Packard shutters and exposure

[IanG]

Are Packard shutters designed to give increased exposure to the foreground ?

Ian

[Tracy Storer]

Any unevenness in exposure is, I'm sure, unintentional, and will vary depending whether the shutter were mounted behind or in front of the lens. I'm not an expert on possible problems with Packards, but have used them extensively without trouble for many years. Perhaps yours is not opening and closing as quickly and smoothly as it should?

[E. von Hoegh]

Since Packards are typically used for longish exposures, any unevenness of exposure due to the time it takes for the blades to open and close (which might be a factor if they worked at say 1/100 sec.) should be inconsequential.

[premortho]

Er, sort of. They were designed to hold back the sky, so that primitive ortho films could register some cloud detail. Several eary shutters could do this, not just Packard's
Are Packard shutters designed to give increased exposure to the foreground ?

Ian

[William Whitaker]

Er, sort of. They were designed to hold back the sky, so that primitive ortho films could register some cloud detail.

How?

[premortho]

How? The third blade (top) opens last.

[William Whitaker]

How? The third blade (top) opens last.

Assuming the claim to be true, wouldn't that hold back the foreground, if anything?

Sorry, but I'm very skeptical. At the speeds Packards operate at, I can't imagine it really would make any difference one way or the other, as EvH noted above.

[C. D. Keth]

Assuming the claim to be true, wouldn't that hold back the foreground, if anything?

Sorry, but I'm very skeptical. At the speeds Packards operate at, I can't imagine it really would make any difference one way or the other, as EvH noted above.

Assuming the shutter is behind the lens as is traditional, yes, it would hold back the foreground. I really doubt there's significant difference in exposure across the field with a packard. Top speed on them is something like 1/25th, right?

[Jon Shiu]

Since the wide part is at the top and the narrow at the bottom, more exposure would be given to the foreground, since the image is upside down.

Jon

also see:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?21545-The-Packard-Ideal-shutter-New-article&p=199931&viewfull=1#post199931

[IanG]

Actually Jon is correct.


Any unevenness in exposure is, I'm sure, unintentional, and will vary depending whether the shutter were mounted behind or in front of the lens. I'm not an expert on possible problems with Packards, but have used them extensively without trouble for many years. Perhaps yours is not opening and closing as quickly and smoothly as it should?

I found a listing & illustration in my 1940 Kodak Professional Catalogue on Tuesday morning (after posting the question) - the Dallmeyer Studio shutter is designed to give increased exposure to the foreground. Dallmeyer made Packard shutter under licence in the UK. I'll copy the page when I'm back in the UK next week.

Ian

[premortho]

Thanks, Ian. I was trying to remember if the little piece of paper that explained, or maybe I should say claimed this feature was around here, somewhere. Hell, I'm so far behind the curve, I thought everybody in the USA who is a photographer knew this. I answered Ian's question because he lives somewhere on the Aegean Sea, perhaps on a yacht, and would not have been brought up with them. Poor un-lucky little tyke. To grow up with no Packard shutters..or Velostigmats..the very thought brings moisture to the corners of my eyes...

[IanG]

Yes I can see the Aegean from our balcony :D no yatch though . . . . . . . .

You're right in that in the UK, and Europe, American shutters and lenses are rare. In the early days of photography items were often made under licence in different countries, Zeiss lens designs are the classic example being made by Ross in the UK, B&L in the US, Krauss in Paris etc. Even Kodak Ltd (UK) lenses can be different to their US counterparts so a 203mm f7.7 Ektar fits a standard #0 shutter and was sold in Epsilon, Prontor SVS and later Compur shutters, the US version isn't compatible.

I have a Packard which I rarely use but I've become interested in early shutters which I've been acquiring in recent years and I'm planning on writing a short article on them.
Currently I have Packard, numerous Thornton Pickard roller blind shuutters in various sizes, Thornton Pickard Studio, Norka, LUC plus 5 LF cameras with Focal plane shutters.

The British focal plane shutters are particularly interesting, they are more sophisticated than the type used by Graflex.

Ian

[Jim Galli]

Are Packard shutters designed to give increased exposure to the foreground ?

