PDA

View Full Version : It's not the lens, it's me?



Ari
3-Oct-2013, 09:12
Hi all,

I recently bought my first brass lens, a beautiful 16" RR from a very worthy forum member.
My inexperience with old, shutter-less lenses has prompted me to post here, mostly because I find it difficult to focus this lens properly.

I am, admittedly, used to modern lenses, which seem to "snap" into focus, leaving little doubt about when one is properly focused.
The brassie has a more "open" approach, whereby focus seems to be proper across a much wider range of distances.
Consequently, I have maybe one shot out of every four that is close, but not quite perfectly, focused.

I hope that made sense.

Here are some photos taken a few days ago; at the time of exposure, I was sure that each shot was properly focused, but I was quite a ways off in three of the examples.
The first one is probably the best.
The photos might look reasonably ok to you in internet-land, but the negs, under scrutiny of a loupe, are soft, especially the last two.

All were done with quite a bit of camera extension, requiring 1 or two seconds of exposure using a lens cap for shutter.
My wife can hold still quite well, and the camera/tripod/ball head combo is rock-solid.

My question is: is this my doing, or is it my inexperience with a different way of working (i.e. lens cap shutter, 2-3s exposure)?
Or are lenses of this vintage (75-100 yrs) known for being difficult to focus?

Thanks in advance

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/BB-CSE234_zpsa0d2c40b.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/BB-CSE234_zpsa0d2c40b.jpg.html)
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/BB-CSE235_zps6fdfb67c.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/BB-CSE235_zps6fdfb67c.jpg.html)
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/BB-CSE236_zps94df6077.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/BB-CSE236_zps94df6077.jpg.html)
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/BB-CSE237_zps88d447c9.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/BB-CSE237_zps88d447c9.jpg.html)

Cletus
3-Oct-2013, 09:50
Ari! I can sympathize with your dilemma (facetiously I admit) and I think I would not be alone in the opinion that these are positively beautiful images of your positively beautiful wife! All I can say with regard to the "lens focus issue" is that it lends a rare and excellent effect to your portraits and I would be proud to show these images.

I can appreciate a good photograph as well as anyone, but I rarely gush over such excellent work. You've been holding back Ari! Beautiful work!

Ari
3-Oct-2013, 10:41
Hi Phil, good to hear from you!
Thank you very much, you are too kind, but I really wasn't fishing for compliments (my wife will happily accept them, though :)).
The previous owner of the lens had no problem focusing this lens and getting some lovely (and sharp) photos of his family.
I guess the problem is the operator and not the machine.

Cletus
3-Oct-2013, 10:51
Ari I know you weren't fishing for compliments and I have often lamented my lack of vocabulary for a proper critique, so I just wrote what I thought! To be more specific (or less, depending on your point of view) I have no experience with old brass lenses, but I'm given to believe that much of their charm lies in their unique qualities and abilities to render an image with characteristics other than "tack sharp".

That was a lot of words to reiterate that I think the photos you made with the lens are beautiful and that's without judging from a perspective of how well "focused" they are. :) How's that for gobbledygook? :) :) :)

E. von Hoegh
3-Oct-2013, 11:03
How are you focussing?

Mark Sawyer
3-Oct-2013, 11:21
Some observations from an old lens user, (and I'm sure you'll hear from others...)

As far as the "snap into focus", I'd guess your modern lenses are faster, and the shallower depth of field makes focusing more obvious. Try focusing them at f/8 or f/11, and I suspect some of that will go away.

Regarding sharpness in the prints, some of the old lenses are soft in a beautiful way (a sharp image overlaid by a softer image), some merely lack resolution, and many are very sharp. I can't speak to yours...

cowanw
3-Oct-2013, 11:26
Well I think you have done a creditable job. All of them are fine. As Julia Margaret Cameron said 'who is to say what correct focus is"
Your wife is extremely photogenic. Her eyes are mesmerizing. Take as many portraits as you can in the next 10 years.

At your f stop,(? wide open) the lips are soft when the eyes are sharp. Or vise versa. You can cover focusing discrepancies with a smaller f stop.
I have found the best aid to start was a small 4 " Maglite (older style, not led) with the top screwed right off, held up to the subjects temple.
the small bright light is a great help to decide firmly where focus is.
Once that is determined tie a length of string to the front of the camera and knot the other end at the length of the nose and keep using that as a measure.
No.s 2,3 and four have the focus on the nose. some say this is where it should be and the f stop should be smaller to cover the eyes.

