PDA

View Full Version : Good, sharp, cheapish portrait lens, for 4x5 crown graphic



Bobby Ironsights
24-Sep-2007, 21:14
So, I've got my crown graphic, and find the lens is not as nice I'd like. I'd really like to take advantage of the format, and do pictures of people.

I particularly like taking black and white photographs of the elderly. (who knows why?) Anyway, I know that there is an inverse relationship between money and quality in a lens, but I'm a university student.....in a wheelchair.....so, what might be considered affordable for a person who's fully employed is unattainable for me.

However, I'm a man of simple needs, and budget well, so I think if I stretched it, and I thought a lens would definitely last me for several years, I could see saving 400 or 500 dollars over a period of 6 months or so.

Still, I'd really rather keep it under $250, if that's a possibility. I'm also into target shooting and rifles and ammo add up.

Any suggestions?

Wayne R. Scott
24-Sep-2007, 21:34
Cheap and sharp? My vote would go to the Kodak Ektar 203mm.

Wayne

Skorzen
24-Sep-2007, 21:36
Ektar 203mm 7.7?

Edit: Wayne beat me to the punch there

lenser
24-Sep-2007, 21:50
HI, Bobby.

I am guessing that you have discovered the delight of ebay. If not, that may be your best source for savings on large format lenses.

You don't mention whether you are after extreme sharpness or a softer look, but since I enjoy using both, I'll dare to offer a couple of suggestions.

First of all, if you are doing fairly close images such as head shots, you will likely want a longer lens as the normal range (135mm to 180mm) may give you a bit of distortion in the face.

One of my favorite lenses is a Calumet or Ilex 215mm convertible...meaning it becomes about a 360mm when you use only the rear element. As a Calumet, the lens is known as a Caltar. In it's Ilex version, it is the Acuton. (Calumet also offers more than one 210mm lens, but they are not convertibles. Be sure you search for the 215mm.)

Either is mounted in an Ilex Acme #3 shutter that may or may not be totally accurate. If the shutter needs work, I recommend Carol Miller at Flutot'sCameraRepair.com. Unless something has to be fabricated, she usually charges only $50 for a complete going over that leaves the shutter well within speed tolerances.

The one thing to remember about a convertible lens is that you have two fstop scales. They are color coded and one is for the basic 215mm length and they other for the longer length. That is because there is a difference in light transmission to the film.

I have seen several of these go through ebay and they usually go for about $200 to $220. Be sure you ask what kind of shape the glass is in. You don't want separations, bad scratches or fungus. Slight scratches or cleaning marks should have almost no effect.

There are several older soft focus lenses out there as well.

I am not as familiar with that general type of lens, but I am well acquainted with one, the 254mm (10 inch) Wollensak Veritar. I own one and use it to emulate the beautiful soft portrait styles of some of the great Hollywood artists of the thirties and forties. It yields lovely highlights and nice shadow detail as well...depending on how you use your lighting.

Since I've owned this one for thirty years, I haven't bothered to look at finding one on ebay, much less at prices.

As to the other soft focus lenses, there are many real lens experts on this forum that can tell you much more about any of those than I can.

You might also look at Cameraeccentric.com and look at the info pages about lenses. This site shows the catalog covers for many lenses and if you click on that cover, it will open to complete info...page by page...that was published for the lens.

Good luck.

Tim

Bobby Ironsights
24-Sep-2007, 21:59
HI, Bobby.

You don't mention whether you are after extreme sharpness or a softer look,
Tim

Thanks Tim, BTW, I'm looking for a lens so sharp that I'll need a box of bandaid's to make enlargements. Sharpness is the reason I switched formats.

Gene McCluney
24-Sep-2007, 22:28
For a Crown Graphic, you probably can't fully use a lens longer than about 210mm, unless it is a telephoto design. Any of the 210mm range plasmats, Symmar-S, Sironar, Nikkor, etc., will be very sharp. If you want to go longer, and still do relatively close-up photos, like head shots, then you will need to get a telephoto design lens, which will focus with less bellows extension. All of these choices can be very sharp.

Gene McCluney
24-Sep-2007, 22:31
FYI..a "portrait" lens, traditionally has not been a "tack" sharp lens, as most people do not like to see themselves in the stark reality of all their flaws. So, if you want a "tack" sharp lens, then you really do not want a "portrait" lens, but rather a long-focal-length lens for taking close-ups.

lenser
24-Sep-2007, 22:56
You're welcome, Bobby.

You are getting some great feedback from some really good people. Tack sharp is pretty much what I get with my 215mm Caltar at both focal lengths, but My 210mm Caltar II is a bit crisper....perhaps it's the contrast in a newer lens with better coatings.

The comment about the Graphic not having a very long bellows is true, but who says you are staying with that camera. The longer lenses will work well on a field or monorail that you might buy in the near future. Of the two, a field camera like the Wisner, Zone VI, Toyo and several others is about as portable as your Crown Graphic and considerably more versatile...when you are ready to move to that genre.

Gene's comment about a "portrait" lens is dead on. Most of the portraits I've seen with tack sharp lenses are pretty brutal. Facial lines like canyons, liver spots, sagging eyelids and pits for pores don't do a lot for me although for others, this might be the "honesty" they want.

If you don't want to invest in a soft focus lens (which will sharpen to a degree when stopped down), you can experiment with soft focus filters or even a couple of layers of nylon from a pantyhose or from the fabric store... some black nylon netting.

I've shot many a wedding photo with one, two, or three layers of the netting with a few holes (about 1/4 inch) burned through to allow the effect of sharp within soft impressions. One layer is just a bit off the sharpness, two is softer and three (for close-ups only) really takes the edge off imperfections. As I recall, I opened up about 1/2 stop for the three layer rig.

Enjoy the journey.

Tim www.Cameraworksassociates.net

lenser
24-Sep-2007, 23:04
Addendum: No one has mentioned that changing the lens on either a Crown or Speed Graphic to a new focal length will remove your ability to focus with the range finder. Because that feature operates from a small cam that is matched to the focal length of the lens, it will no longer focus the range finder image at the same plane as the lens image on the film plane.

You will need to focus directly on the ground glass with a good loupe, just like with the monorail or field cameras.

It might be possible to have a cam made to match the new lens. Some one like SK Grimes might be able to make that happen for you.

Tim

Bobby Ironsights
24-Sep-2007, 23:45
Addendum: No one has mentioned that changing the lens on either a Crown or Speed Graphic to a new focal length will remove your ability to focus with the range finder. Tim

Yes, sadly. Although I've not gotten used to that luxury yet, so I might not miss it. My rangefinder is in pieces in a plastic baggie, the previous owner left it in. The 50/50 transmittance mirror is a wreck. I'll have to get on that eventually. Perhaps after I put in a new ground glass.


I know that others don't like to see themselves in sharp focus, but that's the benefit of being an amateur I guess. Since it's on my dime, I try to get the results I want and the subject can go jump in a lake if he/she doesn't like my work.

Bobby Ironsights
24-Sep-2007, 23:46
Oh, and yes, I will someday make myself up a proper field camera, probably from a kit.

John Kasaian
25-Sep-2007, 07:32
I'll agree, for the price, a 303mm f/7.7. Ektar is very nice and you can find them for under $200 if you look hard enough. The 215 Ilex/Caltar and any 210 from the prime manufacturers should work as well.

What I'm curious about is why you aren't getting results from your current lens. Do you use a magnifier of some type to assist focusing on the ground glass? If you're using the range finder, is it workiing properly? Does the front standard lock in place correctly? Is your tripod heavy enough to support a 4x5? All issues things will affect sharpness. OTOH even lenses which have a reputation for being "soft" such as the Wollensak Velostigmat and some of the Optars will get pretty darn sharp when stopped down.

Good luck!

Jim Jones
25-Sep-2007, 07:41
Early Crowns used a side rangefinder, later ones a top rangefinder. The side rangefinder can be adjusted for different focal lengths, the top rangefinder does require the appropriate cam. Cams sometimes show up in ebay.

The 203mm Ektar is my favorite lens, but its reputation does make it more expensive than some other good lenses. Its predecessor, the 8 inch f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat, is also sharp. Its four element four group uncoated design causes more flare in shadows. The use of an efficient lens hood, and careful lighting and exposure, helps reduce this.

Skorzen
25-Sep-2007, 07:45
Yes, sadly. Although I've not gotten used to that luxury yet, so I might not miss it. My rangefinder is in pieces in a plastic baggie, the previous owner left it in. The 50/50 transmittance mirror is a wreck. I'll have to get on that eventually. Perhaps after I put in a new ground glass.


