tim
the booklet had a detail of your knuckler so you could tell which way was soft and sharp ( you weren't sure ) ...
good luck !
john
tim
the booklet had a detail of your knuckler so you could tell which way was soft and sharp ( you weren't sure ) ...
good luck !
john
Thanks John. Yes, I have figured it out now. The site had a link to an early 1920s catalog that recommended taking a sharp portrait, then using the same lens at maximum diffusion to soften the portrait during enlargement! I might give that a try sometime.
yeah, a lot of these lenses worked "double duty" as both an enlarging/and taking lens.
i use a meniscus lens from time to time to enlarge, it works pretty well ..
I was sorting out my Cooke's a few years ago. Here are examples from my 16 inch Cooke Series II wide open at f/4,.5:
Full sharp:
Full soft:
Detail, full sharp:
Detail, full soft:
The Cooke f/4.5 Portrait Lenses don't go as soft as other dedicated soft lenses. They're more a "true" portrait lens meant to smooth out skin blemishes, rather than to add the heavy shimmering atmosheric effects of a pictorial soft focus lens. There's definitely some spherical aberration spreading the depth of firld, you can see it in the wicker chair detail. My Cooke f/3.5 Portrait Lens goes a little softer wide open.
Wonderful lenses. The Cooke's seem to give a little something extra in the tonal range...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Thanks Mark. Its very interesting to see the increased depth of field in the shawl and wicker. It is not the theatrical effect I expected, but does have a wonderful look, and clearly improves even teenage skin. I have some lights in the mail and am looking forward to doing some tests with this lens when they arrive.
It was interesting to read that this lens was intended for 4x5! It would never fit on mine, and just fits on the 5x7 B&J I have. The glass is so heavy the front standard tilts...
hi mark
with the tests you posted, do you remember if your focus point was her eyes? it seems that the sharp/soft dial also changed the focus point
and "front focuses" your subject ( and softens everything behind the new focus point ) ...
this lens must do magic between 5.6 and 8 and the dial turned ...
john
Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer
I was sorting out my Cooke's a few years ago. Here are examples from my 16 inch Cooke Series II wide open at f/4,.5:
Full sharp:
Full soft:
Detail, full sharp:
Detail, full soft:
The Cooke f/4.5 Portrait Lenses don't go as soft as other dedicated soft lenses. They're more a "true" portrait lens meant to smooth out skin blemishes, rather than to add the heavy shimmering atmosheric effects of a pictorial soft focus lens. There's definitely some spherical aberration spreading the depth of firld, you can see it in the wicker chair detail. My Cooke f/3.5 Portrait Lens goes a little softer wide open.
Wonderful lenses. The Cooke's seem to give a little something extra in the tonal range...
John, you are correct. These lenses have a middle section that moves when the softness is adjusted. This changes the focal point because the optical formula changes as the positions of glass change with respect to each other.
In the past, I've owned a 16" Series II. I currently have a 10.5" IIa. Both are of similar construction. Both are "pre-knuckler". I think the black "knuckler" ring started being offered around 1924.
John ~ Chris is quite right on all counts. I'm aware the focal length changes a touch with the moving elements in soft lenses, (the Vitax, Velostigmat, and Portrait Unar do the same thing, as I'm sure the Universal Heliar does). And yes, I always focus carefully on the eyes, usually with a little swing and tilt for other areas. For this one, I refocused after moving the mid element, and left the movements the same for comparison porposes. Something that surprised me was that the soft adjustment also softened the apparent light reflections on the skin, making it seem less shiny.
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Well, I'm still a bit confused, and wonder if my lens is assembled incorrectly, as when I shift the softness ring focal length at infinity changes from about 9" to 11 1/2"; i.e. not "a touch". Is that normal?
I was able to buy some hypo (and other chemicals) yesterday, but by the time I got set up the light was gone. I'll try to shoot some tests this afternoon when I return from work.
It's mine!
Did you buy yours in Thailand?
I spent many months in Thailand, during a good span of time (first time in 1978), and i like to think that i will spend the most part of the year there, as soon as i can afford it.
Are basic darkroom products and large format films available in Bangkok?
Back to the Cooke:
the IIE is the youngest brother, and i think it has more "travel" than the others, though i don't know if the amount of "soft" is increased or not.
The lenses with mechanical adjusting of "softness" are generally more subtle than those with diaphragm only... or those with no diaphragm at all, like the Plasticca (which is really super soft, and difficult to use, due to chromatic aberration).
Generally speaking, the lenses with mechanical adjusting are somewhat easier to use than an achromatic meniscus (like the Imagon), and much more than anachromatic lenses of various kind, like the Pulligny & Puyo and of course the Plasticca.
It's a matter of taste, and of course of time and personal efforts (a lens which has different chemical and visual focus isn't exactly easy to master), and of course there are individuals who are in love with their Universal Heliar or Cooke Portrait, and find a Plasticca totally unusable. BTW, i have seen a price list of the time, and with the same money you could buy about 10 Plasticcas, or ONE Universal Heliar of corresponding focal!
One personal opinion about the Cooke Portrait IIE: there are very few brass lenses that are so well made
have fun
CJ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks