Sunday, 22 October 2017

World Toy Camera Day 2017/Halina 110 Auto-Flip

Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
For yesterday's World Toy Camera Day, I chose a Halina 110 Auto-Flip as my camera for the day. After having used a relatively sophisticated 110 format camera recently in the Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor, it was instructive to compare that camera to what would have been the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of price and quality. Although what precisely defines a 'toy' camera is subjective and debatable, the 110 Auto-Flip has many qualifying characteristics: it is almost entirely constructed from plastic, fixed-focus, and, other than the shutter release and film advance wheel, the only user control that affects results is a sliding switch for the film's ASA setting, which simply changes between two apertures. The camera is also brightly coloured, a sure denotation that it is not to be taken seriously.

Halina 110 Auto-Flip
The camera has a single shutter speed, not marked, but probably around 1/60th. There are two apertures, again not defined; the switch on the top slides a plate with a smaller aperture behind the lens. The larger aperture setting is marked for flash or full sun for 100/200 ASA, and flash or cloudy conditions for 400 ASA; the smaller aperture is marked for full sun at 400 ASA. On the top of the camera is a socket for a flip-flash, with distance settings for the flash printed on the transparent window that also functions as the catch to open the door for the film chamber (distance settings are given as 4-9 feet for 100 ASA, or 5-15 feet for 400 ASA). The flip cover is easily detachable; it pivots to an acute angle in relation to the camera itself and supposedly functions as a handle to steady the camera: although the top of the cover has a ruled, grip-like top, the ergonomics are pretty poor. The camera also has a wrist strap.

Halina 110 Auto-Flip with open cover
The lens would appear to be a simple meniscus type; in a number of the photographs taken with the Auto-Flip, some pincushion distortion is evident, with moderate sharpness in the centre. The apertures are relatively small, perhaps f11 and f16, providing reasonable depth of field to the fixed focus lens. The shutter release button is stiff, depressing it gives quite a hard 'click', which must risk some camera shake. The viewfinder, in an odd design quirk is square, despite the 110 negative format being clearly rectangular. However, with the limitations of the Auto-Flip, the main consideration of the viewfinder is simply to ensure the subject is centred, as no accurate framing is possible. As I shot two cartridges reloaded with 16mm film, rather than new 110 stock, as I've written about before, the lack of preprinted frames on the film allows the whole negative area to be used. With the Auto-Flip, the negative is approximately 23mm wide - much wider than the preprinted frame size of around 17mm. However, the image is severely vignetted on the right hand side, which no doubt would be entirely covered by the 110 preprinted frame.

Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Kodak Photo Instrumention film showing overlapping frames
As with the Agfa Optima 6000, the Auto-Flip relies on an internal pin locating the 110 perforations to reset the shutter when advancing the film; unlike the Optima 6000, the pin connects with every 16mm perforation (as in the image above): instead of shooting one blank frame to advance the reloaded film the correct distance, I found it necessary to release the shutter twice after each shot, covering the lens, and even then, thanks to width of the Auto-Flip frame, the frame edges were still butted against each other, although the vignetting at one side of the frame generally made this less noticeable. I shot almost all the photographs on the wider aperture setting; of the two films I used, I've found that the Kodak Photo Instrumentation film gives the best results at an exposure index of 100; subsequently shooting a cartridge reloaded with Eastman Double-X as it was beginning to get dark meant the conditions mitigated against using the smaller aperture setting. The weather conditions were not ideal yesterday, but the Photo Instrumentation film's latitude helped to compensate for this.

Halina 110 Auto-Flip with cover closed
The Halina 110 Auto-Flip is entirely typical of a cheap point-and-shoot snapshot model that would be an archetypal 'first camera' from the late 1970s through to the 1980s (indeed, while I first took photographs with a 126 Instamatic, one of my brothers had a 110 'Pocket Instamatic' very much like the Auto-Flip as his first camera). Cheap to buy and very simple to use, the camera would have produced passable results in good lighting conditions on small-scale photo-lab prints; retrospectively, it's sometimes a wonder that such photos, not very sharp, grainy, often underexposed, from a first camera, didn't put people off photography, but the fact that these cameras were designed to be so easy to use, and, that they did simply produce results, was enough to satisfy the desire to take the photographs in the first place.

Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Eastman Kodak Double-X film
Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Eastman Kodak Double-X film
Halina 110 Auto-Flip with Eastman Kodak Double-X film

Sources/further reading
Haking_Grip-C/Halina 110 Auto-Flip on Camera-Wiki

Sunday, 1 October 2017

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor
Agfa enthusiastically embraced the 110 format when Kodak introduced the small drop-in cartridge system in 1972, despite not previously manufacturing any 16mm subminiature cameras during the brief period when these had a certain limited popularity. The Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor was first produced in 1975, by which time Agfa had a fairly large range of 110 format cameras, from the most basic to the relatively sophisticated. It was then Agfa's top-of-the-range model, only bettered the next year by the Agfamatic 6008 Makro Pocket, a revision of the 6000, which featured an additional close-up supplementary lens (Agfa's models ending in '8' had flipflash sockets instead those for the magicube). Most of Agfa's 110 cameras used the 'Agfamatic' name, clearly borrowing from Kodak's Instamatic, and indeed also taking the 'Pocket' suffix that Kodak also used to distinguish their 110 cameras from the earlier 126 format Instamatics. 'Pocket' obviously trades on the small size of the 110 cameras, though not all 110 cameras were all that pocketable. The Optima 6000 is approximately 13.2x5.6x2.6cm when closed, and its smooth corners and lack of projection make it easier to pocket than some cameras; simpler Agfa 110 cameras were smaller still. The 5000 and 6000 models were clearly thought worth distinguishing from the simpler models by using the Optima name, borrowed from  from Agfa's long-running range of automatic exposure compact 35mm cameras; the Sensor in the camera's name also derives from Agfa's unique shutter release, the large, slightly domed orange button, intended to produce a smooth action when pressed, compared to other shutter releases. The Optima 5000 and 6000 models were all black, constructed from plastic, with some metal, notably with the front sliding panel. As with their other models of the 1970s, Agfa's 110 range demonstrate the attention to detail that their design department invested in: there's a good interview with Julian Schlagheck, the son of one part of Agfa's design team, Schlagheck Schultes Design, about the Agfamatic cameras, which gives a good background into their development.

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor closed
The most notable feature of the Optima 6000 that elevates it above many 110 cameras is its fast lens, a tessar-type Agfa Solinar S f2.7. As a fast lens, it also focusses; many other small format cameras rely on a smaller aperture with a short focal length fixed-focus lens to provide an acceptable depth of field from a relatively close distance. The focal length on the Solinar lens is not marked on the camera: some websites describe it as 26mm, others, 27mm. The focussing dial is located in the middle of the camera's top plate, with a standard set of pictograms (mountain, group, and half-length portrait), which have click-stops, as well as distances in both meters and feet. This has a grip with a toothed edge around it and the distance settings are read against two indicator marks at the top and bottom of the dial. The pictograms are visible in the camera's viewfinder with a red pointer to show the focal setting. The frame-lines inside the viewfinder also have parallax marks. Exposure is automatic,  with a CDS cell visible on the front of the camera with the sliding cover open and closed, powered by three 625G batteries, still commonly available. These are located next to the film cartridge chamber, as in the image below. Partially depressing the orange sensor button lights LEDs inside the viewfinder (as well as a red LED on the camera's front), green for an exposure of 1/30th - 1/1000th, with a red LED as a long exposure warning. According to the manual, the camera is capable of exposures as long as 30 seconds, although I haven't found the shutter to stay open for longer than what sounds like a half second, if that, even when operated at night. One curiosity about the camera is that the shutter is in front of the lens, not behind it or between its elements. Next to the orange sensor button is a standard cable release socket, and on the underneath of the camera body is a small switch for a self-timer. The 6000 model was a small evolution of the Optima 5000: the self-timer is one of the improvements, along with the presence of symbols in the viewfinder, and the LED on the front. For using a flash, there is a socket on the top of the body for flashcubes, which rotates with the film advance, as well as a hot shoe on one end of the camera body for Agfa's dedicated 110 flash unit, the Optima Pocket Lux. Although taking the form of a typical hot shoe, this is rotated through 90 degrees, meaning a traditional flash unit would be facing downwards, instead of facing the front. There was an insert for the hot shoe, which my camera lacks, with a screw socket, doubling for use as a tripod mount or to attach a carrying chain; the Optima Pocket Lux has its own tripod socket.

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with back open
Like many 110 cameras, the Optima 6000 has a push-pull frame advance (which also cocks the shutter) using the sliding cover, a mechanism derived from earlier 16mm cameras, such as the Minolta 16. There is a switch on the underneath of the camera to unlock the sliding cover which springs open; this switch can be moved to the closed position while the camera is still open, and the sliding cover will lock into the closed position when pushed in.

