Apricot Blossoms! 8 antique lenses and paper negatives.

[Gene McCluney]

Jim, did you just scan your paper negatives and invert in Photoshop? for your web page.

[gregstidham]

There is something about that Aviar that I really like. I think Cooke made a mistake on it at the factory and you got lucky and found it. Send me a note if you ever want to sell that one.

[Jim Galli]

Thanks ALL. Mark, I did set the scene size wise to about equal a head and shoulder portrait for distance but the comparison probably ends there. I'd be happy with any of these for a portrait. Knowing which one to pick to match the person in front of the camera is kind of frightening.

Gene, yes, I haven't had time to print but past experience tells me the prints will be better than the scans. When you print the light has to make it's way through the paper fibers and that adds another element to the final piece.

Greg, you may be in luck. Yesterday the postman brought me a much cleaner version of that lens and yes, it is available and not really worth much. My pm's are about full so contact me off line at jimgalli at lnett dot com

[ljsegil]

Beautiful and fun, and another vote for the Pinkham, although the Cookes are awfully hard to resist.
LJS

[Jim Galli]

Well, it's 2:49 AM and I'm not thinking too well. Exhausted myself printing. I made a first print of the paper neg apricot blossom done with the 18" Hyperion and all I can say is, it's remarkable. The combination of lens diffusion and paper neg is different than anything I've seen in a very long time.

I'm flattered that many of you have asked me about buying prints. I normally simply don't go there. But this picture is so different I've decided to make 6 extras and offer them to my friends here for $45. Mounted or unmounted, your choice. I'll be printing on Adox #2 fiber paper. 6 only this time.

[Mark Sawyer]

Put me down for one, mounted or unmounted, your choice! I'm really curious about the print quality; I tried paper negatives back in the 1970's, and could never get a look I liked. Maybe it's time to play with it again...

[Jim Galli]

Put me down for one, mounted or unmounted, your choice! I'm really curious about the print quality; I tried paper negatives back in the 1970's, and could never get a look I liked. Maybe it's time to play with it again...

Thanks Mark! Aren't computers great. Take a short nap and sold three of the pictures

Hope you like it. PayPal is to jimgalli@lnett.com

All proceeds go to a good cause. I'm out of good 11X14 paper. Actually had a box of Forte I was counting on go gray on me.

Best, Jim

[rippo]

i gotta vote for the hyperion. i made a point of viewing the images quickly, without looking at which lens was which. didn't want to be influenced by 'brand names' and all (cooke fever...). i liked the weird artifacts the hyperion had...if you're going to have OOF areas, they might as well warp the very reality of space and time. no sense playing safe with one's bokeh.

thanks for the comparisons.

[Murray]

I never tire of these either.

Those who do can politely doze off.

I will study them closer. I need eye training. To the uninitiated it can be a little like house- or car-shopping, a lot of similarity and it becomes difficult to articulate what subtle differences one sees.

[goamules]

I too, really look forward to your lens comparisons. Inspiring, contemplative, and beautiful.