While I have plenty of damaged and decaying photographs in my collection to fit with Sepia Saturday's image prompt this week, I'm going to instead focus on another "flaw" that occasionally appears on photographic prints and negatives, and in particular has surfaced in two sets of early amateur photographs that I've blogged about recently: A Grand Tour of Europe and Summer Holidays in Derbyshire.
"Haddon Hall Terrace," August 1903
Unmounted silver gelatin print, 75 x 101mm (rotated)
(Page 3, Kodak album, Summer Holidays)
Image © Copyright & collection of Brett Payne
Bill Nelson pointed out that one of my 1903 Derbyshire album prints had what appeared to be a "circle with a '3' in it" in the lower right corner (lower left in the rotated image above).
Detail of image on Page 3
Even with some enlargement and enhancement of the image, I couldn't be absolutely sure of what it was.
Ship and tugboat arriving in unidentified harbour, 1904, Ref. #10c
Nitrocellulose negative film, 3¼" x 4¼", 118-format
Image © and courtesy of Bill Nelson
However, when Bill sent me a scan of a slightly over-exposed frame from his 1904 Grand Tour negative album it had a very similar, but much clearer, artifact.
Detail of image #10c, inverted & normal (with some enhancement)
In this case, the number "5" in a circle is accompanied by a line on each side. Knowing what to look for, I think I can now see similar bars either side of the "circled 3" in the enhanced image of my own print.
Extract from manual for No 3 Folding Pocket Kodak
Courtesy of Mike Butkus' Camera Manual Library
The number in a circle is very similar to the numbers that were printed on the outside of the film's paper backing, which show through the little red window in the back of the camera to indicate when to stop winding on the film (see image above extracted from a No 3 FPK manual). In this case, by contact between the reverse of the backing paper and the side of the nitrocellulose film which has the photographic emulsion, my theory is that some transfer of the ink has taken place while the film was still rolled onto the spool, either before or after exposure.
In the case of my 1903 print, the "circled 3" is dark, and if it was brought through from the original negative - and, from careful examination of the print, I believe that it was - the implication is that it was reversed, and therefore showed lighter than the surrounding emulsion on the negative. The mechanism by which the ghostly "circled 3" was produced cannot have been a physical transfer of ink, and is more likely to have been a chemical alteration of the silver salts in the photographic emulsion by contact with the acidic compounds in the ink, thus bleaching the parts of the negative that were in contact with the ink on the adjacent paper backing.
No 3 Folding Pocket Kodak, Model A, 1900-1901
Tauranga Heritage Collection, Donation of Alf Rendell
Image © 2015 Copyright Brett Payne
The only reservation I have with this explanation is that I would have expected, by comparison with the window on the back of the No 3 FPK that I, quite by coincidence, photographed this week, for the number to have been lower down, closer to the bottom edge of the negative. The position is correct on my 1903 print, but is more centrally placed on Bill's 1904 negative.
Although the No 3 FPK was by far the most popular folding camera of this size, the No 3 Ensign Carbine was another which used 3¼" x 4¼" film (Ensign E18 format), but from what I can tell the window on this model was also located close to the bottom edge. What I'm now searching for to test my theory, but haven't yet found, is some examples of early roll film.
No 3 Folding Pocket Kodak, Model A, 1900-1901
Tauranga Heritage Collection, Donation of Alf Rendell
Image © 2015 Copyright Brett Payne
Since I have the opportunity, I'll share a little more about this recent donation by retired Tauranga commercial photographer Alf Rendell to the Tauranga Heritage Collection. This particular example of a No 3 Folding Pocket Kodak was produced some time between Oct 1900 and Jun 1901, and still has the original red cardboard bellows. The serial number 27421, as is usual on Kodak folding cameras, is engraved on the silver foot which folds out of the base plate and serves as a stand to support the camera when taking photos in the "portrait" position.
Cloth-lined bellows were fitted as standard from June 1901 onwards, since the older versions tended to tear, and from 1910 they were supplied with black instead of red bellows. Many older cameras were later retro-fitted with black bellows, and it is rare to find an old model still with the original red bellows in such good condition.
Eastman Kodak Co. advertisement for the No. 3 FPK
From Munsey's magazine, c.1901
Courtesy Duke University Advertising Ephemera Collection, Item K0560
George Eastman wanted "a camera in every household," and in the 15 years after the first Kodak was produced in 1888 managed to amass over 60 different models. The first in the series of Folding Pocket Kodaks was brought out in 1897, using the then brand new technology of daylight loading film. The No 3 FPK was introduced in April 1900 and rapidly became the most popular of the range, particularly in the United Kingdom, possibly since the negative size was identical to the already popular quarter-plate format used in many glass-plate cameras. Between 1900 and 1915, when production of this camera ceased, about half a million cameras were sold. The camera was produced with a wide variety of lens and shutter options, and went through a number of developments until production ceased with the Model H in 1914, it being replaced by the No 3 Autographic Kodak.
The construction of this camera "set the pattern for the design of popular roll-film cameras for the next fifty years." (Coe, Cameras, 1978) A smaller version, the No 0 Folding Pocket Kodak, eventually morphed into the Vest Pocket Kodak, the soldier's camera which became so popular during the Great War.
References
Standard Film and Plate Sizes, on Early Photography
Coe, Brian (1988) Kodak Cameras: the First Hundred Years, East Sussex, United Kingdom: Hove Foto Books, 298p.
Gustavson, Todd (2009) Camera, A History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital, New York: Sterling, 360pp.
You sure brought back memories of winding film and looking for the black numbers in a little round red window! I remember watching my dad do it. As I recall, I did that with my first box Brownie. Much later I had a camera where, if I was very careful, I could wind the film just so and get 2 or sometimes even 3 extra pictures (than what I was supposed to be able to get) from a roll of film without any double exposures. :)
ReplyDeleteGail - I remember doing the same thing, although by the time I graduated from my instamatic with its 126 casette, it was to a 35mm SLR and a special dial counter on the top of the camera. I could usually get 2 or 3 more out of a film too, but always redid the first image of the spool in case half of it was obliterated.
DeleteGreat investigative work! I'll have to minutely check old photographs for the same thing now. I have a box brownie that belonged to my father-in-law.
ReplyDeleteJo - It may have been a peculiarity of the very early film, and I suspect after some complaints was probably perfected relatively quickly. Eastman Kodak was very progressive in this regard, continually improving the technology and equipment.
DeleteI think your explanation of the cause of the circular impression is as good as any. The position of the window on any camera using 118 film would necessarily have the window in the same position. Otherwise the film numbering wouldn't show in the window. That would imply that the film and the camera used for the Grand Tour photos was some format other than 118. Precisely what that may be is yet to be determined.
ReplyDeleteBill - you could be right about that, I think the jury's still out, but as far as I can tell, the competition, i.e. Ensign, Butcher, Ilford, Illingworth, Agfa, Zeiss, Ansco all made cameras/film with the numbers in a similar location.
DeleteIt would probably be easier to find old negatives than old roll film.
ReplyDeletePostcardy - That's certainly been my experience.
DeleteI suspect that the film used for the Grand Tour photos was 103 roll film. It's often designated as 4x5, but Kodak lists it as 3 3/4" x 4 3/4". If you measure one of the scans of a negative where the full frame is clear, Brett, you'll find that that's almost exactly the size of the image area. I don't know what camera the photographer would have been using, but I am looking at the American Camera Manufacturing Company Buckeye No. 8. Ansco also made several folding cameras that used no. 103 roll film, but they are a little late to be candidates. Look at the images of the no. 7 Ansco at this site:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vintagephoto.tv/ansco7.shtml
One thing you'll notice is that the red window in the back is in the middle. That indicates that would be true for any camera using 103 roll film.
Excellent work Bill. I think you've nailed it. There were actually quite a few cameras that used 103-format film, so we have another avenue to explore. I had noticed that several of the early box cameras, eg the No 2 Bull's Eye and No 2 Falcon, both of which I have in my own collection, have a centrally placed number window. Certainly 101 format had a centrally placed number.
DeleteI rather like that No 7 Ansco, and he says that example dates from c.1905, so perhaps 1904 is not too early. However, another option is the No 4 Cartridge Kodak (1897-1907), which used 104 film.
There's also the euphonically named Blair Focusing Weno Hawkeye No 4...
DeleteAargh... I meant to say euphoniously named...
DeleteAnd that's how I read it Bill :)
DeleteImages of a No. 8 Buckeye...
ReplyDeletehttp://forum.mflenses.com/american-camera-co-8-buckeye-cir-1900-lots-of-pics-t28405.html
I keep holding my head sideways to try and see the first photo, even though I suppose that has nothing to do with the circle question.
ReplyDeleteSorry Kristin - I thought since it was featured in a previous article I didn't need to include it the right way up again. I agree, it's a little disconcerting.
DeleteI confess...I picked up my monitor and turned it to get a good glimpse of that first shot! I, too, remember those little circular windows..and the arrows that showed to tell you to "keep winding..." until the number appeared!
ReplyDeleteDeb - I spent yesterday afternoon reacquainting myself with a roll film camera, but thankfully it had a counter, not an exposure number window ... that's my next project.
DeleteHere's another question-
ReplyDeleteIf a chemical reaction occurred between the film and the paper backing some of the time, why didn't it happen all of the time?
Bill - There could be any number of answers to that one, but two that come to mind immediately are: (a) the length of time between exposure and processing, and (b) higher temperatures and humidity are likely to speed up the reaction times.
DeleteYes, but why just one frame on a roll?
DeleteIn the days when I used a wind on film I don't think I ever took a decent photo and none have survived.
ReplyDeleteBob - Oh dear that is a shame. It took me a bit of practice, but eventually I produced a few decent shots.
DeleteBob, I'm with you. I always managed to mess it up. As always an interesting post and I didn't know about the vest pocket cameras. Googling - there was a BBC documentary made on the subject. Brett...did you post an account of your Camino pilgrimage anywhere?
ReplyDeleteHelen - The Vest Pocket Kodak (or VPK, as it is often referred to nowadays) was a different camera to the Folding Pocket Kodak series. It was marketed as the Soldier's Camera during the Great War, and no, I haven't seen the documentary - I must look out for it, thank you.
DeleteI posted photos and brief commentary on Facebook for family and friends at the end of each day while I was walking, Helen, with the aid of a digital SLR and tablet. However, I've just finished the first draft and initial layout of a book that I hope to publish in a few months, featuring photographs and an account of my experience. Watch this space :-)
I remember my Daddy having a few models of this folding camera; and I had the experience of examining it close-up. So I followed and completely understood your scientific explanation of the "ghost characters" of the photos. But I could not relay your explanationt to anyone else for the life of me! Now, I'm going to be examining old photos more closely to see if they may have been taken with his Folding Pocket Kodak. This is a very informative post.
ReplyDeleteDaughterofslaveancestry - I'd be very keen to hear from anyone who spots similar ghost images on their negatives or prints. My interepretation is, of course, subject to revision depending on what further light may be shed by any new finds.
DeleteA fascinating explanation, Brett, especially as I start to go through my dad's camera collection. The improvements to any technology really require that millions of gadgets get sold to the public in order to generate thousands of mistakes and problems that were never anticipated. I imagine Kodak's research and development had hundreds of files on poor design issues with its product lines.
ReplyDeleteI've purchased several key books about cameras over the last few years to provide background to photographs that I look at, and I'm finidning the development of technology and various models absolutely fascinating. A spell documenting cameras at my local museum gave me an excellent opportunity to learn even more ... now I'm hooked. How many cameras did your Dad have?
DeleteI discovered his handwritten notebooks first. Then not one but several computer spread sheets! All formatted in MS-Works for Mac, (another obsolete technology, but one that will never be collectable!) Eventually I figured out a method to convert the files and his official list has 252 cameras and 204 lens. Not to mention other accessories.
ReplyDeleteIt's a eclectic mix of mainly German, Japanese, and Russian SLR cameras, but there are several Twin Lens Reflexes too; many folders like a Kodak 1A Pocket Camera - Model D with a patent date of Nov 24,1908; a classic army issue Graflex Speed Graphic; a handsome circa 1880 large format studio camera; and a large number of Kodak box cameras including the one that his mother used to take his first photos.
The majority are cheaper cameras, no Hasselblads or Leicas. But his annotations helpfully include serial numbers, where he bought them and the price, and what's wrong with them. He made numerous test photos for each camera that demonstrate a variety of effects caused by a bad shutter or poor light seal. My dad never saw anything wrong in a broken camera. "Just needs a little attention." He would have enjoyed reading your clever deduction of the mystery numeral.
Fascinating Mike. The No 1 A Folding Pocket Kodak Model D was the first of that particular series to feature a metal, rather than wood, lens panel, and was produced from July 1909 until April 1915. You should find the serial number engraved on the nickel plated foot that folds out of the base board.
DeleteI'll have to go back and look at my old photos but I don't believe I've ever seen a "3" on any of them. On the other hand, the camera looks very familiar to me. My mom probably received a newer model (c. 1938) which was still around when I was a child. Your posts are so interesting, Brett. I always learn something.
ReplyDeleteNancy - Thank you for your kind comment. It could be any number, after all there were 6 or 12 exposures on a roll. It's quite likely your mother had a newer model, as the folding pocket kodak style lasted for a long time.
DeleteWait a minute, Brett. I don't know why it didn't occur to me earlier, but the image of the ship and tugboat above has been inverted. It's not a negative anymore. So the circle imprint should be positive, just like it is in the photo of Haddon Hall. Instead, It's the opposite and the explanation appears to have just gotten more elusive...
ReplyDeleteLooking carefully at the images, the negative image shows a circle imprint which has dark edges to both number and circle, and a "hollow" centre, like this. Having said that, the more I look at this number, the more I think it's actually a "5."
DeleteBut I agree, perhaps we do need to look at a modification of the original explanation.
Your description of early 20th century cameras made me start to consider my McPherson's photographic history. Prior to about 1908, any photographs that remain were taken by a traveling or studio photographer or I have a few that look like the coin operated photo "thingys." So I am wondering who had the cameras and what kind of camera did they purchase. Technology came slowly to rural northern Minnesota, so I am a bit surprised that they even had a camera. I have identified the two families that might have had the money or interest for further investigation.
ReplyDeleteJoan - Photobooth portraits have become collectables, and portraits taken by itinerants are amongst my favourites - they have a random quality rarely seen in the carefully posed studio portraits. At $1 for a camera, even some of the poorer families could afford Brownies after they came out in 1900. Even before that, having a portrait taken at a cheaper studio was not prohibitive.
DeleteI'm sure this is something I've never paid attention to, but I will start looking at my photos more carefully -- just out of curiosity.
ReplyDeleteWendy - Please let me know if you find anything similar.
Delete