Many (all?) of the side mounted Kalart rangefinders are adjustable withous the use of a cam, however I am not sure that they will adjust far enough for a ~200mm lens.

Dan Fromm
25-Sep-2007, 13:41
Gene McCluney, pay attention: Wollensak made 10" (250 mm) and 15" (385 mm) f/5.6 telephoto lenses that focus to infinity on 4x5 Graphics. Crown and Speed. Rememeber that with tele lenses back focus is shorter than expected given focal length.

Bobby, I didn't love my 10"/5.6 TeleOptar but people have spoken highly of the it and 15" f/5.6 Wolly teles here, on Usenet, and other places that Google can find. If 210 mm will do you, there are any number of f/6.3 Tessar type lenses around that will suit you and should cost tons. Thinking of which, what's your budget?

Lenser, I'm glad that you like your 215/360 Ilex. One should work well on a 4x5 Graphic with both cells in place, but with just the rear element its pretty iffy. Remember that a convertible's rear cell usually has longer back focus than usual for its focal length.

Cheers,

Dan

Jim Galli
25-Sep-2007, 14:03
Caltar Pro series 210mm f6.1

Kodak 190mm f4.5 Ektar, coated.

Another helpful gizmo is a sliding back Graflex used to make that puts 2 - 2 1/2" wide by 4" tall portraits on a single sheet of 4X5 film. It also tends to fill the frame nicely with head / shoulder portraits.

lenser
25-Sep-2007, 18:28
Hi, Dan. Thanks for pointing out that one problem. I haven't actually used either a Crown or Speed in years. I'm used to using the Ilex/Calumet on my Zone VI or my Cambo SCX. Both have much longer bellows than that available on the Graphics as I recall.

That's the beauty of this forum. If one person can't remember all the details, there are better brains out there to jump in and be sure the right info gets out there.

Have a good one.

Tim

karrisz
25-Sep-2007, 18:50
I've won a Horseman lens from KEH.com camera outlet on ebay a while back. They have a lot of used lenses in different grades at your price range. I've bid on my lens (75mm. f5.6 with lens board and matching focal length cam) for $275. It's for my 2x3 field camera with top rangefinder. I haven't shoot enough to know a lot about lenses, but I remember seeing a lot of names that others here have suggested. Though, not necessary the prices that they've suggested. You may find your lens there. And good luck with your portrait project. Sounds like a lot of fun.

kind regards

Kris

seawolf66
26-Sep-2007, 07:31
Still, I'd really rather keep it under $250, if that's a possibility. I'm also into target shooting and rifles and ammo add up.+++++++ To Many hobbies can keep a person broke and not able to enjoy any: Enjoy And have fun:

jnantz
26-Sep-2007, 08:01
like dan suggested ...
you might be able to find a 10" teleoptar.
they come in a shutter from time to time
and make nice portrait lenses.

good luck!

john

Jim Galli
26-Sep-2007, 08:12
What a 190 4.5 Ektar looks like http://cgi.ebay.com/KODAK-7-1-2-IN-190MM-4X5-VIEW-LENS-IN-ILEX-N0-4_W0QQitemZ270168219841QQihZ017QQcategoryZ15247QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem and well in your price range. Quite sharp at f11

Caltar Pro but this one is 150mm and the seller is ignorant that it is a Schneider Xenar, not a Rodenstock. Very common. The ignorance, not the lens. http://cgi.ebay.com/Rodenstock-Calumet-Caltar-PRO-Series-6-5-6-150mm-MINT_W0QQitemZ170153056505QQihZ007QQcategoryZ30076QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Pics of the sliding back I tried to describe. Over at Ape hug and I'm not sure if non members can see pix in the classified or not. http://www.apug.org/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=4918

Wayne Crider
26-Sep-2007, 08:32
FYI..a "portrait" lens, traditionally has not been a "tack" sharp lens, as most people do not like to see themselves in the stark reality of all their flaws. So, if you want a "tack" sharp lens, then you really do not want a "portrait" lens, but rather a long-focal-length lens for taking close-ups.

You obviously have not shot enough older women with lines in their faces. If your bent on a sharp lens to cover a variety of subjects such as landscapes, your time will be well spend in Photoshop learning the tools necessary to please the women sitters... or get a softening filter.

