[Reader-list] Re: 3rd posting , madhuja mukherjee

[madhuja mukherjee]

    3rd POSTING.
 Firstly my apologies for the delay . But of course , in the course of my endevour to scan/ examine the glass plates it became somewhat imperative to understand the technique and technology of photography in general and the glass plate cameras in particular. Hence, we ‘wandered’ or branched off into another research area and conducted interviews, took photographs of the plate cameras, read up material that are sort of outside the purview etc. Nevertheless, the findings are exciting.  

It may be common knowledge that L J Daguerre of France and W H Fox Talbot of England almost simultaneously, made workable photographic processes publicly accessible in 1839. In the daguerreotype method, a highly polished and sensitised silver plate or silver-faced copper plate was used while, another popular technique around 1851 was the ‘wet plates’, in which the glass was coated with a nitro-cellulose solution. The effort to keep the collodion layer wet in the process of work was surely disadvantageous but nonetheless, it produced exceptional images. And, as a matter of fact, the question of high image quality does emerge as a connecting thread in the story of glass negatives. Interestingly, this was also the period of the beginning of news photography as well as beginning of the era of portraits. Soon in 1871, R L Maddox invented ‘dry plates’ by using gelatine as a medium to hold the silver bromide, while sometime later around 1938 (from the point our story begins) “lith” type
 emulsions were introduced, which produced extraordinarily high contrast negatives. The story of technology and technique of photography is long, but at the moment we wish to tell the story of plate cameras in particular.

The plate cameras (photographs of which has been send to Sarai-Archive) were designed to take photographs on coated glass plates. These were specially suited for single exposures that can be removed and processed at once. The heavy, colossal, exquisite yet somewhat inconvenient cameras had one great payoff – the accuracy of images. The movable plate holder and lens panel provided independent front and back adjustments that tilted both vertically as well as horizontally.  Bellows functioned as extension system to set the focus. The size of the negatives would vary from 11 x 14inches to the commonest size- 4x5 inches, to the continental size- 9x12inches, 8x10inches and 5x7 inches. However, the popular sizes were the whole plate or 6.5x8.5 inches and half plate or 4.3/4 x 6.5 inches.  Smaller negatives were used practically in all cameras by inserting reducing adapters in the camera back. 

In connection to this, Saral Dutta, the owner of Universal Art Gallery  (situated in College Street, Kolkata since 1920), recollects how women would come to their studio covering their faces to get photographed eventually! These were largely attempts to get a ‘good’ photograph done, which would then be circulated in the marriage market. However, couples often returned to be photographed once more after the marriage was consummated. At times, the studio would send photographers to residences for either chronicling some special occasion or to take what is known as ‘group’ photographs of the family members. At times some Raja or the rich Bangali Bhadralok would take to photography as a hobby (like Mahin does in Chokherbali , Tagore), but by and largely being photographed was a distinguished moment in the personal history of any person. Despite the de- glorification of the image in the age of mechanical reproduction, Glass – with a capital G – had retained some of the aura of paintings.
 By the virtue of the negatives being on glass plates, it had a fragile quality while the huge negatives (at times 11x 14 inches) were somewhat like painting frames that demanded attention. Perhaps, more significantly, the images had a fine “jewel like” quality (because of the nature of emulsions) and the entire process was remarkably different from the ordinary /casual photographs taken on ‘plastic’ negatives. It becomes a question of cultural practices when not only the very instance of being recorded was exceptional, but the glass plate itself as well as photographs or the images had a certain uniqueness.                 

Contrarily, the field camera as the name suggests were used extensively for fieldwork, 

(and also in film studios) and these were usually made in quarter plate to whole plate sizes. Looking like a wooden box, the camera back took the focusing screen or film holders. As in the case of studio plate camera, the film holders could be inserted either vertically or horizontally. The baseboard carried extending runners to provide a double or even triple focusing extensions. The lens panel moved along these runners and was connected to the camera back by a set of bellows. The lens of the field camera was usually interchangeable and mounted on lens panels, which clip into the front standard. Focal length varied according to the camera format. The main areas of applications of field cameras were landscapes, architectural, industrial and medical work. There was a sense of swiftness, accounting and an accidental characteristic (as seen in the working stills of the films) that were amazingly distinct from the tendency mentioned earlier. Somewhat opposing inclinations did negotiate
 with each other with the shift in the technique and the technology of different cameras. This is what makes the story of glass plate cameras even more engaging.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20040507/2a9e546d/attachment.html