Saturday, February 25, 2012

LUNAR LEICA


An interesting, but relatively unknown fact is that NASA initially had chosen the Leica M4 as the camera to be used on their lunar missions.  The reason was weight.  Of all the systems for the Apollo missions, one could never be tested because of the low gravity of the moon.  That was the take-off module.  To gain as much of a weight advantage as possible, NASA did everything they could to save as weight.  That included the camera equipment.  The Leica M4 with 35mm f/1.4 Summilux was definitely lighter than anything Hasselblad, their regular camera of choice, had to offer.  Leitz modified several cameras and lenses to feature large levers to allow camera operation with the bulky gloves of the space suits.  The astronauts chosen for the lunar missions all received extensive training in the use of the camera.

Yet, as is common knowledge, the Leica never made it to the moon.  The credit goes to one engineer who figured out that the interchangeable film backs for the Hasselblad were lighter than the M4 with its Summilux lens.  Subsequently NASA decided to use the Hasselblad after all.  The Saturn 5 rockets had no problem delivering the payload to the moon.  For the return trip it was subsequently decided to remove the film backs from the cameras and to leave the cameras on the moon where they still reside today.  A total of 12 Hasselblad cameras are sitting in the lunar dust, ready to be picked up. 

An intriguing question is if they might be still able to operate properly after all these years in the extremely harsh environment of the lunar surface.



For more info on the Leica-NASA connection got to:

LEICA WITH SPECTOGRAPH USED BY NASA

LEICA M3 ON ENDEAVOUR SHUTTLE MISSION

NASA LEICA Ig

LUNAR LEICA – UPDATE WITH PICTURES

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST




Friday, February 24, 2012

FUTURE ARTICLES


I am currently working on the following articles:

OSCAR BARNACK
An account of his early education, the circumstance that lead to his employment at Ernst Leitz, the development of the Leica, including how the Leica came to be - in his own words, and his life in Wetzlar.

MAX BEREK
An interview of Max Berek from 1949

MANUFACTURE AND PERFORMANCE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC LENSES
An extensive look at the manufacture of Leica lenses and lenses in general, with a lot of information what Leica does to set themselves apart from the competition.

NIGHTLIFE IN THE CAMERA WORLD
A tongue in cheek look at where our cameras actually come from

ERNST LEITZ CANDA Ltd
A look at ELCAN under Leitz/Leica ownership

FILM v. DIGITAL
A down to earth comparison of the two approaches to photography

OPTICAL GLASSES
A relatively easy to understand look at what it takes to make the glasses out lenses are made of.

ZEISS HOLOGON
An unusual lens for the Leica

… and more.

COMMENTS


I t is gratifying to see the number of readers of this blog after only a few days on the net.  To me that indicates that the interest in Leica is as great as ever.  Of course I will continue to post new articles that will be of interest, I hope.  However, to possibly reach a broader audience, I would like to invite all to post articles and information that you consider to be of interest and I further would like all readers to comment on the articles that are being posted.  It is feedback like that which will ultimately make this blog that much more interesting.

How Kodak Succumbed to the Digital Age


A Century on Film

By Ullrich Fichtner

The most important moments of the 20th century were captured on Kodak film. But the once-dominant American company could not compete in the digital age. Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy has left the company's remaining employees with uncertain futures.

Robert Shanebrook pulls his Dodge minivan up to an immense building in snow-covered Kodak Park, in Rochester, New York, and says: "These days they make spaghetti sauce here." He takes pains to sound morose, as if he wanted his words to bridge the entire period since the day, more than 40 years ago, when he first came to Kodak as a young engineer. Back then, the company was building the camera that would capture the images of the Apollo 11 mission, which delivered perhaps one of the greatest "Kodak Moments" of all time, or pictures of the first men on the moon and of our planet seen from space.

Shanebrook, a tall, gray-haired man with a scraggly beard, wears hiking boots. He's kept active since retiring from Kodak in 2003. For 35 wonderful years, he had the privilege of working -- and traveling the world -- for the company. He was at Kodak in the 1990s, when its shares were worth as much as $70 (€54) each. He was there in the 1980s, when the company employed more than 30,000 people in this city on Lake Ontario. At that time, the employees' biggest worry was finding a parking spot near where they worked on the sprawling campus of 195 buildings.

"It's hard to imagine nowadays," Shanebrook grumbles. He drives his Dodge across snow-covered parking lots that are much larger than football fields but only have a few cars in them. These days, Kodak employs fewer than 7,000 people in Rochester, and the news from the 19-story corporate headquarters at 343 State Street is devastating. On Jan. 19, or two days before our trip with Shanebrook, the company was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. "Did I cry?" Shanebrook asks. "No. Was I shocked? Yes. And I still haven't recovered from it."