In testing the Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor I only used with reloaded 110 cassettes, which has both disadvantages and advantages with this particular camera. The Subclub website has a good page on reloading 110 cassettes, dividing cameras into type A and type B: type A cameras do not need the 110 format perforations on the film to cock the shutter, while type B do require this perforation. In type A cameras it is possible to use unperforated 16mm film; type B cameras need perforations to work. 110 film has one perforation per frame, whereas standard 16mm perforations are around three per 110 frame. In addition 16mm film comes in both single and double perforated. I've previously used reloaded 110 cassettes in a Pentax Auto 110, a camera which doesn't require perforations to work, and when using single perforated film, I aligned the perforations on the top edge of the film cassette when reloading, meaning that these appear in the bottom of the image, which seemed more aesthetically pleasing. With the Optima 6000, the camera does require the perforations to work, these perforations needing to be at the bottom of the cassette, and so show at the top of the image. The Subclub recommends advancing a 'type B' camera four times for each frame, based on the number of perforations. This assumes that the pin will register each perforation, which I found not to be the case. Instead, the Optima 6000 requires advancing twice per frame: the pin inside camera will prevent the film from advancing a whole frame, but appears not to locate every single perforation hole. Without advancing the camera twice, the images on the frame will overlap, as below.

Agfa Optima 6000 overlapping test exposures with a single advance for each frame
In order to advance the film twice, the shutter needs to be tripped a second time, as the film does not advance until the shutter has fired. In practice, I made the second (blank) exposure by placing my thumb over the lens, small enough for this to be done relatively easily, and with the shutter in front of the lens, there is no danger of getting a fingerprint on the lens itself. Using reloaded cassettes with the original backing paper does mean that one can check the frame numbers on the paper itself to ensure that the film is advancing a whole frame at a time. Of course, this is quite unnecessary if shooting original factory loaded 110 cassettes, and not reloading them. One advantage in using reloaded 110 cassettes is that these do not have the preprinted 110 frames, thus providing a larger negative area: the negatives from the Optima 6000 measured roughly 13.6mm by 19.6mm. When using the Lomography Orca film in the past, the printed frames reduced the negative size to 12.7x17mm. Clearly the perforations intrude into the image area; to crop these out would mean losing some of the image at the top and/or the bottom of the frame, but the increased width of the negative would not be affected. In addition, with reloaded 16mm film, edge printing can show in the negative area, although not all 16mm film has printed codes. Inevitably, the reloaded cassettes did have some light leaks, as seen in the images above and below at the top edges of the frames.

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
I tested the Optima 6000 with three different 16mm films, two had double perforations, one with single. The Optima 6000 does not have a mechanism to sense the 110 cassette film speed tab, so all the films were shot at the slow speed setting; there's no information as to whether this speed is set at 100 ISO, or 80, or even 64. The best results were probably from a roll of Kodak Special Order Photo Instrumentation film. Originally 500 ISO, being fifteen years past the date on its box, the results gave a good tonal range and surprisingly low grain for the frame size. All the images on this post were scanned from the negatives; optical printing in a darkroom would have given a finer, sharper image. I also shot some Eastman Double-X, which was developed as if I'd shot it at an exposure index of 200; the camera would have exposed it at 100. This film I shot in some low-light conditions, to test the camera's fast lens, the results of which were mostly acceptable, as below, unless the available light levels were very low, in which conditions the camera's shutter seems to simply have not stayed open long enough for the exposure required. This might be due to the cameras age, or some other factors.

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Eastman Double-X
I also shot a cassette loaded with Eastman 4-X negative film. As Kodak stopped manufacturing this stock around 1990, I knew that the film, originally 400 ISO, would have lost a fair amount of sensitivity with age. As the camera would only expose it at around 100, any further compensation would have to be done in developing, hardly ideal. This, incidentally, is a limitation built into the design of Kodak's 110 cassette system. The shots from this roll were very grainy, with a prominent base level of age-related fog, the camera being unable to increase exposure to give a denser image against that fog.

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Eastman 4-X
The Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor has all the convenience that the pocket instamatic format was intended to produce, while clearly being one of the better 110 cameras of the 1970s. The push-pull advance and sensor button are intuitive to use, while the camera body is just weighty enough to inspire some confidence, but not so small as to become difficult, fiddly for larger fingers. The Solinar lens is sharper than my scanning the negatives would disclose: as above, printing from the negatives would be a better assessment of this. The main issues that I had with the camera, apart from the performance in very low light that I've already mentioned, were to do with focus for some shots, in which I assumed that the lens would give greater depth of field than it did, and this would excuse a lack of accuracy in setting the focus dial correctly. The camera does not display what settings its automatic exposure has selected, and as I didn't shoot any of the images on bright, sunny days, it would have been safe to predict that the exposures generally required wider apertures. Using reloaded film, I also did not always remember to advance twice per frame; this issue wouldn't occur with new 110 film.

Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Eastman Double-X
Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Eastman Double-X
Agfa Optima Pocket Sensor with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Kodak Photo Instrumentation film
Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor with Eastman 4-X negative film

Sources/further information
Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor on Camera-wiki
Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor manual: (German/Dutch/French/Italian)
Collection-Appareils - Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor (French)
Agfa Optima 6000 Pocket Sensor on (in German)
Agfa 110 camera series
Reloading 110 cassettes - Subclub

Monday, 28 August 2017

The Hand Inside the Frame

Earlier this year when invited to participate in the exhibition Pinhole and the Art of Invention, I instinctively wanted to turn the premise on its head (“Pinhole and The Art of Invention celebrates the art of invention and the inventiveness of artists by including photographers who build homemade cameras and mechanisms to serve a specific purpose. These innovative apparatuses will take centre stage…”), and, instead of the camera being the inventive mechanism, I wanted to use that invention as a means of showing a sequence of animated pinhole images. For the exhibition, with the pinhole as a constraint, I wanted to use the most minimal means to create a moving image, which meant using pre-cinematic optical devices that produced a form of animated image, specifically the zoetrope, flip book, and phénakisticope. Although commonly thought of as optical toys, these began as instruments to demonstrate theories around the idea of the persistence of vision. Probably the least well-known, the phénakisticope was invented first, and simultaneously, by Joseph Plateau and Simon von Stampfer in 1832 (called the stroboscope by Stampfer), based on work by Peter Mark Roget and Michael Faraday; the zoetrope (in its definitive form), designed by William Ensign Lincoln, and the flip book, by John Barnes Linnett (under the name kineograph), were both invented in the 1860s.

It struck me as a remarkable coincidence that during the same decade that photography was being invented, a number of scientists were independently investigating visual phenomena that could produce the appearance of motion from a sequence of rapidly changing still images. A primitive form of photographic animation would have been theoretically possible from its very birth - although, with the long exposure times then necessary, this would have had to have been constructed through stop motion. The use of the pinhole rather than a lens was simply a consideration in order to fit the remit of the show, but this necessity, and the long exposures that resulted from the pinhole, did provoke the idea that, given the fact that these optical devices were as old as (and separate to) photography, the ‘instantaneous’ photograph (which would become the individual frames of cinema) was not necessary for animation, that the long exposure times of the mid—nineteenth century, replicated in part by the long exposures of the pinhole, could still have created moving images. Yet the desire to do so appears to have only developed after motion had been analytically broken down by the instantaneous photograph, and the subsequent realisation that it could be recombined into movement.

The subject for the animations needed to be simple and repetitive, easy to comprehend and limited to a very few frames. As a model for animated sequences shot with a pinhole camera, I turned to the very beginnings of the moving image, and, specifically, the work of Eadweard Muybridge. Of course, Muybridge didn’t use a pinhole for any of his work, but to animate his photographs, he made a modified version of the phénakisticope, combined with a magic lantern, to project moving images with what he called the zoöpraxiscope of 1879 (these were generally painted versions, rather than photographic, stretched in order to combat the distortion of the figures caused by the rotation of the disc against the counter-rotation of the viewing slits). I had previously used photographs from Muybridge’s Animal Locomotion when at college, re-animating some sequences, in my ignorance thinking that in this I was doing something unique, ignorant of those who had done same thing before me; I had also made some flip books using photocopies taken from illustrations in Aaron Scharf’s book, Art and Photography (where I also encountered the chronophotography of Marey, although Marey is best known for using multiple exposures on a single plate, and so most of his work does not have the ease of Muybridge’s for appropriation, at least for animation). My interest in Muybridge’s work had been rekindled by the Tate Britain exhibition in 2010, which put the Animal Locomotion in the wider context of his entire career as a photographer.

Drawings after Muybridge, 1996
For the exhibition, I shot sequences based on two plates from Animal Locomotion, ‘Movement of the hand; drawing a circle’, and ‘Movement of the hand; lifting a ball’, both of which were simple, repetitive motions; the first plate was one that I had used in one of the simple animations I had made while at art college twenty-one years ago. In the original plates, Muybridge constructed his sequences from twelve images, shot from in front of the figure, and a second set from the side; to replicate or emulate these twelve shots on a continuous strip of film, with the 6x6 negative size, a roll of medium format film would provide twelve square shots. I shot the images with an MPP large format camera with a 9x12cm rollfilm back, with a mask for 6x6 negatives. I made a 4x5 to 9x12cm plate back adaptor to use this back, which changed the camera’s film plane, but using a pinhole lensboard, focus was not a consideration. The photographs were shot at a focal length of around 50mm, a wide angle at 6x6, useful as it was difficult to calculate exactly what would be in the frame. For the exhibition itself, I displayed the work in the three forms previously mentioned: my initial idea was to make zoetropes to show the sequences, which were made contact prints from the uncut strip of negatives on Kodak High Resolution Aerial Duplicating film; to these I added phénakistocopes, printed from scans, and also flip books made from contact prints on paper. The latter were the most successful for showing the sequences moving; the luminance of the image does have some bearing on how well the effect of animation was perceived, and the pinhole images I had made were not bright or clear enough for both the zoetropes and phénakistocopes. However, the best representation of these image sequences is as animated GIF files - the perfect form for short, repetitive sequences of images: at one point almost a footnote, an anachronous remnant of the early internet, now social media has made the animated GIF the perfect visual form for the easily digestible meme of the social media age.

