210mm for 8x10"

[Bernice Loui]

Origins might be found in the orthodoxy and ideology of Group f64, purity of vision or straight photography.

Photography is at best an interpretation of an emotional experience in a three dimension world rendered on a flat two dimension plane. This is inherently and by process distortion. Lenses are tools for this interpretive process. Greater the variety of tools, greater the possible results of the interpretive process, limit the tools limits this interpretive process.


Bernice

One thing of interest that I noticed is LF photographers' dislike for what they self-defiine as "distortion". Of course every lens distorts in some regard, and extreme wide angles are simply delivering what your eyes actually see, IF you were paying attention, so this seems very arbitrary. The other thing I don't get is how an entire wing of photograph has branded one particular aspect of vision as distasteful and illegitimate. It doesn't make much sense.

[neil poulsen]

What is "Fine Art" ?


Bernice

[Songyun]

Anyone knows which aperture scale fits the computar 210 f9?

[tgtaylor]

What is "Fine Art" ?


Bernice

You can find several hundred examples of it on my website.

Thomas

[Phil Hudson]

Anyone knows which aperture scale fits the computar 210 f9?

If it is in Copal 1 I imagine that the scales from a G-Claron 210/9 would work?

[tgtaylor]

A 210 is too close to a 240 IMHO. A 180 would be ideal for 8x10 and would give the same FOV as a 90 on a 4x5 b ut for some reason 180's are as rare as hounds teeth and expensive when you do find one...a good one that is. There are some images that can only be taken with one focal length. For example, El Capitan from the Merced, a Kallitype I have on my website, can only be taken with a lens that has a 90mm 4x5 perspective. A 240 on a 8x10 is too long and the 120 waaay to wide. But the 120 with a 5x7 back gives the perfect perspective and practically the same as the 90 on a 4x5. The 90mm is a popular FL for 4x5 and I've always wondered why the lens manufacturers didn't duplicate that for 8x10.

Thomas

[Vaughn]

I have not tried my Fuji W 180mm on 8x10 (inside rim lettering). Rumor has it that it will cover 8x10 (might, closed down all the way and focused closer than infinity), but I got it for 5x7.

Edited to add: For 210mm on my 8x10 I go with a small Graphic Raptar in a barrel. So far I have not run out of room. I have not used it nearly as much since getting a Fuji W 250/6.7, but back into the redwoods for this Fall/Winter, it might see some use again...especially with 4x10.

[fuegocito]

I have the said Fujinon-W 180mm and have tried it on 8x10 and it just misses the corner at wide open, not sure if it changes as it's close down to F22

[Steve Sherman]

I have a 210 f9 Computar, I’m not sure if it’s the smallest lens that will cover significantly more than an 8x10 negative or not. What I am sure of...egos are like butt cracks, everyone has one but no one wants to see or hear one.

[tgtaylor]

If you stop and think about it 35mm has the 28, 645 the 45, 6x7 the 55mm, 4x5 the 90, 5x7 the 120. But what is there for the 8x10? 180 would be the logical choice but 180's that will cover the format are rare or nonexistent. Why the gap?

Thomas