C. D. Keth
26-Sep-2007, 15:52
Still, I'd really rather keep it under $250, if that's a possibility. I'm also into target shooting and rifles and ammo add up.+++++++ To Many hobbies can keep a person broke and not able to enjoy any: Enjoy And have fun:

Isn't that the truth? I'm a too-many-hobby kind of person as well. I'm into LF photo and target shooting as well but you can also add painting, calligraphy, fly fishing, fly tying, building flyrods, woodworking, miniature gaming, video gaming, being a huge movie buff, and mountain biking to my list.:o

Dan Fromm
26-Sep-2007, 15:58
Isn't that the truth? I'm a too-many-hobby kind of person as well. I'm into LF photo and target shooting as well but you can also add painting, calligraphy, fly fishing, fly tying, building flyrods, woodworking, miniature gaming, video gaming, being a huge movie buff, and mountain biking to my list.:oWhat? Why not sleeping in on weekends too?

C. D. Keth
26-Sep-2007, 16:59
What? Why not sleeping in on weekends too?

Sleep is for retirement :P I'm a film cameraman, we've been trained by producers to not need sleep except on one day a week....I wish.

Ernest Purdum
26-Sep-2007, 18:38
Since the 203mm Kodak Ektar is popular enough to require a considerable higher price than many other lenses of similar age, it might be worth considering the 203mm f7.5 "Optar", presumably a Wollensak product. Like the Ektar, it is single-coated.

Glenn Thoreson
26-Sep-2007, 20:49
Sharp, cheap, multi coated - Rodenstock Geronar 210 f/6.8. Very often available for under 200.00. Also comes branded as Caltar IIE. You can't really lose with this one if sharp and cheap is what you want.

John Berry
5-Oct-2007, 00:49
Since the 203mm Kodak Ektar is popular enough to require a considerable higher price than many other lenses of similar age, Just think on that part of ernest post for a while. You said you would be willing to save for the right lens. You won't regret it at.

Frank Petronio
5-Oct-2007, 05:37
Umm it doesn't have to be 190 to 210 to make a portrait...

All of mine are done with a 150.

Also, f/7.7 is nearly a stop slower than a nice 5/6 aperture, and that extra stop is important.

I'd look for a 150 or 180 Schneider Xenar f/4.5 in a good Synchro Compur shutter.

John Kasaian
5-Oct-2007, 08:14
You might look at a Kodal No.32 Anastigat or a Wollensak 162mm Velostigmat series II---both super performers for very little $$$ in the 160-ish flavor. A local photograqphy prof at the university found the wolly velo to be her preferred porrtrait lens (and she could have afforded anything she wanted!)

Robert Budding
7-Oct-2007, 01:34
Many (all?) of the side mounted Kalart rangefinders are adjustable withous the use of a cam, however I am not sure that they will adjust far enough for a ~200mm lens.

Yes, the side rangefinders are adjustable without the use of a cam - but you have to readjust every time you change focal lengths. The top rangefinder, on the other hand, only requires a quick change of cams when you change focal lengths.

I have a 203mm cam for my Kalart top rangefinder - and now I can test it as I purchased a 203mm Ektar yesterday. The rangefinder has been extremely accurate with my 135mm lens. Lots of fun using it hand held.

buze
11-Oct-2007, 15:04
The crown is rather ill adapted to portraiture; you can't rotate the back, you have to rotate the whole camera. That makes handling the camera problematic, and using long/larger lens a BIG problem as the weight will not be supported properly.
But it works...

I use a Voigtlander Telomar 480mm tele on the Crown, and it works just fine. Not ideal, but it certainly does work.
You can also use and focus a 305mm (12") non-tele lens on the crown down to about ~3m, I used my Ilex Paragon that way a number of times.

Heres the Telomar, on the crown in 'portrait' mode.
http://oomz.net/scaled/l/IMG_2134.JPG

Skorzen
15-Oct-2007, 07:29
I just thought I would post this here as this thread still seems to be alive and it might be helpful to someone. This was taken with a Crown Graphic, 203mm 7.7 Ektar (I paid $60 for it) at f16 1/2 sec on Tmax 100 processed in Rodinal (11 min @ 68 F). These is a little blur from the long exposure and movement, but I am very impressed.

Paul Fitzgerald
15-Oct-2007, 21:27
Hi there,

Haven't seen it mentioned, the Comptar Symmetrigon 210/6.3 will just fit into a SpeedGraphic so it should fit the Crown. Not a portrait lens, usually too sharp, modern Copal shutter and reasonably priced.