The very next day, published reports indicated that panic was spreading in Rochester. Newspaper editorialists cast Kodak's move as yet another symbol of the dismal state of affairs in America. Others said Kodak served as an example of a company that had disregarded the signs of the times -- and only had itself to blame for having dozed its way to doom.

However, none of these interpretations is correct. If anything, Kodak symbolizes the deep-seated structural changes that have taken place across the world in recent years. Indeed, the story of Kodak is not a simple parable of rise and fall. Instead, it is a complex tale with an ending that is more comforting than one would initially expect.

From Small to Huge to Nothing

If you were to turn back the hands of time to almost any point over the last 132 years, you would come across Kodak without having to look for long -- and often without even realizing it. The red-and-yellow logo and yellow film boxes were as much a part of everyday life in the West as Coca-Cola. Indeed, film made in Rochester was the universal storage medium for pictures from weddings, holidays and vacations long before the dawning of 12-megapixel digital cameras and wafer-thin smartphones.

All around the world, people immortalized themselves on Kodacolor, the first "true color negative film," introduced in 1942. Later, they put Ektachrome slides in gray plastic frames and flimsy carousels. Eventually, they would use Kodachrome, the film its creators claimed could see "better than the human eye" and which, according to the Paul Simon song of the same name, "makes you think all the world's a sunny day."

Kodak was at the heart of all the world's images. Company founder George Eastman was hailed as the Steve Jobs of his era, and Kodak was its Google. In 1900, Eastman gave the world's consumers the "Brownie," the first relatively portable photographic camera for the everyman. The Brownie would change our view of the world forever and spawned an amazingly novel -- and profitable -- business idea: While selling its cameras cheaply and in bulk, Kodak made a killing by developing the film that went in them.
This ingenious model paid off handsomely for exactly a century and, in 1999, the company enjoyed record profits of $2.5 billion. For one, last time, the company could look back with satisfaction on a century of having decisively shaped the world of images.

Indeed, Rochester produced far more than the raw materials needed to take photographs. It made film for X-ray photography, microfiches for archives, reels of 16mm and 35mm movie stock, and film for Super 8 video cameras. Slide projectors were manufactured in huge numbers, as were video cassettes, lithium batteries and floppy disks for the first desktop computers.

In all those decades, Kodak literally flooded the market with newer and newer cameras. In fact, it wasn't unusual to see the company launch 20 or even 30 new products a year. And then there were printers, photocopiers, recordable CDs, disposable cameras, photosensitive paper and films of all kinds.
Kodak was everywhere. Between 1928 and 2008, every single movie to win the Oscar for best film was shot on Kodak stock. The fact that this honor has gone to Fujifilm every year since 2009 says a lot. But it says even more that cinematic production will soon be able to do away with film stock altogether by becoming completely digitized.

Only the Best for the Best

In that earlier, carefree era, Robert Shanebrook had the best job the company had to offer. As a research engineer, he worked on optimizing the films used by professional photographers. His products had names like Portra and TX and, since they were the latest and greatest thing in the world of photography, they were tested by the century's greatest photographers. Shanebrook visited these master craftsmen the world over -- in Brazil, Uganda, France, Japan, Mexico and Singapore. He brought them prototypes for trials in the field and the studio and solicited their feedback.

He watched Ansel Adams at work, he discussed kernel sizes with Sebastião Salgado, and he listened to what Steve McCurry and Eric Meola had to say about color saturation and contrast. Shanebrook was constantly flying around the world to deliver new films, only to return four weeks later to collect them. And, when he wasn't flying, he was rubbing elbows with all the artists and reporters who immortalized the world's wars and crises, who shot the famous portraits of Hemingway and Kennedy, and who captured the poses of Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren for posterity. Shanebrook helped the people who created the images that were first etched into the emulsion of Kodak film and then into our collective memory.

Shanebrook is a man of few words when discussing his work at Kodak because he doesn't want to make his role sound overly important. He cares more about a thin book he published himself. With many pictures and few words, he provides an extremely detailed description of how film is manufactured. It is a technical manual, though one as dated as the processes it describes.

Nevertheless, reading it, you marvel at the amazing abilities of the Kodak plants, at the light-sensitive layers they put on films at a speed of 300 meters (1,000 feet) per minute. The films themselves were actually made up of a dozen layers and yet were only 0.06 millimeters (0.002 inches) thick. Shanebrook has sold a thousand copies of his book. The rest are stacked in huge piles around his house.

