Curvilinear Distortion in W.A. Large Format Lenses

[Jerry Fusselman]

Agreed, CXC, but even better would be a Vistashift with an Apo Grandagon.

[John_4185]

Are you printing directly from your negatives or positives, or are you scanningfirst ? A lot can be dne in Photoshop to correct distortion,

It has come to this? When someone asks about inherent lens distortion, we reply with post-fixes that lead to further complications, more messing around with digital?

He asked about lenses, not distractions.

I have not had the pleasure of using the new XL lenses, but I can see distortion in all the Super-Angulons. Not a lot, and not enough to be terribly objectionable, but IMHO the only wide lens that is near perfect is the later Biogon design. Unfortunately, it is the rare Biogon that covers enough to allow even the most modest movements. I have one that allows 12 degrees of rear tilt, which is enough for a lot of work, but not enough for some. Depends on what you are doing.

The Veriwide mentioned above is either (nominal) 6x9 (Plaubel model) or 6x8 (Brooks). The former is always an F/8 lens, and some of the later had F/5.6 lenses. ...but we are drifting from LF.

[CXC]

I just measured a proof sheet to double check, and the Brooks-Plaubel frame occupies 60mm x 102mm, with an image of 56mm x 92mm. I've never used a 6x9 camera, but I believe their image is meaningfully shorter, hence the 6x10 designation.

[John_4185]

I just measured a proof sheet to double check, and the Brooks-Plaubel frame occupies 60mm x 102mm, with an image of 56mm x 92mm. I've never used a 6x9 camera, but I believe their image is meaningfully shorter, hence the 6x10 designation.

The Plaubel is as close to 6x10 as you are likely to get in a compact, dedicated rollfilm camera. If you look at it as ratios with 56mm height, saying 6x10 is about right. I like it a lot. See, next to my 4x5 enlarger is a Leitz IIa. It was built for true LF, 10cm wide. Unfortunately, (don't shoot me!) I sold the Plaubel during hard times to buy my first 4x5.

Pax,