Ian

NO. But one phenomenon I have experienced; On an extreme wide angle lens with a steep sun angle, enough light could go between the top and second blade to fog the film a bit. On the Deardorff 11X14 with a 200mm WA I had to turn the Packard upside down from normal because of this. For straight on light with a normal focal length lens, all of the blades move synchronously with each other and I have never until this minute read anywhere that there was some built in thought of not exposing sky's as much. My first reaction is "poppycock" but it certainly would not be the first time I was wrong, now, would it.

Mechanically, the action has all of the blades synchronously moving each other equal amounts, like a big triangle opening and closing.

Now here's a caution for another thread that may have more validity. On this type of antique shutter;


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/02-22-04/13ProtarVII_01.jpg (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96026-Ancient-Pre-Protar-Name-Bausch-Lomb-Series-VIIa-Protar-covers-12X16-ULF)

...WHERE ALL of the blades slowly form a pinhole and then an ever increasingly larger aperture according to where it's set, and the movement is consistent, ie always moving, it seems you would be getting everything but the kitchen sink from huge depth of field with lots of diffraction when it's at f256 all the way to shallow depth with maximum sharpness in the center, and all the way back to huge depth and diffraction again just before it closes. The shutter blades on this one also form the selected aperture.

It has none of the snapping action of modern shutters that snap open and snap back closed.

[premortho]

I must say that I'm shocked, shocked, I say to have my statement on this device dismissed as "poppycock", and this by one of my favorite characters in the LF world. I didn't think JG was so much younger than me that he didn't know of this claim by the Packard Co. EVERYbody who had a 5X7 or 8X10 when I was a boy had one of these shutters then. My mothers favorite studio photographer bought a new Ansco 8X10 to replace an R.O.C. I asked him why. "This Ansco takes the big shutter" and he showed me a Packard that must have been 5 1/2 inches square. I've been using them since 1947. I guess I just don't know any better.

[Jim Galli]

I must say that I'm shocked, shocked, I say to have my statement on this device dismissed as "poppycock", and this by one of my favorite characters in the LF world. I didn't think JG was so much younger than me that he didn't know of this claim by the Packard Co. EVERYbody who had a 5X7 or 8X10 when I was a boy had one of these shutters then. My mothers favorite studio photographer bought a new Ansco 8X10 to replace an R.O.C. I asked him why. "This Ansco takes the big shutter" and he showed me a Packard that must have been 5 1/2 inches square. I've been using them since 1947. I guess I just don't know any better.


1947! I knew there was somebody around here older than I am. I wasn't even born until 1952, so that makes me a punk kid.

[IanG]

I must say that I'm shocked, shocked, I say to have my statement on this device dismissed as "poppycock", and this by one of my favorite characters in the LF world. I didn't think JG was so much younger than me that he didn't know of this claim by the Packard Co. EVERYbody who had a 5X7 or 8X10 when I was a boy had one of these shutters then. My mothers favorite studio photographer bought a new Ansco 8X10 to replace an R.O.C. I asked him why. "This Ansco takes the big shutter" and he showed me a Packard that must have been 5 1/2 inches square. I've been using them since 1947. I guess I just don't know any better.

My Kodak catalogue confirms the claim, Dallmeyer made Packard shutters for quite a few years and were once a leading manufacturer. Dallmeyer worked with many of the leading camera manufacturers of their time and wouldn't have made a mistake stating that the Ideal shutter gave increased exposure to the foreground.

Ian

[Jim Andrada]

Hey Jim

I'm having a ball with the lens/pneumatic shutter i got from you - just like the one in your pic. Works very well. Times are off in strange ways but very usable. Everyone I show it to goes ape over it.

[premortho]

Ian, while you are perusing the various shutters designed, built and sold (in the hundreds of thousands) by us crazy Americans, don't miss out on the light slicing devices of Probst. As good an example of out of the box thinking as a model "T" Ford. As good a car as I ever drove and better than most.

[premortho]

And to cut off JG at the knees, my model T had electric starting and lights. I bought it used from two spinster sisters who bought 3 new ones in the last year of production. They found the model A too dificult to shift. When I bought the car, they asked me to take the brown paper off their last one, and air up the tires for them.

[William Whitaker]

My Kodak catalogue confirms the claim, Dallmeyer made Packard shutters for quite a few years and were once a leading manufacturer. Dallmeyer worked with many of the leading camera manufacturers of their time and wouldn't have made a mistake stating that the Ideal shutter gave increased exposure to the foreground.

Right. And since when did we start believing advertising? Just because it's an old ad doesn't lend it any more credence. It's a claim as you stated. Photographic snake oil. Poppycock if you prefer. And that's being polite.

[E. von Hoegh]

Right. And since when did we start believing advertising? Just because it's an old ad doesn't lend it any more credence. It's a claim as you stated. Photographic snake oil. Poppycock if you prefer. And that's being polite.

Agree. The uneveness of exposure will depend on the amount of time it takes for the blades to open and close vs. the amount of time the shutter is actually fully open. That's physics, not advertising.

Under some conditions - very short exposures, it could give uneven exposure. For long exposures, it wouldn't matter enough to detect.

The only human specimens who lie and distort more consistently than politicians are advertising copy writers.

[Reinhold Schable]

A shutter BEHIND the lens slices off the formed image with varying densities accorting to the blades speed, just like any focal plane shutter.
Any claim by Packard would have assumed the shutter was behind the lens, as was/is common today.

In FRONT of the lens the image is not yet formed and any shutter acts as a variable APERTURE.
As Jim G. said some time ago; millions, if not billions of images have been made with the pie shaped shutter in thousands of movie cameras over the past century.

Sorry for shouting, this clumsy PM system prohibits more subtile ways of expressing oneself.

Reinhold

[IanG]

Right. And since when did we start believing advertising? Just because it's an old ad doesn't lend it any more credence. It's a claim as you stated. Photographic snake oil. Poppycock if you prefer. And that's being polite.

I give far more credence to what Dallmeyer and Kodak state about the Ideal shutters than many comments here. I seem to recall that I have the Press Release Dallmeyer issued, I'd guess in the 1920's. They have no reason to lie.

Rationality clearly indicates that with shorter exposures there has to be greater exposure of the foreground because of the design and by the time Dallmeyer began making Packard Ideal shutters under licence plate/film speeds were much higher than the begining of the 20th C.

There's a lot of variables but these shutters were being sold as Studio shutters, Kodak also sold them under the Kodak brand name to fit their Portrait cameras in the UK, so the logical question is to ask what conditions do they give the greatest increase in foreground exposure.

It's easy in 2012 to dismiss what was stated 80 or 90 years ago but then people forget graduated glass filters were available long before WWI which is another approach to controlling exposure in a localised area.

Ian

[William Whitaker]

I seem to recall that I have the Press Release Dallmeyer issued, I'd guess in the 1920's. They have no reason to lie.


Except to get someone to buy their products.

[IanG]

Except to get someone to buy their products.

You really have zero intelect. Why on earth would they lie, they'd actually be far better off saying nothing about this unless it was true. But you miss a point - 3 different companies state this and 2 of them Dallmeyer and Kodak were at or near the cutting edge of photography at that time.

Ian

[William Whitaker]

You really have zero intelect.

Yeah, but at least I can spell.


Why on earth would they lie, they'd actually be far better off saying nothing about this unless it was true.

As I said, to get someone to buy their products.

[E. von Hoegh]

For anyone who believes any thing in any advertisement of any age - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyte

[premortho]

My goodness, we've started a cat fight over something that was designed to correct a problem that was noticed over 120 years ago. I happen to have an exposure meter from 1918, 28 years after this shutter hit the market. Standard brand Orthonon plate is rated at an H&D number of 100. By working the meter backwards, the sunny 16 rule says 1/10 second. So while it may now be able to take a photograph without concern about over-exposed skies, it was not always so. That Orthonon plate certainly needed it, and about 10 years after this shutter appeared on the market, ray filters (yellow at the top, decreasing to uncolored by the middle) were sold to do the same thing...and very successfully too. Now someone doesn't believe the catalog advertising claims, but he falls all over himself to swallow the ISO numbers that are used to currently rate film. I remember the time when I left to go in the service, Tri-x was 200asa. By a miracle, 2 years later it was 320. And lowly Verichrome pan, that had been languishing along at asa 32, suddenly sprouted goat glands and was asa 64, then 80, then 100.

[IanG]

As I said, to get someone to buy their products.

These aren't US over-hyped adverts, it's data from a war time Kodak catalogue (don't forget the US entered WII quite late) , there's no hyping of any products. It's not a catalogue for the public only the trade.

In fact there's no advertising at all, just product listings of what was available from Kodak's Professionaloutlets. So please don't assume what isn't there.

