Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,015

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    Curious to me is why I feel this "old and outdated" technology looks better than all the advances we've made!
    Well...you're also looking at a picture by an early master of the medium. He might be pretty excited by a camera that you can fit into your pocket. I'm sure he'd take pretty awesome pictures with it.

    Personally I think photos don't get more beautiful than Edward Curtis, wet plate collodion negatives on albumen paper. Totally antiquated but I don't think anything is more beautiful. But a total pain in the ass to take one picture. Large format film is just sort of a pain in the ass, relatively.

  2. #22
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    I appreciate the feedback. I deeply understand the relationship between format size of DoF, CoC, et al. My issue with the first photo is the background, though definitely out of focus, it is not so much so to make me feel the sharpness is due to DoF. The background does not blur to the extent of indistinguishability like even a 50mm f1.2 would on 35mm. I do love your thoughts on how some older lens designs transition more smoothly from focused to unfocused details, and I would love to find some examples. Could you tell me of some lenses that I may google images to see better and worse focus transitions and the others showing the different artifacts?

    You're pointing out how flaring lenses may moderate the heavy S-curve present in older films actually may help me. That would explain how the curve goes beyond the highlights in the way I'm searching for. Other have pointed out flaring but I guess thinking about how it beneficially moderates an s-curve helps me!

    That you think my unsharp masking was used is also helpful. I will look into the triplet and tessar to see if that could provide an explanation for the sharpness I am feeling.
    Actually, I said I doubted unsharp masking was used back in the day for pictures like these.

    But if Mr. Wasserman is correct (and I think that's a safe assumption), then you are looking at a digitization of what probably existed only in reproduction, possibly even in newsprint. No telling what they might have done to mask the line screen used in the printing.

    And you now know what lenses he used: Probably a Rapid Rectilinear in 1909. The Tessar was still a relatively new design at that time, and it existed then only in an f/6.3 design. The Rapid Rectilinear was a pretty standard lens in those days, along with the Zeiss Anastigmat. Probably both the Zeiss Anastigmat and the Tessar were produced under license by Bausch and Lomb (who also made Rapid Rectilinear models), and those were probably the first lenses on the Folmer and Schwing Graflex that was perhaps Hine's next camera.

    The Rapid Rectilinear is a four-element, two group lens of opposing cemented pairs. The same design was separately invented in Germany and called the Aplanat. Here's a web page devoted to a Bausch and Lomb Rapid Rectilinear mounted on a digital camera. I think you'll see some effects on that web page that will ring a bell.

    The effect in Hine's picture shows limited depth of field, but the subject is still some distance from the camera. Thus, the subject is not oversized with respect to the background as would often be the case with a normal or wide lens at very wide aperture and close distance to the subject often used on a small-format camera. It is very difficult with the short lenses used on small cameras to get that little depth of field when the focus plane is that far from the camera. Even a 10" lens at f/6.3 will provide less depth of field on 5x7 than a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on 35mm, both printed to the same size. Tessars of that time were that fast--I don't know about Rapid Rectilinears.

    Rick "who likes the vintage look of tessars, recognizing they aren't as vintage as the RR" Denney

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Not quite the same effect but not "terrible". Photo of Gerald Ford and his dog...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Ford.jpg   Ford_old2.jpg  

  4. #24
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2011/img002.jpg shows a 210mm triplet on a 4x5. http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2011/_DSC8080.jpg If you look at the snow, you can see how things gradually go out of focus.

    http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2012/img502s.jpg shows a 210mm tessar on a 4x5. You can see on the left how the railing is softer than the carts, and the carts on the far right in back are softer than other carts. The background of coastline and boats is absolutely unlike anything modern. This type of photo shows how softness can be gradual in the older lenses.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    North of Chicago
    Posts
    1,756

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    At least early in his career, Hine did use a camera with a Rapid Rectilinear lens and glass plates. I don't know if or when he changed equipment. His work is all at the George Eastman House. I am assuming, but am not sure that what we are looking at are scans of the negatives and that they are then post-processed to make them look as good as possible.

    I have seen beautiful prints of his photos, but I can't remember when they were printed or by whom.

    I agree Rick, those old Tessars and RRs have a wonderful look to them.



    Quote Originally Posted by rdenney View Post
    Actually, I said I doubted unsharp masking was used back in the day for pictures like these.

    But if Mr. Wasserman is correct (and I think that's a safe assumption), then you are looking at a digitization of what probably existed only in reproduction, possibly even in newsprint. No telling what they might have done to mask the line screen used in the printing.

    And you now know what lenses he used: Probably a Rapid Rectilinear in 1909. The Tessar was still a relatively new design at that time, and it existed then only in an f/6.3 design. The Rapid Rectilinear was a pretty standard lens in those days, along with the Zeiss Anastigmat. Probably both the Zeiss Anastigmat and the Tessar were produced under license by Bausch and Lomb (who also made Rapid Rectilinear models), and those were probably the first lenses on the Folmer and Schwing Graflex that was perhaps Hine's next camera.

    The Rapid Rectilinear is a four-element, two group lens of opposing cemented pairs. The same design was separately invented in Germany and called the Aplanat. Here's a web page devoted to a Bausch and Lomb Rapid Rectilinear mounted on a digital camera. I think you'll see some effects on that web page that will ring a bell.

    The effect in Hine's picture shows limited depth of field, but the subject is still some distance from the camera. Thus, the subject is not oversized with respect to the background as would often be the case with a normal or wide lens at very wide aperture used on a small-format camera. It is very difficult with the short lenses used on small cameras to get that little depth of field when the focus plane is that far from the camera. Even a 10" lens at f/6.3 will provide less depth of field on 5x7 than a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on 35mm, both printed to the same size. Tessars of that time were that fast--I don't know about Rapid Rectilinears.