Nostalgia and Pride

During our drive through Kodak Park, Shanebrook ponders questions more fundamental than technical: How could his company have gone bust? How was it possible for a company to go out of business when, in the 1970s, it was making fully 90 percent of all the films exposed in the United States and 85 percent of all the cameras sold? Could such a thing really happen to one of the most valuable and well-known brands of the entire 20th century? How did Kodak miss the dawn of the digital era? How could a company that had always been one of the world's most innovative, implode so dramatically that its share price fell to below 50 cents at the start of the year, prompting the company to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange? If you want to know the answers to these questions, you must be prepared for a few surprises. To start with, who would have believed that it was actually Kodak that developed the world's first digital camera in 1975? Robert Shanebrook recalls seeing the first prototype and can describe its size with his hands. Together with all its parts, the device was about three times as large as a shoe box. The camera, which was invented by Kodak engineer Steve Sasson, took a single, appalling black-and-white photo comprising a total of 0.01 digital megapixels. Likewise, Shanebrook remembers that saving the image took a full eight minutes rather than the mere 28 seconds one can find people claiming online. For these reasons, Sasson's device didn't seem like a very marketable product.

But the Kodak technicians continued researching and doggedly improving the sensors that would soon be found in military equipment and, later, in both Nikon and Leica cameras, the latter costing as much as a car. Indeed, executives in Rochester weren't dozing off. Rather, they were wide awake -- but facing a nightmare scenario.

A One-Way Street to Oblivion

Larry Matteson, another Kodak veteran, remembers those days well. Matteson was a manager in the company for many years, and even a senior vice-president. Today, he is a professor at Simon Business School at the University of Rochester. Four years after the invention of the digital camera, Matteson was tasked with drafting a report about the future of digital technology for the company's executive board. In hindsight, his report seems almost prophetically accurate.

Matteson tells me by telephone about the report he made more than 30 years ago. Judging by his voice and the picture on the university's website, one would think he's a good-humored elderly gentleman. Back in 1979, he summarized the prospects for digital photography in a series of rapidly rising exponential graphs. The graphs showed that -- inevitably, if not immediately -- all the products Kodak had been successful at selling -- film, photos and cameras -- would switch from analog to digital by 2010 at the latest. The world as Kodak knew it was destined to vanish, and its business would shrink to practically nothing. Almost overnight, Kodak found itself heading down what seemed like a one-way street to oblivion.

From an objective point of view, there were two particular things that the company did extremely well: First, Kodak was a world leader in organic chemistry. And, second, thanks to its unparalleled experience in making films, it had become expert in coating surfaces of all kinds with extreme precision and at lightning speed. "But you can already see where that was heading," Matteson says. "Both were qualities that were no longer needed in the production of digital images."

After focusing on chemicals and film for several decades, it would have probably been impossible -- if not insane in business terms -- for Kodak to try to reinvent itself as an electronics company. What's more, its film business was still booming in the late 1970s and promised to bring in outstanding profits for many years to come.

In addition, it was easy to figure out that the meager margins of the digital market could never hope to match those of analog film or to keep a company like Kodak above water. Thus, as many as 30 years ago, Kodak seemed to have one of two choices: to commit suicide right away or to put it off until later.

Digitalized to Death

"The mistake," Matteson says, "if you want to talk about a mistake at all, was that Kodak could never separate itself from the notion of being a company about images." There were apparently repeated, although half-hearted, attempts to reorganize the company and completely change its direction. Every new board came up with a different strategy. Kodak invested in the hope of expanding its chemicals division into the pharmaceuticals business. It also spent a lot of money trying to dominate the market in digital printing -- a plan that was pursued, abandoned and then revived once again.

Bad luck also played a part in the company's eventual demise. Kodak tried extremely hard to survive the competition between analog and digital technology. It scaled back its film production in as controlled a manner as possible, while ratcheting up its digital capacities. As a result, Kodak was the leading manufacturer of digital cameras on the American market as recently as 2005.

Unfortunately, the next technological leap was just around the corner, and the first smartphones were already replacing digital cameras. Indeed, people soon stopped using normal cameras to take photographs, preferring instead to snap pictures on their phones. This, in turn, triggered a race to the bottom in terms of camera prices and, by 2007, Kodak had slipped to fourth place on the American camera market. Three years later, it was seventh. One by one, Canon, Sony, Nikon and all the other camera manufactures overtook Kodak. Their products were just as good or better, and they looked nicer, more colorful and fresher.

