Early history of sharpness 1932-

I summarize parts of an article by Schwalberg and Brown, Popular Photography October 1958 UK Edition:
"[The] system of development was the subject of a bitter debate which raged throughout the 30s between two noted Leicamen.
On the one hand there was the famous Dr Paul Wolf who counselled "overexpose and underdeveloped" which became the motto of almost a whole generation of 35mm photographers who cared more for fine grain than for any other technical criterion or quality.
The other side of the argument was presented most forcibly by Heinrich Stockler , then head of the Leica Technique School at Wetzlar.... whose advice was just the reverse. Said Stockler, 'Give minimum exposure and full development' ... Stockler and his cohort recommended 'straightforward development' in an active highly alkaline but very dilute developer. Their favourite formula was (and still is) Agfa Rodinal.

[ In 1953 Beutler published his formula and thin emulsion films appeared around this time, as noted elsewhere on APUG. But the early controversy is not well known ,and if it was also found in the US.]

This dichotomous thinking has been occupying my mind from 1964 to present. I still cannot decide which way of thinking is best. There are attributes to each.

There is glory with the Wolf approach, in that we then never have to worry about capturing all that is there to capture. And the grain is better, as well, even if the (theoretical) sharpness suffers a tiny bit through halation/irradiation (it really does not if you keep development gamma down).

And then there is the Stockler approach which highlights the highest speed that the film is capable of delivering. This usually works very well with many situations and the lack of an overabundance of density can make printing a joy.

But... the Wolf approach does too often compromise the tonal continuum with low contrast scenes: shooting in the shade can force using a very high grade of paper in order to get what you want in the print. And, the Stockler approach, though beneficial for low contrast scenes, is dangerous to implement for high contrast scenes (sunlight with shade, for example), in that exposure must be more accurate and is less forgiving. High contrast scenes can be disastrous to attempt to print.

But both approaches have their merit. Thus my quandary: I fear this will not be resolved before I expire. It would be interesting to hear others' comments. - David Lyga

Very useful info.

A bit more on this early history which is not well covered in any publication I have seen.
Today there is nothing like the films of the 30s available and developers commonly used are different.

The 1937 book "My Leica and I" ed KP Karfeld gives 3 reports of developers used by an amateur:
(1) Overexposed, developed paraphenylenediamine based Sease no 3.
(2) Developed D-76 , Sease no 3 or PPD-Metol.
(3) Developed "normal fine grain" or "special fine grain"

Only 3 examples but they suggest that early 35 mm users were inclined to go for fine grain rather than follow the method of Stockler.

The films of the 30's were once described as "thick as a tippler's tongue." The emulsions were thick and grainy. This is why acutance developers like the Beutler formula became popular. By limiting development to only the surface of the flmer grain and better resolution were achieved. Willi Beutler recommended that exposure should produce the thinnest possible negative giving good shadow detail. Solvent developers like the paraphenylenediamine type and D-25 reduced grain but sacrificed resolution. BTW, D-25 was developed by Kodak to avoid the dermatitis caused by the Sease developers while still providing fine grain. The thick emulsions also slowed adoption of 35mm cameras like the Leica. The potential for enlargement was not good.

https://ia601502.us.archive.org/28/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.215330/2015.215330.Modern-Photography.pdf
In this 1933 book on p49 the developers suggested for minature films were Azol, which was similar to Rodinal, and Rytol, a universal developer of unknown composition. Perhaps this was too early for much use of fine grain developer.