Oh just seeing the post made at the same time they are talking about exposure of approx 1/10th to 1/20th and that's when there would be a noticable increase in foreground exposure

Ian

[IanG]

I remember the time when I left to go in the service, Tri-x was 200asa. By a miracle, 2 years later it was 320. And lowly Verichrome pan, that had been languishing along at asa 32, suddenly sprouted goat glands and was asa 64, then 80, then 100.

Interestingly in the British 1940 Kodak catalogue Tri-X was 200 ASA, contrary to even recent Kodak hype on it being 50 years old - hat was just the 35mm version - it's a 1938/9 emulsion alongside Plus X and Super X and coated at at leat three plants US/UK/Hungary, the Hungarian plant was still making derivatives of Super X & Tri-X when the Forte factory closed in recent years :D

Ian

[premortho]

Actually the war with the Germans was small potatoes...the real war was 1937,38,and 39, and it was between Ansco/Agfa and Eastman Kodak. Plus-x, double-ss and tri-x were the knights sent forward to battle Supreme, Versapan and Super hy-pan. The war ended when the U.S Government siezed Ansco and gave all of Agfa and Anscos emulsion secrets to Kodak. It is very profitable when your competitor is burned at the stake, while you march on.
Interestingly in the British 1940 Kodak catalogue Tri-X was 200 ASA, contrary to even recent Kodak hype on it being 50 years old - hat was just the 35mm version - it's a 1938/9 emulsion alongside Plus X and Super X and coated at at leat three plants US/UK/Hungary, the Hungarian plant was still making derivatives of Super X & Tri-X when the Forte factory closed in recent years :D

Ian

[Jim Galli]

Actually the war with the Germans was small potatoes...the real war was 1937,38,and 39, and it was between Ansco/Agfa and Eastman Kodak. Plus-x, double-ss and tri-x were the knights sent forward to battle Supreme, Versapan and Super hy-pan. The war ended when the U.S Government siezed Ansco and gave all of Agfa and Anscos emulsion secrets to Kodak. It is very profitable when your competitor is burned at the stake, while you march on.

I have 4X5 Anscochromes from the 1950 51 era at work in our files that are as perfect as any kodachrome. While the Kodak Ektachromes from the mid 1950's are toast. And the Ansco Super Hypan's in the archive are superior.

I also have a box of Gaevert Silver Chloride paper, same as Azo, but Gaevert from the late 1960's that I very nearly threw in the trash before discovering that it is perfect, and as nice or nicer than Azo.

[premortho]

Jim, I used Ansco film until the last dog was hung, so to speak. Then I switched to Agfa, figuring they would be around forever. I mean whoever heard of a stock-manipulater getting hold of an old line German company and shredding it into trash, taking Geveart with it. I would have thought that kind of stuff would be verboten over there. I guess Efke has turned up it's toes, which was my next choice. Fuji seems to have the same management mindset as Kodak. I was amazed to hear that lucky didn't make it. I only got a chance to try one box of their film. It was o.k. but didn't set my heartstrings quivering. Ilford is, well Ilford. The good news is they want to make film to sell. The bad news is they have'nt raided Ansco/Agfa/Geveart/Kodak et al for emulsion formulas. The stuff probably works good in a climate where it always rains, and they never see sunny sixteen. I tried HP5 at box speed and I thought it pretty miserable. Certainly no competition for Super Hy-Pan. No punch.

[C. D. Keth]

Ilford is, well Ilford. The good news is they want to make film to sell. The bad news is they have'nt raided Ansco/Agfa/Geveart/Kodak et al for emulsion formulas. The stuff probably works good in a climate where it always rains, and they never see sunny sixteen.


You're missing out. Delta 100 in pyrocat-hd is really something special once you learn to hit the sweet spot.

[premortho]

I guess I'll have to try Delta. I had heard it was a t-max 100 clone, and I don't like t-max. Out of all the hoop-la when those new films hit the street, only technical pan rang my chimes. I only used t-max 100 when I wanted a low contrast version of Plus-X. Plus-X's ability to illuminate from glowing black all the way up was amazing. Of course, it's history. I use Ilford Ortho 80, because I can't buy tri-x ortho. So, any hints on Delta?