Have fun with the hunt.

Oortti
24-Jan-2008, 04:59
Hello all!

I'm also quite newbie to 4x5 -format and I'm also looking a sharp, long lens for a closeup portrait shooting. Mainly for the facial shots. I've read this thread few times and there has been many suggestions for a lens.

Likewise the starter of the thread, I'm not looking to soften the images or the portraits, you could say that I'm looking to see every groove, crook & cranny on the persons face.

I've picked few options, hope you would give me some advice. (I have graflex crown):

-Calumet Caltar-S II (Schneider) 210 mm f5.6 (how sharp and usable this really is?)
-Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar-S 210 mm f5.6 Sinar DB
-Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar-S 240 mm f5.6 (is this usable on crown?)

I'm not sure if 210 mm is still too short for me, and if so, would you have some suggestions?

Thanks!

EDIT: Also bokeh is a factor. I'm looking the bokeh to be quite deep, so shooting at small aperture isn't an option for me. Bit like the style of Nikolai here:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1046/1054050665_96f2ba03f4.jpg?v=0

Michael Graves
24-Jan-2008, 05:48
If you're not limited by bellows extension the way the original poster was, any of the Goerz Artars from 10" and up are good. A 210 Fujinon can frequently be had for less than the lenses you mentioned and performs every bit as well.

Dan Fromm
24-Jan-2008, 08:01
Hmm. Since you have a Crown Graphic, ask on the www.graflex.org helpboard.

But and however, without bothering to look it up to be sure a Crown's maximum extension is approximately 12"/300 mm. That's enough for portraiture with a 210.

IIRC -- Google! -- the Caltar-S II is a rebadged Symmar-S. IIRC, lenses in DB mount are in barrel and are intended to be used with a Sinar behind-the-lens shutter. Your Crown doesn't have a focal plane shutter and its front standard is too small to accomodate a Sinar shutter.

mrladewig
24-Jan-2008, 09:44
Thanks Tim, BTW, I'm looking for a lens so sharp that I'll need a box of bandaid's to make enlargements. Sharpness is the reason I switched formats.

I have a Fujinon W 210 that would fit your needs. I paid $250 to a member here for it a few weeks ago and I've seen a couple others go on ebay for roughly the same. I got some slides back from it and they were excellent. Very crisp.

But as the others have said, I think lens of this design from any of the big four would easily meet your expectations. I have a 1970's single coated 150mm Symmar-S and it also has excellent sharpness and overall image quality. So I think if you find anything of modern design (meaning 1960's or later) you'll likely get a lens that will meet your needs very well.

Also have to agree with some other posters. Razor sharp portraits are not the norm. I think I understand the look you are going for, its just not how most commercial portrait photographers would shoot.

Mel-

Gene McCluney
24-Jan-2008, 09:49
While the Crown Graphic does not have a rotating back, the Super Graphic does, and might be a better choice for portraits. Also, one can take a surplus lensboard and mount an extension on it making it what is called a "top hat lensboard" to get closer focusing with long lenses. I have done this myself. I got a small unfinished wood box from the local hobby store, removed the lid, mounted the box on the lensboard, and drilled a hole for the lens in the bottom of the box, which gives me about 2 inches more distance from lens to film.

Vick Vickery
24-Jan-2008, 10:34
Bobby, you've had some great replies here and I, too, love my convertibles, especially my Turner-Reicht 160/275/350 and my Ilex 215/360 (mentioned above), each purchased for less than $100 (I did have Carol at Flutot's work over the Ilex's shutter).

Since you are a student with a tight budget, I will make one recommendation that I haven't seen here yet: pick up a series VI push-on filter holder & lens hood to fit the 135mm or 127mm lens that came with your camera (making a wild assumption here, but those are what you usally get with a Crown) and find a minus 3 (-3) and/or a minus 4 (-4) Series VI lens to go in the holder. These lenses will change your normal lens to about a 230mm (-3) or a 280mm (-4) for portrait use. The lenses will require you to pay attention to the extention factors when in use, but will give very acceptable results for portrature since any image degredation from them wil result in a slightly softer immage. You should spot these items on eBay very reasonably.

