The Eastern Congo 



was 2d. per foot, for developing it id. per foot, and for 

 printing ^\d. per foot. Added to this was the import duty 

 into England of ^d. per foot on exposed and undeveloped 

 film, bringing the actual cost per foot of the finished pictures 

 up to ii\d., without taking into consideration the cost of 

 obtaining the films, postage, wear and tear of camera, and 

 losses through damaged and perished film. 



Loss through the latter cause was often a considerable 

 item. I well remember receiving a consignment of two 

 thousand feet of negative stock from a Birmingham firm 

 which reached me in Africa. It looked well enough when I 

 inspected it with the aid of a small travelHng dark lamp, 

 and having none other at the time, I loaded my camera with 

 several rolls, setting forth to hunt up a herd of elephants 

 that I knew were in the vicinity of my camp. As luck would 

 have it, in the course of the day I found a number of these 

 animals bogged in a marsh and offering a wonderful chance 

 for filming them, which I set about doing without loss of 

 time. My chagrin can be better imagined than described 

 when I came to develop pieces of these films, which I thought 

 would be absolutely unique, and found that the stock was 

 quite hopelessly perished — all of it — not one single foot was 

 of any use ! The worst part of such a catastrophe in the 

 African wilds is the fact that the camera-man is quite helpless 

 on such occasions, for fresh supplies of any kind cannot reach 

 him from England under many months. 



As I passed through late German East Africa shortly 

 after the war there was no parcel post organised, resulting 

 in a considerable delay in sending my films home for develop- 

 ment. On this account, and owing to other delays at home, 

 some of them remained undeveloped for nine months, without 



260 