In Tokyo, managers at the rival company Fujifilm came upon the idea of converting their chemical business into a cosmetics one. But Kodak executives couldn't come up with a radical solution that could save their company. Other similarly outside-the-box suggestions -- like using their outstanding coating technology to print wallpaper or to manufacture sandpaper or Post-it notes -- were only given brief consideration before being dismissed as undignified. Rochester was gripped by an understandable but still fatal attitude: They had given the world pictures from the surface of the moon, they reasoned, so someone else could give it wallpaper.

A Rosy Future for Rochester

Visiting Rochester today, you find a city that seems like no stranger to bad news. The downtown area is a collection of office towers, many of which are for sale. Streets are filled with cars, but there are only a few people on the sidewalks. The skyline is dominated by office blocks belonging to Xerox, Bausch & Lomb and Chase Bank. Kodak's headquarters is also downtown, though a bit off to one side, and it can be seen from afar, especially at night, when its old-fashioned logo shines brightly in fiery red.
From there, it's just a few hundred steps to the point where the Genesee River plunges 30 meters (100 feet) into the heart of the city. The base of the waterfall is surrounded by crumbling, abandoned factories older than Kodak's, the remnants of early 19th-century Rochester. The city has long sought to transform the ruins into a fashionable nightlife district, but the efforts thus far have failed. Restaurants and bars have opened up only to close a few months later.

Still, Rochester is doing far better than its cityscape suggests. One reason for this is the fact that Kodak's decline has been rather drawn out. A slew of Kodak executives and researchers left the company to start their own businesses rather than manning the bridge as the ship was sinking. The behemoth that had once, like a Soviet collective, done everything itself -- including printing and folding its own cardboard boxes -- gradually broke apart into smaller units.

Kodak's decline has brought healthy change to the city by spawning new businesses whose products are better-suited to 21st-century needs. One corner of the industrial zone has been taken over by the Eastman Business Park, which Kodak holds a stake in. This cluster of 35 companies already reportedly employs a total of 6,500 people. If correct, this figure almost matches Kodak's remaining workforce in Rochester.
Johnson & Johnson is developing medical-diagnostic tools in the park, while LiDestri Foods is cooking up huge amounts of spaghetti sauce in the massive structure on Lee Road. But there are also small and mid-sized firms with between five and 50 employees. These include the solar-cell company Natcore Technology and Cerion Energy, which was founded by former Kodak employees who have developed a diesel additive that is supposed to dramatically lower fuel consumption.

Given these developments, it would be a stretch to say that Rochester is almost panicky about its future. The city is home to a respected university as well as the Rochester Institute of Technology, which is sometimes mentioned in the same breath as MIT, its illustrious counterpart in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In fact, the future actually looks rosy in Rochester: The region now employs half a million people, fully a fifth more than were there in Kodak's heyday, and unemployment is below the national average.

The Golden Age

The success stories of the 21st century are more fleeting, modest, less spectacular and less heroic than those associated with Kodak. Indeed, at the very end, the company proved to be a rather crazy organization whose corporate culture in the glory days seemed almost socialist. Robert Shanebrook recalls how Kodak was an "all-inclusive" business: It paid its former employees pensions, it offered free medical treatment and it even helped organize leisure-time activities for its employees. The Dodge minivan rolls past the front of Building 28 on West Ridge Road. Inside the immense, windowless brick structure are gyms and sporting halls in which employees used to play basketball and volleyball. In the golden age, it also had hobby rooms for stamp collectors, cameras were lent out free of charge, and 50 darkrooms were reserved for workers to use for their own purposes. During lunchbreaks, 20-minute segments of Hollywood movies were shown in the almost 2,000-seat auditorium; over the course of a week, employees could see the entire film.
The city used to boast a free dental clinic funded by Kodak-founder George Eastman. Today, it is dilapidated and has its windows boarded up. But the Eastman Theater and the Eastman School of Music are still there and in good condition, as is Eastman's former house on the chic East Avenue, home to the city's most beautiful and bizarre villas.

The living room boasts a life-size cast of an elephant head that Eastman brought back from Africa as a trophy. But the house contains one of the world's most important photography and film museums, including the private film collections of Martin Scorsese, Norman Jewison and Spike Lee. More than 4,000 historic cameras are also stored there, as are priceless photographs from the American Civil War, as are prints developed personally by EugĆØne Atget and Alfred Stieglitz, photos that link the 19th to the 21st century and are so valuable because they are so rare.

The most remarkable document is the farewell letter that Eastman, then old and sick, penned in 1932 before shooting himself in the heart with a Luger pistol. The note, which is displayed in a glass case, is only three lines long, and could be read like words of comfort for the doomed Kodak of today: "To my friends. My work is done. Why wait?"

