Round images on negatives.

[JRCriton]

When I first started researching photography years ago I came across a few images that were a round image on the negative vs square . Over the years I've learned they were taken with 8x10 cameras. So I started doing light research into how it was done, but I've ran into a roadblock. Here's what I'm hoping to do. I have a 4x5 Calumet rail camera that takes 4x4 inch lens boards. I'm hoping to get a lens small enough that the image on the negative is round. I was wondering if I bought an old pocket film camera that takes 120 or 620 film and then buy a lens board and cut a hole for the smaller lens like an old Anastigmat Volgtar, would that lens work for what I'm trying to do? If not what do you recommend? Or what's another method to mimic a full image circle on the negative so the sweet spot is in the center of the image then it's soft around the edge and causes a circle image on the negative? Also what potential issues would I experience when it comes to the camera movements?

Here are a few examples of what I mean. Thought they are not exactly what I'm aiming for. Just visual guidelines.
http://media2.onsugar.com/files/2012/07/28/2/192/1922507/711e9b886275d46a_vintage_lastslonger.preview.jpg

Imagine this with black around the image
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BjOAQyimGug/TlJFnBbyAKI/AAAAAAAABeg/VdP-LmUk3Vo/s1600/HauntingCircle1.jpg


Thanks for your time and I appreciate the help.
Sincerely,
JRC

[Peter Gomena]

I did exactly what you want to do. I used a 130mm lens off an old Agfa/Ansco folder. The image circle was about 6.5 inches in diameter. I've been trying ever since to find a similar lens (I no longer have the other) that will project a circular image on my whole plate camera. The only issue I ran into was that when the 8x10 bellows was compressed that much, there was no movement possible on my old camera. It wasn't a big deal, I just treated it like it was a big box camera. The bellows on my whole plate camera won't compress enough to allow a short enough lens to be used - it's an antique and the bellows is pretty stiff. A bag bellows would be ideal.

[JRCriton]

So that's one of the draw backs. If I get a smaller lens, I wouldn't have much camera movements to work with. Okay I'm forgetting what I've been taught in school. Why is it that a smaller lens make it so the bellows has to be compressed more?

[lenser]

One rather mechanical means could be to place a round vignetter in front of the lens you already have. That would eliminate the bellows compression problems. To make the edge as sharp as possible, place the the vignette out a bit from the front of the lens and use the f stops at minimum stops to maximize the depth of field and bring the circle edge into a sharp a plane as possible.. Relate this to using a Waterhouse stop in front of the lens instead of at the nodal point inside the lens.

Think of this in terms of how often you've seen cutouts used in motion pictures such as the shape of binoculars or the final frames shrinking down to a pin point.

[JRCriton]

One rather mechanical means could be to place a round vignetter in front of the lens you already have. That would eliminate the bellows compression problems. To make the edge as sharp as possible, place the the vignette out a bit from the front of the lens and use the f stops at minimum stops to maximize the depth of field and bring the circle edge into a sharp a plane as possible.. Relate this to using a Waterhouse stop in front of the lens instead of at the nodal point inside the lens.

Think of this in terms of how often you've seen cutouts used in motion pictures such as the shape of binoculars or the final frames shrinking down to a pin point.

So if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, if I put the vignette causing material behind the lens it would soften the edge of the image. But if I put it in front, the distance of the material from the lens in combination with the f stop, would adjust the edge softness of the vignette?

[jnantz]

hi there

any lens that won't cover the format will make a circular image on your film
you could probably pick up a longer focal length, meant for 4x5 that doesn't cover and will darken your film ..
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html
just look for a coverage circle less than 200mm and don't stop down very far ..
maybe a cheap enlarger lens will work ( and a paper negative ) ?

have fun!
john

[lenser]

If you put it behind the lens, I believe it will act as a secondary f stop and effect exposure unless it is right up against the film plane, which is certainly possible to do. Calumet used to sell a 4x5 inside the camera masking frame which could be used to double expose layers of shapes within the frame in camera. I've got one if you wish to see the instruction sheet. I'll be happy to scan and post it. If the vigetter used in front of the lens, the clear core remains at the exposure reading you began with for the subject. I really don't know what it would do to sharpness if placed immediately behind the lens as I've never tried that.

If you can access a Cokin filter catalog, they have a vignette shape kit that is used in their normal holders just in front of the lens. The kit includes several shapes. As I recall, there is a keyhole, a heart, circle, binoculars and a few others.

I've never heard of this being done behind the lens (except as a film plane mask), but I could certainly be ignorant of that technique. From what I've read about motion picture film work, it was done in front of the lens, probably for the simplicity of access if not for any optical or exposure needs.

[lenser]

Back in my wedding shooter days, I often used a matte box that extended about four inches in front of the lens. The mattes fit in slots so that you could layer them if desired and the box had a lid to keep them in the dark to prevent any reflections even though they were made of black matte board. One was an oval with a sharp edge. If I used it close to the lens, it was quite soft, but using it out near the front and stopping down would make the edge much sharper. It would probably been sharper yet if it had been make from a thinner material such as something about the thickness of a dark slide. You might check out the availability of motion picture matte boxes.