[E. von Hoegh]

My goodness, we've started a cat fight over something that was designed to correct a problem that was noticed over 120 years ago. I happen to have an exposure meter from 1918, 28 years after this shutter hit the market. Standard brand Orthonon plate is rated at an H&D number of 100. By working the meter backwards, the sunny 16 rule says 1/10 second. So while it may now be able to take a photograph without concern about over-exposed skies, it was not always so. That Orthonon plate certainly needed it, and about 10 years after this shutter appeared on the market, ray filters (yellow at the top, decreasing to uncolored by the middle) were sold to do the same thing...and very successfully too. Now someone doesn't believe the catalog advertising claims, but he falls all over himself to swallow the ISO numbers that are used to currently rate film. I remember the time when I left to go in the service, Tri-x was 200asa. By a miracle, 2 years later it was 320. And lowly Verichrome pan, that had been languishing along at asa 32, suddenly sprouted goat glands and was asa 64, then 80, then 100.

Tri-X is till 200 if you want shadow detail.

[Keith Fleming]

Premortho,

Thanks for the info on ray filters which appeared in response #27! It made me realize that one old yellow filter I have is not defective--it was my knowledge that was lacking.

Keith

[Peter Gomena]

Delta 100 does have a sweet spot. A very small one. And it does not like to be overdeveloped. I gave up on it for FP4+.

Peter Gomena

[premortho]

Well, Keith I'm glad that I dropped that little aside in there. I stuck it in there to illuminate some of the problems photographers faced in the old days. Not just slow emulsion speeds. So maybe it went something like this: Photographer "A" is asked photographer "B" how he got clouds in his picture? He'd never been able to get clouds and a scene. either clouds (instantanious exposure, 1/25) or shadow detail (1/4 second, and slower depending on the time of the day). "Oh easy," says A, explaining about amputating the sky from one neg, and substituting the sky from another. Now one of those many "B" photographers had a mechanical bent, and made a shutter that would hold back the sky enough to get sky detail while still allowing enough exposure in the foreground. Clever, huh? Then along comes "C"...he doesn't think mechanically, he thinks chemically or maybe physics and he says Hmmmm. A yellow piece of glass should screen out enough of the uv and blue light to make this new ortho film talk to me in the language I like to hear. Then he or somebody else came up with the idea of only having half the glass yellow. An example is a Burke & James "ingento" ray filter, resting in the palm of my hand. So there.

[Mike in NY]

I quote the following article from my original copy of the 1896 International Annual of Anthony's Photographic Bulletin:

Natural Skies in the Negative Compound Exposures by Harold Holcroft, M.A., F.C.S.

The method of producing natural skies in the negative which is here described is a development of an older plan for varying the proportionate distribution of light falling upon the sensitive plate. I have proved that the idea works out in a satisfactory manner in practice, and is worth the attention of landscape photographers.

It is well known that any shutter which has an up-and-down motion gives more exposure to the foreground than to the sky, but the proportion between the two varies with every change of speed of the shutter, and is moreover, under no control except in the case of one or two patterns. It occurred to me that it would be a very useful thing if this proportionate distribution of the light could be brought under control with some approach to accuracy.

Having one of Place's old but admirable shutters in constant use, I saw that this was exactly the thing to experiment with, but before proceeding further, perhaps I should describe the action of this shutter for the benefit of those who may not be acquainted with it.

This shutter is usually fixed on the hood of the lens, and there are two thin vulcanite screens which hang enclosed in a frame, and which are connected together by a pair of cords which pass over a light roller at the top of the frame. At the bottom of each vulcanite screen is fixed a light silk cord to work the shutter. The action is as follows: You pull the silk cord attached to a No. 2 screen, and No. 1 screen thereupon rises and uncovers the lens, the rapidity being the speed with which you choose to pull the cord; if you continue to pull, No. 2 screen, which has by this time descended close to the lens opening, continues and cuts off the light.

The whole thing is very simple; the screens are balanced and light, and a pull in one direction is all that is required to give the exposure. The length of the exposure and also the entire motion of the shutter is under complete control; you can prolong or cut off the exposure and pull either with uniform or variable motion. In this shutter, which from its construction gives more exposure to the foreground than to the sky, the proportion between the two can be controlled within limits, which is the important point for the purpose in view; but there is one addition which is necessary to give exactness, and that is the provision of some means of knowing the precise position of the sky-line when exposing. This I easily attained by making a boldly numbered and graduated scale, divided into eighths of an inch, which is fixed on the front of the shutter and at one side of the lens opening. Then when the view is focused and the working diaphragm inserted, if you decide that there are suitable clouds which you wish to include, the shutter is closed and drawn up again slowly while the head is still beneath the focusing cloth, until the shutter is seen to cut off the sky close to the sky-line; you then observe the scale in front and note the division opposite to which the shutter stands, which may be, for instance No. 8; you now reclose the shutter and insert the sensitive plate and proceed to give the exposure you have decided upon.