A Circuitous Route Back in Time

So what is Kodak waiting for? If it's going to survive, it will need a miracle. As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, the company has been given another $950 million in loans from Citigroup to try to get its finances in order within the next 18 months. Management hopes Kodak can become successful again with printers, but that doesn't seem all that convincing because Kodak has always been about pictures. No matter how wonderful they've been, all stories have to end. And perhaps that's also sometimes the case with companies, as well.

Indeed, the story of Kodak pictures has already ended, and a new story is beginning. But this new story is one told by the torrent of digital snapshots flooding the Web by the billions. Likewise, little is "immortalized" anymore. Despite the wealth of images, fewer and fewer pictures are being printed. In a way, the world is taking an unusual path back to the very beginnings of photography.

In general, people who are in their 90s today have, at best, only a few photographs of their own childhood. Thanks to Kodacolor, today's 60-year-olds have a somewhat larger picture archive. Forty-year-olds already have a photographic record of at least the key moments in their lives, often captured on Ektachrome slides by their parents. However, the children born in the 21st century have been photographed so often that their lives could be charted almost in their entirety by a biographical flip-book of these snapshots -- that is, if the pictures were ever printed.

Strangely enough, despite the flood of digital pictures, moments are becoming fleeting again. "I'm always telling people that they should make paper prints," Shanebrook says. "Otherwise, in 10 years, they won't have any pictures anymore." Shanebrook may have a point. The snapshots we send out today by email are easily lost, and our virtual folders of digital images are constantly threatened both as we move from one computer to the next and by the technological advances racing along at an ever-faster pace.

Perhaps the future will have less need for quality printed photos. And perhaps people will be satisfied with recording their world and their lives with shots taking spontaneously and more or less on the fly.
If so, it might just be that the 20th century will be the best-documented era ever, archived in countless photo albums and slide boxes as well as on movie films, postcards and artfully printed posters. It will be a century that has been captured, a century immortalized.

And, of course, we'll owe it all to Kodak.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

CONTROL OF BACKGROUND BRIGHTNESS IN OUTDOOR PORTRAITURE


By Heinz Richter


Most photographers have the misconception that outdoor portraiture allows no control over background brightness.  After all, the sun, the only light source, illuminates the subject and the background with the same intensity.  However, some simple methods do offer considerable changes in background brightness.

In bright sunlight, subject and background will be exposed the same if both the subject and the background are both lit by direct light.  Obviously, this cannot be changed for the background.  We do, however, have considerable control over the illumination of the model’s face.  Positioning the model such that it is backlit will put the face in a relatively deep shade.  Correcting the exposure for the face requires more exposure.  This of course also means more exposure for the background, with the result that the background will be substantially lighter.  This is referred to as key shifting.  The relatively flat lighting on the face of the model might be less than ideal and side lighting might be a lot more desirable.  Repositioning the model to allow side lighting from the sun will bring the exposure of the background back to normal since again both, the light side of the face and the background are lit with the same intensity.  However, positioning the model next to a tree will lower the light intensity substantially.  In addition, the side of the face facing the tree will be shaded from the ambient light under the tree, allowing the other side of the face to be lighter.  This will effectively create soft side lighting.  Again, the light intensity on the model’s face is substantially lower than with direct sunlight.  The resulting exposure correction will again overexpose the background, resulting in a substantially lighter background.

What if no trees are available? 

Any location shoot can only be successful with careful planning ahead.  The choice of location will of course predetermine if natural gobos like trees etc. are available.  If not, some simple accessories can create the same effects.  A piece of black foam core makes a great substitute for the tree.  The illumination of the face in these cases is totally dependent on the intensity of the ambient light.  Much greater control, and subsequently control over background brightness in the photograph can be exercised with the help of scrims or diffusers.  Positioning the model such that the face is crosslit by the sun, and then placing a scrim between the model and the sun will do the following: First of all, the light will be a lot softer, since the harsh sunlight is now diffused.  In addition, the scrim will absorb a certain amount of the light, again making it necessary to expose more, which again will render the background lighter.  A second or third scrim will of course lower the exposure values on the model even more, making the background even lighter.  Yet, the lighting ratio between the lit and the unlit side of the face is again dependent on the ambient light level.  Control can be exercised here by blocking the ambient light on the shaded side of the face with gobos at varying distances, subsequently allowing a large amount of control over the final lighting ratio.

How bright the background will be in the photograph will be very much dependent on what we choose for a background in the first place.  Needless to say, if a very light background is desired, anything dark like pine trees would be a bad choice to begin with.  A relatively light background, like sunlit grassy areas can be rendered quite light with the above method.  Sand on a beach, on the other hand, can be rendered virtually white by applying the above controls.

