Taylor Hobson Cooke 30" and 48" process lenses

[diversey]

I have Taylor Hobson Cooke 30" (10 pounds) and 48" (15 pounds) process lenses. I have read the catalog of Cooke, 1930's from Camera Eccentric. The 30" covers 20x30in and 48" covers 36x48in. The catalog says those lenses (series IX) are for use on Engravers' camera, also view, commercial and copying cameras. I searched this forum and other websites and did not find a pictures taken by those process lenses. I was wondering anybody in this forum had used those process lenses and made photos. Thanks.

[Dan Fromm]

I've never had one. The VM says:

Series 1X Process This seems to have been made in two versions and the first was not apochromatic, while
the second was apo and replaced it, perhaps over a period about 1930 when the first seems to have stopped
being listed. It is thought that both were dialyt type rather like the Aviar but slower and that these replaced an
early-20C symmetrical anastigmat and a triplet, but the details here are rather obscure as adverts for process
lenses were not too regular. Series 1X was not in a 1912 list.
Non-Apo Version. f8.0 9, 11, 13in; f10, 16, 18, 21, 25in; f16, 30, 36in.
Apo Version. f10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 25in; f16, 30, 36, 42, 48in.

The coverages you gave are for 1:1. At infinity the lenses cover half as much, 10 x15 and 18 x 24 respectively.

[Tin Can]

I have a Taylor Hobson Cooke 25" Series IX. It's old, black and most likely not APO.

I like it on my 11x14 at 1 to 1. It is very sharp and is way less than 10lbs. I use it only for B&W film.

Sorry, but I do not share analog images in digital format.

[Corran]

Sorry, but I do not share analog images in digital format.

I wish you'd reconsider. We all benefit from the generous sharing of information - this includes images, of course.

[Tin Can]

Bryan,

I seem to punning a lot these days.

But I find posting analog images a degrading experience.

I see no point in producing LF work and showing it on 'smart' phones.

Most people are now using smart phones for everything, computer sales are way down and Tapatalk is big. I value my time and effort too much to let it be designified for the masses.

Even here, there are few doing actual wet printing, scanning negatives appears to be the norm as is digital printing. That's fine for those who want it. but I don't. Sandy does his thing, and he does show analog prints in actual galleries.

I shoot digital everyday and I do let that loose on the smart phones.

I share a lot here, and will share more DIY tonight, but I decided last year to stop posting analog images anywhere in digital form. I'm also not that good, so I keep my 'art' close.

I consider my art private, maybe it's not art if falls down in the forest, but it is what I have chosen to do with my remaining time on earth. And that's not a religious statement. We are star dust.

I may one day have a real life exhibit of prints, when I am ready.

I wish you'd reconsider. We all benefit from the generous sharing of information - this includes images, of course.

[Corran]

I understand your viewpoint. I do.
But you are in Chicago. I'm in Georgia. The internet is a wonderful invention for this very reason.

Do what you must, but it makes me a little sad. I want to see your (and others') work. I look at every post in the Image Sharing forum. Every one.

I sent my friend Jonathan K. a wet print last month. I should send you one. Maybe my first contact print with a new camera I just received.

[Tin Can]

I understand Bryan. I don't look at the images posted here that much. In some ways, looking at other's images can affect one's work. Some musicians do not listen to other's music, especially when they want to compose something original. I need to find a deep meditative state and let my mind wander, to find any creativity. Our modern communications make that difficult.

I also agree the Internet is a wonderful place to learn. I dreamed of something like the Internet all my life, I am almost 64. I am really glad I get to use it now in it's infancy.

Now back to that deep meditative state that is actually a nap...

I understand your viewpoint. I do.
But you are in Chicago. I'm in Georgia. The internet is a wonderful invention for this very reason.

Do what you must, but it makes me a little sad. I want to see your (and others') work. I look at every post in the Image Sharing forum. Every one.

I sent my friend Jonathan K. a wet print last month. I should send you one. Maybe my first contact print with a new camera I just received.

[diversey]

Mine are apo process lenses and the catalog says those lenses were designed for color photograpgy too.

[SergeiR]

I have couple of their process lenses (500mm and longer one.. can't remember - i think its 36", its sits in box till i pull out my 20x24 out again). Both are f10.
I shot colour and b&w, both are nice, smooth, sharp enough to my taste. I don't care for pixel sharpness though. If i will get around to mount 500 again on 6x6 board, i would shoot it again.

this one with 500mm

Light and shadow by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

[Tin Can]

Sergei,

What do you mean 'pixel sharpness'?