PDA

View Full Version : History of vintage lens? website or book?



ryanmills
11-Feb-2013, 10:30
I'm working on a project and I want a really 20's - 30's feel and texture. Been trying to research lens but I cant find anything more than fragmented information. Has anyone put anything together? Sample images would be a real help but not required. But a starting point to start searching on what I can get my hands on would help.

IanG
11-Feb-2013, 11:08
The 30's/30's feel comes mostly from the films and papers, also the developers, used at the time, lenses were quite reasonable by then and Tessar and similat type lenses were very common.

Ian

E. von Hoegh
11-Feb-2013, 11:14
I'm working on a project and I want a really 20's - 30's feel and texture. Been trying to research lens but I cant find anything more than fragmented information. Has anyone put anything together? Sample images would be a real help but not required. But a starting point to start searching on what I can get my hands on would help.

An uncoated Tessar, say 135mm/4.5 as used on old Speed Graphics, or a Rollei Standard with a 75/3.5 Tessar would be a start. As Ian said, film paper and developer all matter too.

It would help if you could tell more about the project - landscape or strret photography? Still lifes? Portrait? Each would utilise a different lens and method of working.

Jac@stafford.net
11-Feb-2013, 11:30
Ian is correct. Earlier film was not panchromatic. Pan film did not catch on until the forties, and even then it was not very popular.

You might begin by mimicking earlier film which was largely sensitive to blue, and blind to red. Use a deep blue filter.

Are you wanting to do outdoor or studio work?

henk@lf
11-Feb-2013, 11:32
Maybe this could interest you :

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/accessories/books-and-dvds/the-use-of-historic-lenses-in-contemporary-photography-book.html

IanG
11-Feb-2013, 12:12
Because lenses were uncoated and exposure meters rudimentary or non existant films were developed at lower EI's and for longer thatn we would now to a higher contrast and density. However the papers matched that, a consequence is that it's very difficult to get prints that match from 20's &30's negatives with modern papers. You only have to see pre WWII Kertesz prints and compare them to 60's and 70's prints off the same negatives and the differance is startling, the pre war prints are small and jewel like, the later prints very good in fact superb by modern standards but the feel is very different.

Ian

ryanmills
11-Feb-2013, 12:21
This will be a mostly outdoor portrait project. I knew film would be an issue but it was something else to research, I will have to look into a blue filter thou. Are there any other tricks to mimicking film from the 20's-30's?

The Tessar's were what I was looking at, specifically a Zeiss Jena Tessar 135mm I saw on ebay. That got me wondering if there were some others I should be looking at around that focal length (will be shot on a sinar F, 4x5). With it being that old i'm worried that the shutter might not be that accurate anymore. I know a few places I could send it but was going to wait and see if its something simple I can just oil and be good.

Worst case I figure it wont be too hard to just buy up some old damaged lens, with a working shutter works and free of fungus. Then just play around and see what I get.

E. von Hoegh
11-Feb-2013, 12:41
This will be a mostly outdoor portrait project. I knew film would be an issue but it was something else to research, I will have to look into a blue filter thou. Are there any other tricks to mimicking film from the 20's-30's?

The Tessar's were what I was looking at, specifically a Zeiss Jena Tessar 135mm I saw on ebay. That got me wondering if there were some others I should be looking at around that focal length (will be shot on a sinar F, 4x5). With it being that old i'm worried that the shutter might not be that accurate anymore. I know a few places I could send it but was going to wait and see if its something simple I can just oil and be good.

Worst case I figure it wont be too hard to just buy up some old damaged lens, with a working shutter works and free of fungus. Then just play around and see what I get.


You might see if you can get some orthochromatic film, I don't know if any is till being made but there are films which have some 'ortho-ish" response.

As for old shutters, they can be made to work just fine. I have a ~1908 Compound which is accurate. Don't attempt to oil it unless you know how, a single drop of oil will suffice for half-a-dozen large shutters when properly applied. Other lenses would be the Tessar type Kodak Anastigmats, Wollensak Velostigmats, Bausch and Lomb made some uncoated Tessar types (IIRC). The faster Tessars give a nice look for portraits when used at max. aperture. None of these lenses should be expensive.

