What are the best lenses for wet plate studio portraits 14X17 format ?

[Louis.B_14X17]

Hello, I'm Louis, an amateur photographer based in Paris, France. I'm new to the forum because I'm embarking on a rather crazy project: I want to shoot very large-format studio portraits on wet plates using the wet collodion process.

I've just completed a training course and I'm now looking to buy the best equipment to achieve my goals. For the camera, I'm aiming to buy the Chamonix 14X17, but it's the lens that complicates things. During my research I found a good number of lenses that can cover the 14X17 format, but the problem is that these numerous references have apertures that don't go below f9 and that in the perspective of making wet plates with collodion it would be relevant to have the brightest lens possible. What's more, I've also seen that coated lenses should be avoided when shooting wet plates, as they produce too much contrast. Is this really the case?

To sum up, in view of my research, it seems more appropriate to turn to older, uncoated lenses, which could possibly have a wider aperture than more recent lenses. If any experienced people on this forum could help me in this direction, it would be a great help, as it's more difficult to find references for old lenses and to find ways of acquiring them.

Thanks in advance

[michael_los_angeles_photo]

I’m sure there are some large projection lenses that would cover that format and be quite fast. I’ve used a 24” Kodak Aero-Ektar for not-super-tight wet plate portraits on 18x22”. At f6 it is reasonably fast, and gives you a shallow depth of field without being (in my opinion) too razor thin. I don’t think they are too hard to find. You might also want to make sure the lens boards that camera takes will be big enough for a given lens, and that the front standard is strong enough to take the weight. I use a pretty massive (homemade) studio camera, with a very hefty front standard. When you get into lenses that large, they can get very heavy. If you need extra support, though, I’ve seen people rig up a brace of sorts that helps hold the lens from below.

As for coated lenses, I’m not sure it makes a big difference. You can also control contrast through lighting, chemicals and exposure/development, and I’ve seen good wet plate portraits shot with modern, coated lenses.

[Tin Can]

Look for a pretty lady holding a very big lens on her shoulder

recently on this forum

not free

buy it

asap

[Louis.B_14X17]

I’m sure there are some large projection lenses that would cover that format and be quite fast. I’ve used a 24” Kodak Aero-Ektar for not-super-tight wet plate portraits on 18x22”. At f6 it is reasonably fast, and gives you a shallow depth of field without being (in my opinion) too razor thin. I don’t think they are too hard to find. (...)

As for coated lenses, I’m not sure it makes a big difference. You can also control contrast through lighting, chemicals and exposure/development, and I’ve seen good wet plate portraits shot with modern, coated lenses.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

I've seen several times in my research that projector lenses can be a good option for making wet plates because they are faster than photo lenses. The question is to know what focal length can be found in projector lenses because ideally I'm aiming for a lens between 600mm and 1200mm to be able to make close-up portraits. During my research, I saw that the multiplying coefficient for a 14X17 equivalent lens of a Full Frame DSLR was 13,5. Following this logic, to get a 50mm equivalent you'd need about 675mm and for an 85mm equivalent you'd need 1150mm. Do you have any information on this multiplication coefficient? I found only one person who put forward this figure, and I'd like to confirm or deny it, as it will have a major impact on the choice of lens. After that, I'm aware that imagining doing more close-up portraits with such a camera and such lenses can prove to be quite a logistical challenge in terms of studio space, weight of the equipment and bellows length, but I want to consider all options before deciding on a direction to take.

Finally, I'd like to come back to what you said about coated lenses. This statement is rather reassuring, as I've seen a number of more modern lenses that cover the format and have the advantage of being much more compact and lightweight than older lenses. The question that remains about these more modern lenses is in relation to UV filtering. During my training, my trainer insisted that beyond the importance of the quantity of light linked to the low sensitivity of photographic collodion, it was the quantity of UV present in this light that was crucial. He swears by old lenses, but in my research, I've seen nothing to indicate that lenses like the Fujinon C 600, Rodenstock's APO Ronar Cl 1070 or Nikon's APO Nikkor 1210, to name but a few, have anti-UV coating. Have you heard of anti-UV coating on this type of lenses ?

[maltfalc]

measure the diagonal of the image area on your plate holders and divide by 43mm to get the crop factor for equivalent focal lengths. most traditional non-zoom triplet projector lenses should cover formats with a diagonal smaller than their focal length at infinity. with 14x17 if you're shooting 1:1 scale headshots you can get away with a focal length half as long as your diagonal, and the max focal length will be half of your max bellows draw. uv coated lenses and flashtubes might cost you something like 1/3 of a stop because wetplate's sensitivity peaks in the violet-blue range.

[michael_los_angeles_photo]

Unfortunately, after a point, I’m not the most technical person, so can’t always speak to the intricacies of these things. I often just try things and see if they work for me. So I can’t say that much more about lens coating, and whether it cuts down on the amount of UV that a lens might transmit. I do know that someone in one of the FB wet plate groups did a test years ago and concluded that UV coating on flash bulbs didn’t matter much. But yes, certainly the wet plate process needs a lot of UV and blue light. But again, I know people shooting wet plate with modern large format lenses, and I don’t feel I see them needing more light than I do with my older ones.

But that brings me to another point: if you are going to be using lenses anywhere near the longer end of the range you’re considering, they are going to require a very long bellows extension to shoot anything like a standard head-and-shoulders portrait, and hence need a tremendous amount of light. Giles Clement used a 500mm f4.5 Dogmar to shoot 16x20” ambrotypes — which may seem on the shorter side. But it worked (or I think most would feel it did.) 14x17” is of course a touch smaller, so if anything, something in that range seems potentially even more applicable .. plus you’d get the advantage of shorter bellows. Anyway, maybe something to think about. You can see many of this portraits online, which will give you an idea whether it’s a look you might like.

If you are not familiar with the wet plate dreams website, maybe check there and see if he has any longer projection (or other) lenses. He’s a great resource. Also, Luther Gerlach has shot a lot of 14x17” — more landscape and natural light, but some portraits too I believe in that size — and he is very knowledgeable. He often gives advice in the FB wet plate groups, so perhaps he’d be open to answering an email if you were to contact him. He would likely be able to answer all of your questions.

[MAubrey]

measure the diagonal of the image area on your plate holders and divide by 43mm to get the crop factor for equivalent focal lengths. most traditional non-zoom triplet projector lenses should cover formats with a diagonal smaller than their focal length at infinity. with 14x17 if you're shooting 1:1 scale headshots you can get away with a focal length half as long as your diagonal, and the max focal length will be half of your max bellows draw. uv coated lenses and flashtubes might cost you something like 1/3 of a stop because wetplate's sensitivity peaks in the violet-blue range.

As an example for the OP:

The diagonal of 14x17 is ~560mm.

A 300mm f/4.5 Tessar/Xenar has a ~350mm image circle at infinity, but that gives you a 700mm image circle at 1:1.

Plenty of coverage to work with.

[Mark Sawyer]

A 300mm f/4.5 Tessar/Xenar has a ~350mm image circle at infinity, but that gives you a 700mm image circle at 1:1.

Plenty of coverage to work with.

Pictorially, 300mm is very short for 14x17 portraits, some would say too short for 8x10. But you're quite right that 14x17 coverage at infinity isn't necessary for 14x17portraiture.

[arri]

Maybe you can find two achromatic lenses, each with 0.5 diopter focus length. Search for achromats for telescopes.
When you use two of this elements you get a 1000mm lens. The diameter of the lenses are relevant for the speed.

You can use a single achromatic lens also, I found f.ex. a 750mm lens with diameter of 150mm =f/5 with a single layer coating. Perfect for wetplate.
This lens elements are colour corrected and have only small spherical aberrations.
It costs around 200 Euros/US$

[Hugo Zhang]

Just get a Voightlander Euryscope IV #7 lens and that will cover your format. It is a F/6 lens with 600mm focal length.