[JRCriton]

If you put it behind the lens, I believe it will act as a secondary f stop and effect exposure unless it is right up against the film plane, which is certainly possible to do. Calumet used to sell a 4x5 inside the camera masking frame which could be used to double expose layers of shapes within the frame in camera. I've got one if you wish to see the instruction sheet. I'll be happy to scan and post it. If the vigetter used in front of the lens, the clear core remains at the exposure reading you began with for the subject. I really don't know what it would do to sharpness if placed immediately behind the lens as I've never tried that.

If you can access a Cokin filter catalog, they have a vignette shape kit that is used in their normal holders just in front of the lens. The kit includes several shapes. As I recall, there is a keyhole, a heart, circle, binoculars and a few others.

I've never heard of this being done behind the lens (except as a film plane mask), but I could certainly be ignorant of that technique. From what I've read about motion picture film work, it was done in front of the lens, probably for the simplicity of access if not for any optical or exposure needs.


That's right it would act as an f/stop. What I was thinking about was how some people put their filters behind the lens. I should have thought of that. So my question is now if the mask is close to the negative it would have a sharp edge but if there is a distance the edge of the mask would soften but the mask would have to stay near the film plane? Yes, I'm interested in reading more about it if you don't mind.

[JRCriton]

Back in my wedding shooter days, I often used a matte box that extended about four inches in front of the lens. The mattes fit in slots so that you could layer them if desired and the box had a lid to keep them in the dark to prevent any reflections even though they were made of black matte board. One was an oval with a sharp edge. If I used it close to the lens, it was quite soft, but using it out near the front and stopping down would make the edge much sharper. It would probably been sharper yet if it had been make from a thinner material such as something about the thickness of a dark slide. You might check out the availability of motion picture matte boxes.

Great idea!

[JRCriton]

I think this is what I'm looking for when it come to effect. Combine one of these with a mask and I think I found what I'm looking for. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?60812-soft-focus-landscape/page4

[Tim Meisburger]

I've an old petzval that was missing an element. I took one out of a overhead projector and popped it in there and that big honking petzval gives me a completely circular image on 5x7. I'll post an example when I get home.. If you love it I'll happily sell it to you:rolleyes:

[Randy]

Why is it that a smaller lens make it so the bellows has to be compressed more?Just in case no one has answered your question - a "smaller" lens, one that has a shorter focal length, say a 150mm (6") lens on my 8X10 camera. My bellows, when compressed all the way as far as the camera design will allow, the smallest lens I can accommodate, focused at infinity, is a 6 1/2" lens. I have to use a recessed lens board, which makes the lens sit farther inside the camera if I want to use a lens shorter than about 160mm.
Boy I suck at explaining :(

The second photo you linked to looks like it was not made round in the camera, but printed that way, perhaps with a round mask over the printing paper.

[lenser]

JR,

Sorry this took awhile. First is a photo of the Create a Frame, then the info, and finally the Lindahl Bellows Shade which has slots at the rear, in the center (adjustable) and at the front (also adjustable). This is so that it could be used as sort of a matte box. These are on the bay quite often and with rear adapters they can fit just about anything. Also, they compress way down if needed.

[polyglot]

And if you want a particularly crazy effect, put a short fisheye lens on there, e.g. the 37mm from an RB67 will give you a circular image on 4x5.

There are plenty of short lenses designed for smaller formats that will give vignetting.

You can still use movements but of course shift just moves the circular image around on the film. Tilts work too and have the same effect but you will additionally get a non-circular (ovoid or teardrop: conic sections) image from the movements.

[JRCriton]

O now that's interesting. Now how in the world do I find a create a frame? Google didn't help and the bay didn't have any posted.

[JRCriton]

Yeah, I had a hard time finding examples to visually show what I was meaning, but imagine the white being black.

[JRCriton]

I can't wait to see.

[Peter Gomena]

The round circle in front of the enlarging lens will give you an image circle on a white background. As Jnanian suggested, any lens design that produces a small circle of illumination will do the job. See the comparison charts on the LFF home page to get an idea of what will work. Here's one from the 130mm folder lens I used.

94477

[JRCriton]

That is exactly what I'm wanting to do! Only with softer edges. Okay so how do I make scene of the chart? I'm very new to LF. I'm use to 135mm and 120mm.

[jonreid]

Couldn't you create a mask from a darkslide? Pull the real darkslide and insert one with a circular or whatever shape hole and expose. It would be pretty sharp being so close to the film.
That way your not stuck shooting really short focal length lenses.
Jon

[Tim Meisburger]

Here is mine, from the Frankenpetzval on 5x7.

94496

[JRCriton]

Here is mine, from the Frankenpetzval on 5x7.