That my own hand appears in the frame is a coincidental echo of the Moebius film made earlier this year, while the theme of emulation or re-enactment also ties it to the photograph of my hand holding a photograph in Gelsenkirchen as part of my project around Wim Wenders' locations used in his road movies trilogy in the 1970s. With all of these pieces, projecting oneself into the work, as these were all made on film, taking the photographs entirely myself, there was a difficulty of knowing exactly how much of the image was in view or in focus; someone else could have operated the camera, but it was never practical in these cases. The hand inside the frame stands in for the hand of the viewer; in these two other pieces, the camera placed to suggest a subjective viewpoint, while the pinhole animations attempted the ostensible detachment of Muybridge’s work. The invisible surface of the photograph and its ability to render texture in a close-up image provokes a desire for a tactile confirmation - the viewer wanting to touch - and the hand in the frame provides an imaginative access into this depicted realm. This may be a sublimated response, and only really relates to a certain type of photograph, but perhaps the close-up of any near object has this potential, whether the subject is animate or inanimate, one can imagine the feel of the bark of a tree, the worn surface of steps, the side of a face, a wisp of hair, or in the animations, the textures and responsive pressures of the resistance of a graphite pencil against a sheet of paper. Once made, I had the odd realisation that they (my hands) looked like the hand (or more specifically the forearm) of my father, but reminiscent of the experiences of childhood intimacy, bound up with demonstrations of dexterity - the hands of my father as he demonstrated how to do things: drawing, painting, cutting lino or wood, coupled with the idea that my hands are older now than his were when this would have been the case.

Although Muybridge himself does appear in a number of the Animal Locomotion plates, the hands in these sequences are not his. They belong to J. Liberty Tadd, the director of the Industrial School of Art in Philadelphia. One wonders if he introduced the idea of the subject of the hand to Muybridge; certainly, the plate of the hand drawing a circle has overt art historical references, most clearly to the anecdote of Giotto drawing a perfect circle freehand, a feat that Albrecht Dürer repeated two centuries later to demonstrate his parity with the artists of the Italian Renaissance. Its circularity is also ideal for the limitations of the twelve-image sequences that Muybridge was working with. Once animated and looped, the circle is infinitely drawn and erased. In my own re-enactment, I marked out twelve positions around a lightly traced circle where my hand would rest for each minute-long exposure, and in doing so made explicit an analogy to the clock, both in the motion and duration of the twelve images. The 'Movement of the hand; lifting a ball' has less immediate associations, although perhaps the clock of the previous plate has now become a globe; these exposures were two minutes long each, and with my hand unsupported for most of the shots, this time duration is more evident in the final pinhole photographs.

The two plates that I drew on for the exhibition were part of a larger sequence of five of Tadd; these five plates all appear at the very end of Part Five of Animal Locomotion, being ‘Males and Females (Draped)’. All five plates are titled 'Movement of the hand', with the explanatory suffixes: plate 532 is 'Movement of the hand; drawing a circle', 533, 'clasping hands', 534, 'lifting a ball', 535, 'beating time', and 536, 'hands changing pencil' (Part Six which follows is 'Abnormal Movements’). Having re-enacted the first two plates, it seemed logically necessary to tackle the other three plates, to complete the project outside of the exhibition; two of these, clasping hands and hands changing pencil, lack the visual clarity of the other three, in that the representation of a simple gesture or movement does not naturally form a circular unit; one plate in particular, 'Movement of the Hand; beating time', had a richness to it that merited further consideration. Intriguingly, the plate of 'hands changing pencil', although in itself perhaps the least interesting (it appears almost as if it is a preparation for the drawing of the circle - although it is in fact a different tool), in  J. Liberty Tadd’s obituary from the American Art News, in its short paragraph, among other achievements, it mentions a demonstration of ‘ambidextral drawing’ to the Royal Arts Society of London in 1891, so this plate might acknowledge Tadd’s ambidextrousness. All five plates of the hand demonstrates dextrousness of course: the fine motor skills and opposable thumbs of the human hand. That Muybridge’s Animal Locomotion is in some senses a comparative anatomy, one could infer that evolution might be an implied, unconscious subject.