The next question is how to make the background darker.  Is that at all possible?  Of course it is, within reason.

Here again, the initial choice of background will make a huge difference.  But, besides that, there are additional means to effectively render the background darker.  Again, the basic light source is sunlight.  In order to render the background darker, it is necessary to increase the light level for the model.  The resulting exposure changes will then underexpose the background by a certain amount, making it darker.  As long as the model’s face is lit by direct sunlight, the initial exposure values for the face and the background are the same.  However, reflectors like silver reflectors, positioned to add light to the model, will also increase the exposure value for the model.  This also allows a certain amount of control over the lighting ratios.  The face, lit evenly with sunlight, will be lighter on one side if that is where the light from a reflector is aimed.  Another method would be to have side lighting from the sun and then using reflectors to add front lighting to the face.  Not only will this lighten the shadows, making them less harsh, but it will also add light to the sunlit side of the face.  This too will increase the exposure value of the face.  Again, the resulting exposure correction will underexpose the background, making it darker.  How much darker will ultimately depend on the efficiency of the reflector material.  Using diffusing reflector material is generally desirable, because it will not cause any distinct shadows like a highly reflective material like a mirror would.  This allows more than one such reflector to be used, which would increase the light level for the model even more, resulting in an even darker background.  Multiple reflectors will also allow considerable control over the final lighting ratio, since they can be used to add various amounts of light to both the light and darker side of the face.  In addition, a reflector can also be used to add a hair light to the set, if such should be necessary.

The above examples are meant to explain the basic approaches available to a photographer to control background brightness with outdoor shoots.  I am sure that there are many more examples of how this can be done and how the use of scrims and gobos can offer e great measure of lighting control with outdoor shoots.  Photography is, without a doubt, an ongoing learning experience and often there is more than one solution to a problem.

ELCAN (ERNST LEITZ CANADA) UNDER WATER SYSTEM

The following is part of a documentary about ELCAN - Ernst Leitz Canada

Besides the manufacture of cameras and lenses, ELCAN was also very much involved in the manufacture of military equipment.  One of the most unusual military developments was an underwater camera system which Leitz developed for the US Navy.  It primarily consisted of a complete set of lenses for underwater work, not only for 35mm cameras but also for medium format, 16mm motion picture and TV cameras.  These were rather unique lenses because they were not part of a camera that was simply put into a water tight housing.  Instead the lenses were designed to be exposed to the water with their front element.  The usual way of using under water housings for conventional cameras usually incorporate standard lenses that are designed to work in air.  For thoseLeitz/Leica even takes the refractive index of air into consideration when designing their lenses.


     35mm System

    Motion Picture or Video system


    Three Lenses with the common Water contact Front Element

The Leitz under water system instead was designed according to the refractive index of water.  As a matter of fact, since this system was to be used primarily in salt water, it was the refractive index of salt water that was used in the design of these lenses.  However, not all oceans have the same salinity.  So Leitz went one step further and took the refractive index of the salinity of the various oceans into consideration.  This was possible with an interchangeable front element of their water contact lenses.  This overall design actually considered the water as an integral lens element of the entire system.   To avoid the need to test these lenses in the various oceans all over the world, Leitz built a large water tank that could be flooded with water of the appropriate salinity.

The correction of these lenses was so good that, when water is clear enough, there is no way of telling that the pictures were taken under water.  Leitz was the first company to suggest such a design. 
What is even more amazing is the fact that the thick water contact front element is so strong that the lenses can be used in the greatest ocean depths without any problems at all, including the deepest part on earth, the 36,200 feet deep Challenger Deep of the Mariana Trench.

Leica 110 ZOOM SLR


A LEICA WE WILL NEVER SEE

For those Leica people for whom there is a fascination with things developed but not made by Leitz, we have the following example of Leitz' photographic research and development:

About the only thing we really know about the Leica 110 is that it was never be marketed.  Very little is known about the research that went into the camera.  Even the patent registrations provide little insight. 

Back in September of 1975 Leitz filed for a US patent on a 110 format SLR camera.  The design incorporated a zoom lens.

The light would enter at one corner of the camera, but after passing through the front element group, was reflected 90° to the remaining lens elements.  A second prism reflected light to a beam splitter that allowed most of the light to pass on to the film while providing some to the viewfinder.

We were unable to determine if any prototypes were made.