94496
That's the effect I'm going for but what I'm trying to do is have the edge be more blurry than fade to black.

[JRCriton]

Couldn't you create a mask from a darkslide? Pull the real darkslide and insert one with a circular or whatever shape hole and expose. It would be pretty sharp being so close to the film.
That way your not stuck shooting really short focal length lenses.
Jon
I was wondering about that but my fear is that the mask since it's so close to the film would make the edge too sharp.

[Peter Gomena]

The lens charts are on the home page of this site. Scroll to the top of this page and click on "LF Home Page." As for making the edges softer, I don't know. There are lots of ways to diffuse an image, maybe a tiny bit of vaseline around the edge of the rear element? The image is going to be vignetted by the housing for the rear element, so there's going to be an edge. The image doesn't just fade away to nothing, it's cut off - there's no more lens there.

[DannL]

http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~ds8s/237/kodak/no2kodak.html
http://www.vintagephoto.tv/no2kodakcouple.shtml

I have one image of my grandfather when he was about 6 yrs old, that was probably taken with a Kodak No. 2 or similar. The round image is quite appealing. Adding a round paper mask at the film-plane should be easy enough on just about any camera. To make the gradient black border I would probably place a round mask (blocking disc) between the enlarger lens and the exposure already on paper, to burn the border to the degree desired. Sorry for not reviewing all the previous replies. These thoughts may be redundant.

[Tin Can]

I got the round effect by mistake with a too small hood on a Digicam.

I also have a Beseler Vignette-O-Flex 5X7 enlarger I have never used. It is designed to do projection enlargement vignette. It has 4 light bulbs surrounding the neg holder, so it must make white vignette, but I bet it also makes black ones. Considering how smart our predecessors were!

If you are scanning, just do it in post.

[jnantz]

That is exactly what I'm wanting to do! Only with softer edges. Okay so how do I make scene of the chart? I'm very new to LF. I'm use to 135mm and 120mm.

hi again

you should contact reinhold, he's a forum member ...
http://www.re-inventedPhotoEquip.com/Site/Lenses.html
see if he has a lens for 4x5 ( or smaller ) that will do exactly what you want.
he makes and sells wollaston meniscus barrel lenses .. they are affordable and fun.

how are you going to get prints, are you contact printing ?
you can easily get softer edges by cutting a hole in a piece of board
and dodging out the light as you make a print ...

have fun!
john

[Tim Meisburger]

JR, I think what you need is a small meniscus lens wide open. A meniscus (i.e. simple) lens can give a sharp image in the center area, with sharpness falling off rapidly away from that (see some examples in the first post here:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100311-Pictorialism-Images). We use a lot of lenses like that, but normally ones that cover the format we shoot. What you need to do is find a simple lens that doesn't cover the format. Easiest might be an old lens in shutter from which you can remove the front element, perhaps the lens from a folder. Alternatively, start checking the image circle of small magnifying glasses until you find one with the right size, then mount that in cardboard and tape it over a shutter.

Best of luck, and let us know how it goes!

[JRCriton]

JR, I think what you need is a small meniscus lens wide open. A meniscus (i.e. simple) lens can give a sharp image in the center area, with sharpness falling off rapidly away from that (see some examples in the first post here:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100311-Pictorialism-Images). We use a lot of lenses like that, but normally ones that cover the format we shoot. What you need to do is find a simple lens that doesn't cover the format. Easiest might be an old lens in shutter from which you can remove the front element, perhaps the lens from a folder. Alternatively, start checking the image circle of small magnifying glasses until you find one with the right size, then mount that in cardboard and tape it over a shutter.

Best of luck, and let us know how it goes!

So if I use my Caltar II-E 210mm lens and remove the front element do you think I would get the sweet spot slow fade out little distortion look?

[polyglot]

Try it out on the ground glass to see how it looks! I suspect that the rear cell will be a very long focal length though and while it will be blurry on the edges, it may also be blurry in the middle.

[JRCriton]

94762

I went out and tested three ideas to see what one got me the closest to the visual effect I'm trying to achieve and out of the six photos I took this image of Smith Garden is the best one. The issues I ran into with this image was, I shot with the rear element only and shifted the back standard to the right and I learned from this shoot that by doing so I moved the sweet spot to the left. I also had some bad lens flare that I had to fix in Photoshop. So tomorrow I'm going to do another shoot and use a homemade lens hood and also I'll be experimenting with what it will look like if I cut a mat to put in the back of the camera in front of the film holder to get the round look I'm aiming for. Okay, I'll post the next batch best image to show how my progress is coming along. Thanks again to everyone who helped me get on the right track.

[JRCriton]

9480794808

Two more test images. The round one I achieved the look by using a matte box and the other one I used just the rear element and a home made lens hood made from black poster board. Now I just have to figure out how to combine the too and enhance the soft distorted look and I'll have the style I'm trying to accomplish. Any suggestions?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Glenview camera of Chicago made a lot of 4x5 frames using a 38mm Biogon to create a round image.

The Biogon is good because stopping down does not create greater coverage.