Plate 535, the 'hand beating time' plate clearly suggests music - and therefore sound. A few of the Animal Locomotion sequences explicitly do suggest the idea of music in mind of the viewer, namely those of figures dancing; less than a decade after Animal Locomotion, under the aegis of Thomas Edison, William Kennedy Laurie Dickson’s ‘Experimental Sound Film’ of late 1894 or early 1895 achieved the feat of recording sound and moving images simultaneously, showing Dickson himself playing the fiddle into a phonograph while two men dance. Sound was present from the very birth of cinema, and all through the silent era (the 'silent era' was of course never silent) there were numerous attempts to record sound simultaneously with the images; although the problems with synchronising playback were not conquered until the development of sound-on-film (the earliest successes with ‘talking pictures’ did in fact use sound-on-disc), amplification was as much an issue as synchronicity. I emulated the positions of Tadd’s hand through this sequence rather than beat time itself, given the long exposures. Was Tadd beating time to a tune in his head - or to music provided by one of Muybridge’s assistants? (It would be too fanciful to suggest that he was beating time to music being played on an Edison phonograph; a few short decades later, silent films would use music on set to create an emotional atmosphere for actors - ‘silent’ film sets were themselves notoriously noisy, and in larger, open studios several different scenes might all be being filmed at the same time). Although there is no possibility if reconstructing a tune, Tadd’s hand appears to be beating in triple-time - not itself surprising given the date of the sequence, but I was struck how strongly the visual rhythm suggests this.

Muybridge and Edison met in 1888. Muybridge’s account of the meeting suggests that they discussed using Edison’s phonograph to accompany his zoopraxiscope, although, with the very short duration of Muybridge’s sequences, logically, the phonograph would have needed to simply produce a short loop of sound if these were to be synchronised; the phonograph’s two minutes of recording time must have seemed vastly expansive to Muybridge. The form of the phonograph - a cylinder with a linear, spiral track - informed Edison and Dickson’s initial approach to moving pictures: a glass cylinder with microscopic frames arranged in a spiral. However, after Muybridge, Edison met Marey in 1889, by which time Marey was working with rolls of film rather than fixed plates. Thus Muybridge’s closed, circular motion in the zoopraxiscope led to an open, cylindrical motion, to the linear motion of a continuous strip of film of (theoretically) unlimited length. This was also a transition from the inflexible glass plate to flexible celluloid film (via some experiments with paper) and a host of other inventors (Janssen, Anschütz, Le Prince, Friese-Greene, Donisthorpe, to name a few), as detailed in Rudolf Arnheim’s ‘The Thoughts that Made the Picture Move’.

Muybridge's photographs were cropped significantly for publication in Animal Locomotion: the frame was imposed retrospectively, and what we see in the neat modernist grids of the published plates is not the whole photograph. The cyanotype contact prints of the photographs that make up the 'Movement of the hand' series show Tadd as a half-length figure, with a hat shading his face against the sun. As with almost all early cinema (and proto-cinema), Muybridge depended on natural light for his sequence images; although the dark, gridded background appears airless, the grid itself was an open screen of twine: in some of the oblique views it's possible to perceive this background as a shallow space beyond the grid that it is possible to enter, not merely the limit of the picture in depth. That the 'Movement of the hand' plates have a unique position in the Animal Locomotion as a whole is emphasised by the fact that these five plates (as “Class 9. Movements of a man's hand”) were available as one of the separate sections when Muybridge reissued Animal Locomotion at the time of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, which had a ‘Zoopraxigraphical Hall’ where he lectured; there is some dispute over whether Edison demonstrated his Kinetoscope at the fair or not. The 'Movement of the hand' plates do not appear to have been translated into zoopraxiscope discs for projection, but one particular aspect of the sequences does foreshadow cinema: they are the only plates which could be said to constitute a close-up in the whole project. David Campany describes the close-up, along with montage, as part of the distinguishing grammar of cinema, and, that, “…as Beaumont Newhall noted in 1937, ‘photographs of portions of objects (close-ups) were most uncommon before the moving picture.’” This uncommoness is represented in Muybridge's distinct five plates of the 'Movement of the hand':
The close-up can show us a quality in a gesture of the hand we never noticed before when we saw that hand stroke or strike something, a quality which is often more expressive than any play of the features. The close-up shows your shadow on the wall with which you have lived all your life and which you scarcely knew; it shows the speechless face and fate of the dumb objects that live with you in your room and whose fate is bound up with your own.
Béla Balázs, Theory of the Film