Leica 110 SLR as shown on patent application

LETTERS TO LEICA

The following are actual letters received by Leica over the years.  We reprint them verbatim (no, those aren't our typos):

“Please allow me to ask if it is possible fro you to send a 'Leica' for my disposal in trade for business.  I am offering the following: Insurance of all kind, private hospitalization insurance and Laundry Detergent.  In case you are interested in one or the other...”

“I have three magnifying glasses in average of 10cm diameter, and a close-up set of 5.5.5 and 5.5 cm diameter.  Are you able to make a binocular out of this?  I think it is best to reduce the size of the glass to that of a binocular or photo.  I assume you have binocular housings?”

“Both my Leica cameras were stolen, both cameras black in a briefcase with 1 pound of sausage, ¼ pound butter half a loaf of bread and Leica films (a lady in half figure pose with and without fur.  Lady appr. 50 years).”

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

YOUSUF KARSH REVISITED


I have always been a great fan of Yousuf Karsh.  While some might argue about his work, his mastery of photographic techniques should be undisputed, especially when it comes to black and white.  The quality of his prints is amazing which, of course, is partially due to his use of large format camera equipment.

A while ago I decided to see how close in terms of sharpness, tonality and overall look I could come by using a Leica.  I chose my Leica M6 with a 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit.  As a film I used Agfapan APX 25 which I still consider one of the best 35mm black and white films ever to run through my camera.  While Kodak Technical Pan might have shown a bit higher resolution, I felt that the Agfapan was superior in terms of overall tonality.  The film was rated at ISO 25 and developed in Agfa Rodinal 1:100 for 16 minutes with continuous agitation.

The photograph was taken in an all white (walls, floor and ceiling) studio with Broncolor studio flash equipment.  Exposure was determined with a Gossen Lunapro F light meter in both incident and reflective mode.

The main rim light was done with an open, undiffused reflector positioned to the back of the subject, slightly to the left.  The light reading was via incident mode and the camera adjusted to render a +2 1/2 stop overexposure.  The fill light was a second light source with a large soft box positioned in the front to the left of the camera and carefully positioned to render the reflections off the skin.  Exposure was taken with a reflective spot reading directly off the skin and the output of the flash adjusted to render a -1 1/2 stop underexposure.

Even though the photograph was taken in an all white studio, the background was back far enough to have no effect on the exposure and thus turned out to be virtually black.


This photograph is a prime example why the ability to use a light meter correctly is very important, even with digital photography.  One might possibly be able to come up with a similar result just by using the instant feedback of a digital camera screen, but to do so is nothing more than photography by trial and error.  I prefer to use my camera equipment in a manner that predicts the outcome with the largest amount of certainty possible.

Any comments are very much appreciated.

NEW BOOK about MAX BEREK


I recently purchased a newly published book about Max Berek.  Unfortunately, so far it is only available in German.  The book was published by Dr. Knut Kühn-Leitz with the titel

Max Berek
Schƶpfer der ersten Leica Objektive
Pionier der Mikroskopie

It is a fascinating read, especially because it parallels many phases of the development of the Leica.
I am currently trying to obtain permission to use translated passages of the book for publication on this blog.

The book is published by:  Lindemanns Verlag
                                                Nadlerstraße 4
                                                70173 Stuttgart
                                                www.lindemanns.de
                                                ISBN 979-3-89506-284-1

another TRUE STORY


We pass along the following article from the March, 1981 issue of LEICA POSTAL PORTFOLIO NEWS:

I should relate, albeit briefly, a little incident that happened in the shop a few days ago.  A customer (new to us) handed us a colour negative film for processing with the comment that he thought few of the pictures would 'come out', but even the bad ones required printing.  Accordingly we marked the order “print regardless' and tactfully inquired if we might help with any problems concerning his picture taking.

He told us that he had been taking pictures off the TV screen but that he did not think his flash was sufficiently powerful.  We explained that the more external light that fell on the front of the TV screen, the less the actual television picture would be visible – but we distinctly got the impression that he did not quite believe us.  Somehow he appeared to doubt our expertise.

“Anyhow,” he said, “even if I had not used the flash, they still wouldn't be any good.  I couldn't change the focus setting on my camera as fast as the TV camera crew did with theirs.  I simply couldn't keep up with them.”

We did not press the point...

TRUE STORY


“Can I help you please?”

“Yes, could you please put this roll of film into my camera?”

The customer hands over the most expensive 35mm camera at that time.  A moment later everything is done.

“Excuse me, Sir, I don't mean to tell you how to take care of your camera, but I couldn't help notice that your lenses are rather dirty.  All the extra performance that you spent so much money for certainly gets lost that way.

“Oh no, that's alright.  Someone who knows told me the best way to keep a lens clean is to lick it...”

LEICA IN THE DIGITAL AGE


Leica has definitely become a major player in the field of digital photography, not so much in terms of market share, but in terms of quality and performance.  This is one of the reasons for the late success of the company.  Unlike just a few years ago, the Leica balance sheets are quite healthy.

But this blog is not just a reflection of the current Leica Camera company.  It is our full intention to be of interest to all Leica owners.  For that reason we will reflect on older Leica models and have extensive information on photography with film as well.  We will have comparisons of film v. digital in many of the upcoming articles.  However, this is not meant as a discussion of ‘which is better – film or digital’?  After all, ultimately we are using our Leicas to take photographs.  The end result is always a picture and the camera is the tool to enable us to do so.  Digital or film ultimately are just two different means to record the image.  This blog will reflect all of that.

DIAL “L” FOR LEITZ


What if...?  How often have we contemplated certain occurrences in the light of what has or hasn't happened?

In a book by W. Erb about the Leica company is a short paragraph that translates as follows:

“On September 1864, the 39th meeting of the German Naturalists and Physicians took place in Giessen. (Giessen is a town very close to Wetzlar)  Particular efforts were made to remain competitive during the subsequent exhibition of microscopes.  For the young mechanic (Ernst Leitz) there was a special task.  Phillip Reis planned to demonstrate his invention, the telephone, since his first try in Frankfurt on October 16, 1861, had failed.  Ernst Leitz successfully completed the preliminary work with the help of his technical knowledge, so that on September 21, 1884, the final recognition was not denied the inventor.”

After reading that short paragraph one has to wonder: What if Ernst Leitz had become interested in telephones?  Could there have been a Leitel (Leitz Telephone)?  Considering the fact that Ernst Leitz did not start his work at the Wetzlar Optical Institute until 1865, this seems to be a possibility.

It is also interesting to note that Alexander Graham Bell did not show his invention of the telephone until 1876, twelve years later.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

THE HISTORY OF LEICA video

You tube has made a movie about the history of Leica available.  The video was first aired by the Hessischer Rundfunk in Germany.  Unfortuantely no English version or a version with subtitles are available.  But even non-German speaking viewers might find it interesting.  The video contains a large number of images taken by Oskar Barnack, some of which appear to never have been published before.

Go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWwarnnM71A&feature=relmfu

FIVE NEW LEICA STORES

Leica is planning to open three new Leica Stores and two new Leica Boutiques in the US and Canada. The new locations are as follow:

Leica Store in Washington DC
Leica Store in New York City
Leica Store Miami
Leica Boutique in Rancho Mirage, CA
Leica Boutique in Richmond

BEFORE LEICA

WARNING:

It is granted that hand cameras are indispensable for such as street views, or on the beach, or on shipboard, but they are decidedly out of place for use as picture producers.  Therefore let us oppose all attempts to popularize the use of hand cameras at our photographic outings, the high standard of pictorial excellence to which landscape photography has attained being in great danger of reduction by the use and abuse of hand cameras.”

R. P. Drage, British Journal of Photography, vol. 37, 1890; p. 565.

WHY LEICA BARNACK BEREK BLOG


Some might be wondering why we chose to incorporate Barnack and Berek into the name of this blog, so here is a brief explanation.

Many people are familiar with Oskar Barnack as the inventor of the Leica camera back in 1913 and even though it is far from us to take any credit from him, we feel that little mention is ever made of Professor Max Berek.  Yet without him the Leica would probably never have come into existence.  He designed the first lens for the preproduction Leicas and the success of that little camera played no small part in the decision of Ernst Leitz II to manufacture it.  “Die Kamera wird gebaut” (the camera will be built).

Even though Max Berek would have had little reason to design his lens without the farsightedness and genius of Oskar Barnack, it remains a fact that even we here at this Leica dedicated blog wouldn’t do what we are doing without those two men.

Therefore our small tribute to them in form of the Leica Barnack Berek Blog.  

     Oskar Barnack                                            Max Berek

Monday, February 20, 2012

INTRODUCTION

In the late 70s and early 80s I was involved in publishing the Barnack & Berek Newsletter which soon evolved into the BB Magazine for Leica Owners.  Both were very well received and quickly gained a loyal number of readers.  This definitely was a labor of love.  Unfortunately, the economic downturn in the early 80s made it impossible to continue publishing.

For this blog I will accumulate the best and most interesting articles and information about all things Leica on a daily basis.
It is my hope that this blog is received well and that it serves to help gain a better understanding of the Leica and photography in general.

For any questions or comments, please contact me at info@gmpphoto.com