Germany as their hi-tech industry was repurposed. In addition, post WWII people as a whole didn't have disposable income for consumer purchases, and we're really looking at the mid to late 50s before things start booming.

anta40 4y ago
I think lots of photojournalists in the 60s switched to 35mm because it allowed them to shoot more frames, and 35mm is sufficient for newspaper. On the otherside, pros working for magazine/fashion industry/etc still used medium/large format.