As for damaged lenses, they give a damaged lens look, not a 20s/30s look.

goamules
11-Feb-2013, 17:03
Hey Ryan, for fun, and for us to help more, why don't you post a few links to the style pictures you want to emulate?

ryanmills
11-Feb-2013, 22:28
@goamules: I don't really have any one photo in mind. It more about using period specific gear just as I plan to use period specific clothes etc.

@E. von Hoegh: When I said damaged I just meant cheap lens so I can just try some different ones and see what I get. I don't care if they have scratches or imperfections. In fact some I might enjoy. I did read up on some films and efke still makes a ortho film will have to play with it some.

rdenney
12-Feb-2013, 07:04
The newer ortho films might be intended for copy work have have really high contrast. (I don't know about Efke, but now you know to research it.)

Another way to emulate the ortho look is to use a blue filter. The ortho films were called that because they were sensitive only to blue light, which made red tones go dark and skies go white. The blue filter will also slow the film down, and that's another aspect of the films of that era.

Since the 1920's, there has really only bee one major change in tessar lenses. Coatings were added following WWII, which increased contrast. You can find press-camera lenses that are not coated from before the late 40's, and they will be fairly cheap. Kodak Anastigmats are a good example of tessar lenses that in their early versions were not coated. (Look for the Kodak lenses that do NOT say "lumenized" or that include an "L" in a circle. Also look for Kodak lenses that have a "C", "A", "M", or "E" in the first position of the serial number--and then only some that have the "E". These will be made in the 40's or earlier. The lenses that have "R" or "O" in the first position of serial number will probably all be coated. The second position denotes the year, the first the decade.

There are vintage Zeiss Tessars that are uncoated, too, but they are not as thick on the ground in these parts as are the Kodak lenses.

I suspect an uncoated tessar-type lens and a blue filter will get about as close as you are expecting to a pre-war vintage look.

Rick "addressing the coarse effects before worrying about fine subtleties" Denney

Dan Fromm
12-Feb-2013, 07:40
Um, Rick, by an odd coincidence I have a nice post-WW-II coated B&L 158/6.3 Tessar IIb and a nice uncoated B&L 6 1/4"/6.3 Tessar IIb that I can't date. They shoot the same. Coating make very little difference for Tessars.

EKCo began coating sometime in 1946. I have a very fine 101/4.5 Ektar, s/n EO.... , that isn't coated, have seen other Ektars, sn EO.... that are. I also have a coated 1948 (EI) 101/4.5 Ektar that's not quite as good.

OP, we often talk about how contrasty a lens is. The reports/claims often seem to be based on color transparencies or on b/w prints. Reversal film has very narrow latitude, the results it gives are sensitive to exposure errors. A shutter than runs slow (over exposes) will give a tranny that lacks contrast; this result is often blamed on the lens ("low contrast," "flare"). Sometimes the blame is fairly given but in my experience it often isn't. Much intervenes between an exposed b/w negative and the final print, and much of that isn't always under perfect control.

As has been said already, lenses from the '30s used by still photographers are nearly all very modern. Film and paper emulsions have changed since then, and that's where you'll have to look to get the effect you want. You might also want to look into washing your prints poorly, so that they still have a little fixer in them, and storing them hot and humid for a while so they'll age rapidly. The old prints you see now probably don't look as they did when younger.

Mark Sawyer
12-Feb-2013, 11:32
Unless you're looking for a very specific, strong lens signature (like from a Verito), the lens isn't the magic bullet you're looking for. A Tessar, coated or not, would be a fine choice, but the difference from whatever you have now will be all but imperceptible. Lighting, pose, make-up, hairstyles, composition, costume, set, and film/paper/processing choices will all be much more important.

John Kasaian
12-Feb-2013, 11:38
The History of The Photographic Lens by Kingslake is pretty good reading with some examples of shots taken with old designs.