    Rick "who likes the vintage look of tessars, recognizing they aren't as vintage as the RR" Denney
    ____________________________________________

    Richard Wasserman

    https://www.rwasserman.com/

  6. #26
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,370

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    I have posted this question numerous times in the past on many different forums. Unfortunately every time the responses I get back are as if I'm some novice and they are teaching me very fundamental principles, which is very frustrating.

    I am a long time photographer, and I work mostly in digital (). There is an aesthetic in specifically older large format prints which I am most attracted to. So I come to forums and give an example and people respond with very basic thoughts on what it must be that attracts me. I do not need these 'lessons' in rudimentary photography, but have gained a little bit of insight from those who have answered with deeper observations. (i.e. please don't teach me about how much greater resolution LF has... I know this )
    I guess I'm the only one who finds this poster's demeaner to be rather insulting. Hard to understand why you haven't gotten answers you've approved of in all your other forum solicitations.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    I need to bring this subject up again here and try to fish out the information I'm looking for. Please observe the first example below. Two things come to mind.
    Asking us or lecturing us?

    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    2.) Sharpness - This example is pretty extreme, but it easily displays a characteristic about older LF photographs were sharpness rolls off in a way very much highlighting the intended subject. Assuming this picture hasn't been touched digitally was there heavy unsharpmasking done in the darkroom to achieve this or does this look come from a certain type of lens?
    Looks like pretty standard "bokeh" attributes of early twentieth century lenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    The second example was a screenshot I took from a DVD, you will not see the sharpness here but I still very much like the curves to use this photo as an example.
    No attribution. It seems you've already uploaded to your own (private) site. In fact, it looks very much as if it could be from my paternal grandfather, a well known armed services photographer, at the construction of the Panama Canal. You probably owe me some money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill_1856 View Post
    When you post other people's images, you should include attribution. If the photographer is unknown, you should give your source.
    Quote Originally Posted by marshallarts View Post
    I'm not going to say too much in defense of your one-noted reply other than that I didn't know either photographer---you need to lighten up.
    You don't have one, your indemnification proves my first point.


    Sincerely hope that services your very specific interrogatory imperatives.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    Posts
    1,710

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    I don't know if this will detract from the conversation, but a lot of the picture's charm, is what is in the picture.

    There must be a large window of light at camera right. It seems like the right-hand "window" is really a projected silhouette of the window that is providing the light for the picture.

    Go in a factory today and you will find banks of overhead fluorescent fixtures. Not flattering light like this. The light has a great deal to do with the charm of the picture.

    There's seven people in the picture, all working. That's either some directed staging or remarkable enterprise.

    The grime also has a lot to do with the charm of the picture. The main subject beats a path around his work area, you can see the circle of clear ground. Hines obviously has the opportunity to put the boy in any spot of his circle...

    He chose the spot where the bar is parallel to the film (so the boy and the bar are sharp).

  8. #28

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Thanks to everyone who replied. I was away from my computer the second half of the day but when I came back I was very pleased to see all the responses. I appreciate all your time helping me in my search to understand what I'm attracted to in these photos!

    There are certainly a number of Hine fan's here that have offered a lot of insight, and some great anecdotes! In the first photograph, your analysis on how that photo was achieved along with best estimations on equipment and photographic processes will leave me with plenty to research, experiment with, and learn from. The idea of spherical aberrations aiding the smoothness when going from focus to out-of-focus and beyond is interesting.

    rdenney, that was a typo, I meant to say "that you think NO unsharp mark was used", not my--sorry. Thanks for your detailed explanation of lenses, and to you and jp498 for those links which will give me plenty more to look into!

    And to ROL... I stumbled upon that photo online while watching some video I believe may have discussed the Panama Canal and it was very frustrating having no idea where it came from, I remember there were no credits anywhere and no way for me to find any additional information. I was, however, so impressed that I made a screen grab so I could study it--you can see the top of a new window on the lower right portion of the image where I took the screen grab. Perhaps your paternal grandfather would have been a little more proud I unknowingly selected his work as an unknown photographer I highly admired. And maybe you should focus more on photography instead of hunting down royalties from forums where members seek knowledge.

    I come to forums to learn from what I don't know and more about what I do know. I did not know the photographers in either photograph before today or their methods, but now I have a better understanding. I believe it is only you, ROL, who feels insulted by my demeanor but I will leave it at that.

    Thanks to everyone else!

  9. #29
    Still Developing
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    582

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Hi - I have a feeling that one of the effects you are seeing is because of a small amount of tilt being applied. The floor seems to reach peak focus behind the boy whereas the boys head seems to be in focus. Looking closly around the rest of the picture it appears that the bottoms of things are slightly sharper than the tops. This would give the effect of a 'pool' of focus around the boy. Not completely sure but this could be possible. It would only take small amount of tilt (probably half a degree) to bring the origin of the plane of focus down to a 5 or 10 feet above the camera, projecting down through the boys head and onto the floor behind the boy.

    The other aspect is that the out of focus areas have more coherence because the lenses used more circular apertures (or waterhouse stops which are perfectly circular).

    Tim
    Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Posts
    1,881

    Re: I've been searching for year for an answer to this question.

    Some one more knowledgable than I may comment on this, But I wonder if the coverage of the lens in the first picture was smaller than the format leading to a degree of circular edge softness: sort of like a Petzval outside of its portrait rcommended format size.

Similar Threads

  1. Help need the answer for the following question
    By dextrea in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2009, 14:37
  2. Can Someone Answer Me The Following Question?
    By dextrea in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2009, 07:04
  3. MTF determination: Rodenstock's answer
    By Bob Salomon in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 25-Sep-2001, 22:01

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •