Amateur photography in Europe, 1909-1914

[paulstgeorge]

I am interesting in amateur photography in Europe, 1909-1914. If a person bought a Kodak camera in USA, they would expose the 100 shots, then return the camera to the Kodak company in New York. The film would be developed, prints made, a new roll of film loaded into the camera, and everything returned to the customer.

 

But what did people in Europe do? Was there a Kodak factory in France? Was there a Kodak factory in England? How long would this whole process, from posting the camera to Kodak to return of the prints, take? What were the costs? When was the change from returning the whole camera to removing the roll of film and having that developed? Does anyone have any information on any of this?

 

Thanks,

Paul

[Dustin McAmera]

The page at Camera-wiki shows an advert giving the London and Paris addresses:

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

 

 

[paulstgeorge]

10 minutes ago, Dustin McAmera said:

Thank you! Does it say somewhere that people could return their camera (with the exposed film) to the London or the Paris factory?
Paul

The page at Camera-wiki shows an advert giving the London and Paris addresses:

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

 

 

 

[AJG]

The first Kodak camera that you reference was a luxury item--$25 for the camera and the pre-loaded 100 exposures when it came out in 1889.  An average worker's wage at that point might have been $5-10 per week.  By the turn of the century box Brownies were selling for around $1.00 and the roll of film was loaded by the customer and processed either by Kodak or by any of the many labs that sprung up in response to the popularization of photography encouraged by the advent of roll film. By 1909 that original Kodak would have been largely superseded by newer cameras from Kodak and many others companies. 

[paulstgeorge]

21 minutes ago, AJG said:

The first Kodak camera that you reference was a luxury item--$25 for the camera and the pre-loaded 100 exposures when it came out in 1889.  An average worker's wage at that point might have been $5-10 per week.  

This is very useful, thank you. Do you have any information on the time it took from sending the camera to the factory and the return of the prints?

And you say the luxury $25 camera had been superseded by the box Brownie by 1909. This also helps me to narrow down the options.

Do you know whether the box Brownie was available in France 1909-1914?

[AJG]

I don't know what specific Kodak products were available in France during this period, but Kodak  grew quickly and had many international subsidiaries so I would be surprised if their cameras and film weren't for sale in France. Are you by any chance a writer trying to get accurate period specific details?

[Dustin McAmera]

Here is the British Journal Almanac for 1898, at the Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/details/1898britishjourn00londuoft/page/318/mode/2up

Pages 319-326 and 990-1017 have Kodak advertisements. In fact, this is striking: Eastman isn't very prominent. Ross, just for example, occupies more space.
There's no mention of a service as you describe it, where the customer returns the full camera to Kodak. In fact the advertisement starts with film, and boasts of how easy it is to load. Mind, few of those reading the BJ Almanac, who would be serious photographers probably with expensive and delicate cameras, would be likely to want such a service.
Page 31 gives two central London addresses: 115-117 Oxford St and 60 Cheapside. These are stores: the factory was further out of town. It also gives two in Paris: 5 Avenue de l'Opéra and 4 Place Vendôme, and one in Berlin: 91 Markgrafenstrasse.

You can find later years' Almanacs at the Internet Archive.

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Dustin McAmera

[Dustin McAmera]

Check out 1903:

https://archive.org/details/britishjournalph1903unse/page/230/mode/2up

p231-

Kodak has one more Paris address, and places in Lyon, Vienna, Brussels, St Petersburg, Milan, ...

[paulstgeorge]

12 hours ago, Dustin McAmera said:

Here is the British Journal Almanac for 1898, at the Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/details/1898britishjourn00londuoft/page/318/mode/2up

Wow, that is great! Thank you. Have you seen the Cycle Kodak: https://archive.org/details/1898britishjourn00londuoft/page/324/mode/2up

[paulstgeorge]

14 hours ago, AJG said:

Are you by any chance a writer trying to get accurate period specific details?

Well, in a way. I am researching Picasso's use of photography in the development of Cubism 1909 and the four to five years after. Many authors talk about the aesthetic and philosophical implications of the photographs, but they just look at the print and how he used the image. That is fine, but I want to understand the practical considerations, time, money, even lighting. Many of the photographs are taken in his studio. I am guessing the film was quite slow and perhaps orthochromatic...

[AJG]

You're right--the film would have been slow and orthochromatic.  Most box cameras of that era would have had lenses in the f/11-f/16 range and a single timed shutter speed of around 1/25 plus a bulb setting for holding the shutter open for long exposures in interiors or poor light.    They were intended for the most part to be used in bright sunlight and that setting would have provided a reasonable exposure on the films that were commonly available at the time. There were more sophisticated cameras made with faster lenses and more complicated shutters if one had the money to spend.

[Dustin McAmera]

I guess you've seen the exhibition book 'Picasso and the Camera' by John Richardson (2014).  I haven't; but there is this blog post about it:
https://gagosian.com/exhibitions/2014/picasso-the-camera-curated-by-john-richardson/

Most of the few photographs shown there are of Picasso, and mostly of him as the later, famous bloke. But there is one photo attributed to him from 1909, 'Le réservoir (Horta de Ebro), 1909'. It's a view looking toward the small town Horta de Sant Joan, a hill covered with crowded buildings, which later became a painting, also reproduced in the post. Anyhow, I mention it because the aspect ratio of the photograph is very close to 1.25 to 1.
That would make sense if he was using a 4x5-inch camera; and I'm sure he could get one in Paris (or Barcelona or Madrid), but it wouldn't be very usual: 9x12 cm would be much more usual for a French camera-maker (or German). Of course, it's possible that a 9x12-cm image was cropped to fit a paper size; but it suggests a British or American camera, I think.

4x5-inch existed as either plates or roll film. The No. 4 Bull's-Eye in that 1903 Kodak advert takes the roll film, for example.

 

[paulstgeorge]

13 hours ago, Dustin McAmera said:

I mention it because the aspect ratio of the photograph is very close to 1.25 to 1.

It's not often I call someone with a name like "Dusting me camera" a genius but you deserve the new soubriquet. I know the 1909 photographs and the impact on painting very well, but I have not read this Richardson book. I am now trying to get it from a library before splashing out £60. I am not overly optimistic that Richardson will mention the camera Picasso used and the photographic process, but I am hopeful so thank you!

Here is a camera Picasso used in 1930 (21 years later). Could it be the No. 4 Bull's-Eye?
 

[paulstgeorge]

I actually have some more information now as I have seen some negatives. The camera took glass plates (9x12cm). Did the No. 4 Bull's-Eye take 9 x 12 glass slides?
Thanks!

@Dustin McAmera @AJG