If the foreground is to have, say 2 seconds and the sky 1/2 a second, you pull the cord at a fair speed until the shutter has risen to division No. 8; at this point you keep the shutter in slow motion for a division or two (or what you please) until 1 1/2 seconds are up; then continue the pull quickly until the lens is full open for 1/2 second more, when a further quick pull promptly closes the lens, and you will have given the required exposure. The description is long but the practical working is simple, and it is not nearly so difficult to give a compound exposure as it may seem.

In my own case I spent about an hour one night practicing imaginary exposures of varying lengths with the aid of a loud-ticking clock, when the operation soon became easy; and I made all my exposures last year on this plan, whenever there was a suitable sky, without a failure; with the result that last year's negatives are a great advance upon those of previous years.

The line where the shutter cuts off the sky, with lenses of ordinary focal length and a stop not smaller than f32, is well vignetted, and if the shutter is kept in slow motion no trace of a line or abrupt marking is visible on the picture. The shutter is also so light and easily moved that no vibration is perceptible.

If the sky-line is horizontal the shutter is used in its normal position; if inclined, then the shutter is slightly twisted on the lens; whilst an irregular sky-liine, if necessary, may be managed by means of gummed black paper which can be roughly torn to shape an fixed temporarily on the ascending screen of the shutter. The idea is not suitable for very short exposures, but down to 2 seconds a fair degree of accuracy is easy; under 2 seconds may be managed, but with less accuracy; so that for the present purpse an ordinary or slow landscape plate which will allow an exposure of a few seconds without unduly stopping down is the best plate to use.

It is well to consider carefully the amount of exposure you give to the sky with a view to the effect you desire, as it is easy enough to overdo the difference in proportionate lighting, and to have the sky even too forcible. In case of doubt, and always at first, it is well to duplicate the exposure, giving the same time to the foreground, but different times to the skies. It is also wise to study carefully upon the ground glass the exact effects which different positions of the shutter have upon the distribution of the light; and these effects may vary with different lenses and diaphragms., It may not be a mechanical impossibility to construct a shutter which would carry out the same idea for quick exposure, but it would probably be a complicated machine, and with sensitive plates at our present actinic speeds is hardly wanted.

I suggest the name "compound exposure" as appropriate where different and definite exposures are given to different parts of the sensitive plate.

[desertrat]

Reading this thread with interest. There is a lot of good info here. In some of the early Wollensak catalogs at Camera Eccentric, they had a contraption called the Skyshade shutter that was designed to mount in front of a lens, and hold back the sky exposure. I've never seen one come up on Ebay, so I'm guessing they didn't sell a lot of them.

[Mike in NY]

Here's a link to a photo and description of the Skyshade shutter:

http://www.antiquewoodcameras.com/flex-ref.html

[IanG]

I've scanned the relevant pages from the 1940 Kodak Professional Catalogue (UK) for the Dallmeyey and Kodak Studio shutters and the illustrations show clearly why at shorter exposures there's greater exposure in the foreground as it states.

82535

82536

The Kodak Studio Shutter would have been made in the UK and used a Dallmeyer Ideal shutter (Packard under licence).

Ian

[Jody_S]

Here's a link to a photo and description of the Skyshade shutter:

http://www.antiquewoodcameras.com/flex-ref.html

Great. Another old piece of crap I have to buy, just to try it.

[Mike in NY]

But then you can say you did!

That and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee :)

[Mike in NY]

Ian, there are two other shutters similar in design to the Dallmeyer and Kodak shutters, that are advertized in the 1896 edition of the International Annual of Anthony's Photographic Bulletin. One is Anthony's No. 5 Low Compound Shutter, and the other is the Low "Kazoo" Shutter. There were two variations of the latter: No. 1 was adjusted to the lens hood, while No. 2 was mounted inside the camera, and both came in five sizes.