Hans-Christian Adam, Eadweard Muybridge: the Human and Animal Locomotion photographs, Taschen, Köln 2014
Rudolf Arnheim, ‘The Thoughts that Made the Picture Move’, in Film as Art, Faber, London 1958
Béla Balázs, Theory of the film: character and growth of a new art, translated from the Hungarian by Edith Bone, Dover Publications, New York 1970
Philip Brockman, Eadweard Muybridge, Tate, London 2010
David Campany, Photography and Cinema, Reaktion Books, London 2008
Kevin MacDonnell, Eadweard Muybridge: The man who invented the moving picture, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1972
E. J. Marey, Movement, translated by Eric Pritchard, D. Appleton and Co, New York 1895
Eadweard Muybridge, Descriptive Zoopraxography, Lakeside Press, Chicago 1893
Aaron Scharf, Art and Photography, Allen Lane, London 1968
Rebecca Solnit, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West, Bloomsbury, London 2003
Spencer Sundell, The Pre-History of Sound Cinema, Part 1: Thomas Edison and W.K.L. Dickson
J. Liberty Tadd obituary, American Art News

Wednesday, 16 August 2017

The Mycro IIIA

Mycro IIIA camera
The movement away from contact printing to enlarging negatives in the first half of the 20th century led to cameras in general becoming much smaller, especially once the 'miniature' format of 35mm became more widely used. The price of film itself was also a factor, especially in Japan after the Second World War, which produced by far the greatest number of subminiature cameras (while perhaps also leading in part to the perfection of miniaturised manufacturing techniques). The first widely-used subminiature film format was 17.5mm, derived from splitting unperforated 35mm film; there had been some, essentially isolated, precedents such as the Ticka watch camera from the early years of the 20th century, and 17.5mm film had also been used as a motion picture format in amateur cine cameras. In the years immediately following the Second World War, there were numerous 17.5mm format 'Hit-type' cameras (named after one of the most ubiquitous models), most featuring a fixed-focus, single-aperture lens with a single-speed shutter; the more sophisticated 17.5mm cameras had faster lenses, shutters with a limited range of speeds - and a select few even had focussing lenses. Most were modelled on typical 35mm camera designs, but some were inspired by medium format twin-lens reflex cameras. The majority of these cameras were sold to the US market as novelties. The use of 16mm film in still cameras overtook paper-backed 17.5mm film; a few rare cameras were available that took both formats, but as a subminiature format, 16mm film in cassettes appears to have supplanted 17.5mm by the late 1950s, with cameras that were generally better made, had more features, and were less novelties, more intended for serious amateurs. These 16mm cameras were themselves to be replaced by Kodak's introduction of the 110 cartridge just over a decade later.

Mycro IIA with 35mm canister for size comparison
The original version of the Mycro camera was introduced by Sanwa in 1939, two years after the Midget, the first camera to herald the 17.5mm craze, on which it is closely modelled. It has similar dimensions: about 50mm wide, and 32mm in height and depth. The above image gives an indication of its size; having seen many images of the Mycro online, I still was not quite prepared for how small the camera was when I first held it in my hand. There were a number of Mycro variants, including a 16mm format camera, before the final version, the IIIA from 1953. There were also a number of accessories: ever-ready cases (mine came with a slightly battered case); lens hoods and filters, and combined lens-hood-and-filters; tripods and tripod adaptors; developing tanks and enlargers. Common with all Mycro cameras, the Mycro IIIA has a fixed-focus 20mm Una lens, stated to provide focus from feet feet; this is coated in the post-war models, and stops down to f11 on the underneath of the lens. Shutter speeds are 1/100th, 1/50th and 1/25th, as well as 'B' setting, on the top of the lens, and the camera also has a cable release socket. The shutter requires cocking, with the small toothed lever the left side of the lens from the user, with the shutter release itself in appearance reminiscent of a cocking lever from a leaf shutter on a much larger camera. The viewfinder is small but when put right against the eye, is clearer in use than one might expect.

Mycro IIIA top plate
As the Hit-type cameras were very popular for a brief period, it's still not too difficult to find original 17.5mm rollfilm; a number of different manufacturers made film for the cameras, and the rolls do appear to be interchangeable. The metal spools have a slot in one end, meaning that the take-up spool can only be inserted into the camera one way up, not dissimilar to the design of 127 spools. I bought a handful of Kiku-branded films: the Kiku was another 17.5mm camera, with a different body design from the classic Hit-type. Although there was nothing to securely identify the date of the films, given the period during which 17.5mm cameras were popular, the film is likely to be from the 1950s, but like with other uncommon formats, the film may well have been manufactured for many years after the cameras were no longer being made.

