Civil War Era Lenses?

[icefan13]

Does anyone here use lenes from the Civil War era?

Over on the lenscratch blog, theyposted some portraits shot by a photographer who they say uses 'civil war lenses'. They give the portraits a great look, but I'm wondering how much of the look acheived is in the lenses. I'm also wondering where do you even find lenses like that or even know where to begin what to look for?

Anyone know?

Thanks.

[BarryS]

Those would be Petzval lenses. Try doing a search on "Petzval" here and over at APUG. The vignetting and swirly bokeh edges come from using a Petzval lens that's a bit short for the format--maybe 4-6" for 4x5. You can find the lenses on ebay and sometimes on this forum or over at APUG.

[Ole Tjugen]

They might also be Landscape lenses (Achromatised meniscus behind a small hole) or even "Nameless Symmetricals" (like a Rapid Rectilinear, only opposite order of elements). Or single meniscus lenses, or even Periskops, although not the double symmetrical meniscus of 1865 - there were lots of earlier forms.

But Petzvals are a lot more likely. In their heyday one would use a 12" Petzval for 4x5", which doesn't give the swirly edges that are the modern fingerprint of these lenses (pun intended).

[Toyon]

Most civil war photography is not swirly so they were probably using meniscus or doublet lenses. I don't believe the petzval swirls was considered desirable even in portraiture, it was generally disguised by placing the subject in the center 20 degrees of the lens.

[Bill_1856]

It's called artsy-pfartsy, and I'm darn tired of it.

[icefan13]

Thanks.

Here's the location of the pictures I was refering too:

http://lenscratch.blogspot.com/

It's the pictures by Erich Hoeber that I was refering too. They're quite lovely.

[Dan Fromm]

It's called artsy-pfartsy, and I'm darn tired of it.

Bill, I looked at the Hoeber shots. What he does is called lens abuse. Not my thing either, and he combines it with lighting that's not to my taste.

In the spirit of live and let live and being fully aware that disagreements between the pictorialist (ancient and modern) and f64 schools will never be settled, I think its best to let the antagonists go their sometimes different ways and be happy. If you can get the effects you want, great! And if the OP can get what he wants, great again!

Cheers,

Dan

[Emil Schildt]

It's called artsy-pfartsy, and I'm darn tired of it.

I don't know about the artsy-pfartsy part (not quite sure what it really means, to be sure...), but could you explain a bit?

My "problem" with these petzvals, used in this "modern" way, is, that people seems to look for the swirlyness, and tend to forget the motive...

A lens - any lens - is only a tool, and if the "effects" (hate that word, but can't find a bette one) are the sole point of using these lenses, then I agree, that the image has somewhat failed..
(If an image is praized almost only for its sharpness, then I get darn tired of it...)

However, I have seen images made - in this case - with these swirly petzvals that are quite amazing.
When the photographer knows how to use his tools, then it can work (?)

[Kerik Kouklis]

Emil, you are correct!! Boring sharp pictures are no better than boring swirly ones.

[icefan13]

Yes, any effect, for the sake of the effect alone is just an excercise in technology, not what I would call a real photograph.