Photographic processing in the field

[Guest]

Can anyone give me informations (books, web link, others, ..) about the photographic processing by official photographers during WWI (e.g. E Brooks, D Mclellan, J Brooke, …). Did they process their photographs in the field or send them to a home laboratory ? Did they use glass plate or sheet film ?

Any help is welcome. Thank you in advance.

 

[Terry_Reeves]

Noel

Glass plate I think.  A photo of Ernest Brooks here with camera:

 

http://tinyurl.com/yd2slgcr

 

The Department of Photographs at the IWM should be able to confirm.

 

TR

 

 

Edited 15 October , 2018 by Terry_Reeves

[Chasemuseum]

Both film and glass plate photograph was in widespread use during WW1. Glass plate tended to be used for cameras exposing a surface of 2 1/2 inches wide or larger and film for cameras using 2 1/2inches wide or smaller (the smaller dimension of the exposed surface). This was a period when all professional photographers and serious amateurs were competent in processing their negative and making contact prints. Most of the photos I have seen of official photographers with their cameras, are using glass plate cameras in the 4inch to 6inch range.

 

Black and white photography processing is very simple. With glass plate, the photographer only needs 3 dishes of aqueous chemical solution, two prepared from dry powders, one from vinegar. Then, once the plate is dry, a treated paper can be placed against the negative plate, exposed to light, then processed with the same 3 trays of chemical. As such the photographer can set up a darkroom and print photos anywhere so long as a supply of clean water is available. All of the equipment and the chemical can fit is  a small suitcase. If using film, it is a little more difficult, the photographer needs a metal spool to wind the film into. This has to be done in a dark room or light proof bag, then loading the spool into a metal can the size of the spool for chemical processing. After processing the film needs to be hung with weights to dry. This is still very portable.

 

Making a print larger than the negative requires an enlarger machine. In this period these were generally not very portable, I would doubt that official photographers had good access to these in the field, and expect that the making of contact prints was sufficient for their initial needs.

 

Cheers

Ross

[Michael Haselgrove]

Noel,

You might have a look at "Photographing the Fallen" by Jeremy Gordon-Smith (Published in 2017 by Pen & Sword Military) as it may well be of interest to you.

Regards,

Michael.

[Gunner Bailey]

I would think the 3 standard glass plate sizes would be 5x4,  8x6 or 10x8.(inches) 

Edited 17 October , 2018 by Gunner Bailey

[Chasemuseum]

Standard sizes are not very standard. This link gives a selection of "standard" sizes

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Plate_sizes

 

The 3 key sizes for glass plate appear be

full plate  - 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 inch

half plate - 6 1/2 x 4 3/4 inch and 

quarter plate - 4 1/4 x 3 1/4 inch

 

 

[Gunner Bailey]

It's more variable than that and depends upon the age of the camera.

 

In the 70-80s I worked with the sizes I quoted above in both glass and sheet film. I would have thought 5X4 glass plate would have been the standard for RE photo teams, possibly going larger for work away from the front lines.

 

I lifted this from wiki which shows many more versions and this list is wrong about some sizes being exclusively glass of film

31/8 × 41/8	79 × 105	"quarter-plate" tintypes
3¼ × 3¼		lantern slides
3¼ × 4¼	83 × 108	"quarter-plate"
3¼ × 5½	83 × 140	postcard or 3A
4 × 5	102 × 127	sheet film
4½ × 6½	114 × 165	Cabinet Card
4½ × 5½	114 × 140	"half-plate" tintypes
4¾ × 6½	120 × 165	"half-plate" glass plates
4 × 10	102 × 254	sheet film
5 × 7	127 × 178	sheet film
6½ × 8½	216 × 165	"full-plate" glass plates, tintypes
7 × 17	178 × 432	sheet film
8 × 6	203 × 152	Cabinet view
8 × 10	203 × 254	sheet film