Kuzano
24-Jan-2008, 12:38
FYI..a "portrait" lens, traditionally has not been a "tack" sharp lens, as most people do not like to see themselves in the stark reality of all their flaws. So, if you want a "tack" sharp lens, then you really do not want a "portrait" lens, but rather a long-focal-length lens for taking close-ups.

True, and I agree, but one thing I might mention here regarding scanning the image to digital at any point.

A tack sharp image has more data in the file than a soft focus, once the image becomes digital.

A sharply focused image translates into a bigger (bytesize) digital file than a soft or out of focus image. I've tested this by taking identical images, identical lighting, identical exposure, static image, shot on a tripod. I shot the image in varying degrees of focus. The sharpest focus image is larger in file size, which indicates that once the image is in an image editor, you have more data to work with.

Now, at that point, with the digital file in CS3, or other editors, you can do the soft focus in very few steps.

With that I mind, I suspect I will be opting for the sharpest image possible in the capture phase in the future.

However, without the digital element entering in, I would opt for a lens that is portrait or "soft focus" oriented.

I'm a little put off by the comment about disregarding the subjects feelings on the image quality. Clearly spoken by someone who does not intend to be professional and try to satisfy a buying customer. Tack sharp may be technically proficient, but it is often more easily achievable than real photographic and pleasing images.

But that's not intended to inflame, merely an observation from someone who approaches life from a marketing perspective. That's been my career for many years.... satisfying a buying public. I don't sympathize with the "Starving Artist" syndrome. The reason they are starving is that they don't know marketing.

Whoops... Off Topic.... sorry.

buze
24-Jan-2008, 13:34
Forget about the 300mm f5.6 Symmar S. It's /gigantic/ ! The poor crown will fold over backward :D
I think the limit for reasonable close focus is the 240mm, or a telephoto.

Gene McCluney
24-Jan-2008, 17:15
A tack sharp image has more data in the file than a soft focus, once the image becomes digital.

A sharply focused image translates into a bigger (bytesize) digital file than a soft or out of focus image. I've tested this by taking identical images, identical lighting, identical exposure, static image, shot on a tripod. I shot the image in varying degrees of focus. The sharpest focus image is larger in file size, which indicates that once the image is in an image editor, you have more data to work with.

Now, at that point, with the digital file in CS3, or other editors, you can do the soft focus in very few steps.

With that I mind, I suspect I will be opting for the sharpest image possible in the capture phase in the future.



Yes, it is true that you can use various methods to "soften" the image in Photoshop, however you can not duplicate all the "specific" qualities different lens designs exhibit in the realm of LF portraiture. It is not just all about "softness", but rather other qualities come into play such as round-ness, glow, fall-off, the character of the out-of-focus highlights, the shallow depth of field, etc. I think one could go mad trying to replicate a lens specific qualities digitally, when it is so easy to just use the appropriate lens in the first place.....and if you capture beauty on your negative, you can make darkroom prints also.

Kuzano
25-Jan-2008, 00:07
Yes, it is true that you can use various methods to "soften" the image in Photoshop, however you can not duplicate all the "specific" qualities different lens designs exhibit in the realm of LF portraiture. It is not just all about "softness", but rather other qualities come into play such as round-ness, glow, fall-off, the character of the out-of-focus highlights, the shallow depth of field, etc. I think one could go mad trying to replicate a lens specific qualities digitally, when it is so easy to just use the appropriate lens in the first place.....and if you capture beauty on your negative, you can make darkroom prints also.

While I do agree with your comments, I am always amazed at the plugins that keep showing up for CS3 and the other imaging programs. It appears you can now buy plugins for the different grains of various emulsions. Won't it be interesting when we find plugins available for creating those special effects of your favorite uncoated lens or other unique features.

Gene McCluney
25-Jan-2008, 16:04
While I do agree with your comments, I am always amazed at the plugins that keep showing up for CS3 and the other imaging programs. It appears you can now buy plugins for the different grains of various emulsions. Won't it be interesting when we find plugins available for creating those special effects of your favorite uncoated lens or other unique features.

I have never understood why someone would want to spend hours in front of a computer fiddling with "filters" to replicate a look that is so easy to get with the right lens on the camera in the first place.

Dan Fromm
26-Jan-2008, 06:02
Gene, the computer post-processing means that many "looks" can be obtained from the same lens. I'm not into "look" lunacy, but if I were I suppose I'd have to carry even more lenses ...