Kiku Panchro film
Film is advanced by means of a red window (in my camera this is a rather pale pink), which has a sliding cover; the standard format for 17.5mm was ten frames, nominally 14x14mm. Advertisements at the time suggested that these negatives could be enlarged to postcard size. Although the negatives are larger than most of the 16mm cameras which succeeded them, other factors may well be more important to the resulting images produced by the typical 17.5mm camera, notably the quality of the lens and film flatness. The Mycro IIIA has a curving film plane, a design feature often used in cameras with a simple lens to ensure better definition around the centre of the image; the Mycro also has a cradle for the supply side spool, which appears to have been used to keep the film taut by adding pressure to the roll, although this would lessen as more film is advanced.

Mycro IIIA with film loaded showing supply-side cradle
I ran one of the Kiku films through the Mycro IIIA to test the camera and the films - these all appeared to be from the same batch, although one film later turned out to have a band identifying it as Panchro XX film - although the adhesive band on the exposed side neglected to specify this; perhaps all the films were identical, although I suspect that this was not the case, given the results and the different backing paper for the XX film. From the tests I made, the film appeared to be usable at an exposure index of 50; the camera's shutter had a tendency to stick open a 1/25th, and when set to 1/50th, the speed selector also tended to slide over to the 1/25th position by itself.

Kiku rollfilm backing papers
The test roll that I shot with the Mycro turned out to provide better results than the other films: the film marked as Panchro XX had the backing numbers transferred to the negatives, as can be seen on the right hand edge below. This roll was also less sensitive, with more fogging, and could have benefitted from more exposure.

Mycro IIIA with Kiku Panchro XX film
On one of the other rolls, the sixty-year-old tape that held the film to the backing paper came loose inside the camera. This projected its shadow onto all the negatives from this roll, as seen in the image below - the tape is the large black shape upper left.

Mycro IIIA with Kiku Panchro film
The last original roll of Kiku film was perversely shot at night, mostly hand-held on 'B' - the photograph below might be an exposure of around a second, or possibly a double exposure. The Kiku film, although 17.5mm, did fit on the 16mm reels in my universal developing tank, and were stand developed for one hour in Ilfotec LC29 at 1+100. The image below does also show a fingerprint - the original Kiku films were difficult to load as these had a very pronounced curl.

Mycro IIIA with Kiku Panchro film
Having the spools and backing paper, I also shot some FP4 and HP5 Plus, previously cut down to 16mm. These did show up some problems with focus in the images. This might have been due to the 16mm film not being held firmly to both sides of the curving film plane, as the out of focus area was mostly in the centre of the image, although this might not be the cause -  it's clear on some negatives from the edges of the image that these were flush with the internal frame at both the top and bottom, but still appear soft in the middle, so some other cause may be to blame, however the film could still be bowing in towards the lens. Shooting on smaller apertures may have mitigated this to a degree in a number of images. The shots on FP4 and HP5 Plus also showed up the vignetting from the lens; having cut the 16mm film from 120 format, the printing on the edge of the film also intrudes into the image area.

Mycro IIIA with FP4 Plus
Using the Mycro IIIA today is even more of a novelty as it would have been in the 1950s. Having an adjustable shutter and wider apertures than most 17.5mm cameras makes it more ambitious than a simple toy camera, although the camera has its limitations: it is small enough to be fiddly to use, and given the size of the film itself, loading the camera is not especially easy. However, although the results were a little unpredictable, some of the frames I shot do demonstrate the tiny camera's ability, and, in the 1950s, if one wanted a very small snapshot camera, at a budget, which could make acceptable four-inch square prints, the Mycro would not have been a bad choice.

Mycro IIIA with Ilford FP4 Plus
Mycro IIIA with Ilford FP4 Plus
Mycro IIIA with Ilford HP5 Plus
Mycro IIIA with Ilford HP5 Plus

Sources/further reading:
The Mycro camera on Camera-Wiki's pages on the Mycro
<ycro cameras on Subclub
The Mycro Camera Page
Mycro IIIA on the Living Image

Friday, 21 July 2017

127 Day Summer 2017

Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford FP4 Plus
I shot two rolls of cut-down film on last week's 127 Day, one Ilford FP4 Plus and the other HP5 Plus, with the Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor. In between the two rolls, as with the 116 Day last month, I cut and taped a piece of yellow gelatine filter inside the camera behind the lens, to improve definition in the skies and to act as a one-stop neutral density filter when shooting the HP5 Plus in the bright sun, while the FP4 Plus had been a fortuitous choice for the more overcast conditions earlier in the day.

Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford FP4 Plus
Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford FP4 Plus
Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford FP4 Plus
Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford HP5 Plus
Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford HP5 Plus
Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford HP5 Plus
Zeiss Ikon Baby Box Tengor with Ilford HP5 Plus