Extra Unnecessary Advice
1. Also as you rack back and forth, you will see the Maglight go out of focus in a pleasant or unpleasant way. Usually racking out is the more pleasant but not always. If so, however, try to distribute the DOF by focusing a bit in front of the eyes(? as far as the nose) Rarely the nice bokah/DOF is in front of the point of focus in which case focus on the eyes for sure and let the nose lie in the pleasant DOF portion.
2. you might tilt the lens forward if the lips are forward of the eyes.

DrTang
3-Oct-2013, 11:47
I think DOF is more on the front side than the back..so if you miss just a bit long..it will probably be better than missing a bit short

goamules
3-Oct-2013, 11:49
I would agree, other than the first, all your shots are not adequately in focus. They are not examples of what a good RR can do. Here are two 8x10 shots with an F7 Euryscop (Voigtlanders name for RRs), taken a couple years apart. RRs can be extremely sharp, and fairly contrasty.

There are several things that could be going wrong:


Model moving during 3 sec exposure.
Film plane in holder not matching ground glass.
Faulty lens. (I'm inclined to feel something is wrong with your lens. What is it? Is it complete?)



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7144/6702341819_8b932b742e_z.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7383/9886852615_f5ffd51511_z.jpg

Ari
3-Oct-2013, 12:10
Ari I know you weren't fishing for compliments and I have often lamented my lack of vocabulary for a proper critique, so I just wrote what I thought! To be more specific (or less, depending on your point of view) I have no experience with old brass lenses, but I'm given to believe that much of their charm lies in their unique qualities and abilities to render an image with characteristics other than "tack sharp".

That was a lot of words to reiterate that I think the photos you made with the lens are beautiful and that's without judging from a perspective of how well "focused" they are. :) How's that for gobbledygook? :) :) :)

That's great gobbledygook, Phil, and I really appreciate the comments.
I'd be the first to say that sharpness is overrated, but I'd like to be the one to control it when using LF.


How are you focussing?

The 810M's focusing is very smooth, with controls at the back.
For these photos I used two loupes, one 5x and one 12x; the 12x has never steered me wrong.


Some observations from an old lens user, (and I'm sure you'll hear from others...)

As far as the "snap into focus", I'd guess your modern lenses are faster, and the shallower depth of field makes focusing more obvious. Try focusing them at f/8 or f/11, and I suspect some of that will go away.

Regarding sharpness in the prints, some of the old lenses are soft in a beautiful way (a sharp image overlaid by a softer image), some merely lack resolution, and many are very sharp. I can't speak to yours...

Point taken, Mark, thank you. This is an f8, and I focused and shot at f11; I know the lens is capable of better than what I have shown, the previous owner's photos are all over this website, so that's what I'm aiming for.
I know I'm more of a hindrance to sharpness than is the lens.

Ari
3-Oct-2013, 12:11
Well I think you have done a creditable job. All of them are fine. As Julia Margaret Cameron said 'who is to say what correct focus is"
Your wife is extremely photogenic. Her eyes are mesmerizing. Take as many portraits as you can in the next 10 years.

At your f stop,(? wide open) the lips are soft when the eyes are sharp. Or vise versa. You can cover focusing discrepancies with a smaller f stop.
I have found the best aid to start was a small 4 " Maglite (older style, not led) with the top screwed right off, held up to the subjects temple.
the small bright light is a great help to decide firmly where focus is.
Once that is determined tie a length of string to the front of the camera and knot the other end at the length of the nose and keep using that as a measure.
No.s 2,3 and four have the focus on the nose. some say this is where it should be and the f stop should be smaller to cover the eyes.

Extra Unnecessary Advice
1. Also as you rack back and forth, you will see the Maglight go out of focus in a pleasant or unpleasant way. Usually racking out is the more pleasant but not always. If so, however, try to distribute the DOF by focusing a bit in front of the eyes(? as far as the nose) Rarely the nice bokah/DOF is in front of the point of focus in which case focus on the eyes for sure and let the nose lie in the pleasant DOF portion.
2. you might tilt the lens forward if the lips are forward of the eyes.

Thank you, Bill, and very good advice; I am going to try some more today, and I'll give the Maglite method a shot.
Truth be told, the lens is bright enough, but the point of true focus eludes me.


I think DOF is more on the front side than the back..so if you miss just a bit long..it will probably be better than missing a bit short

Always good to hear from a doctor :) Thanks


I would agree, other than the first, all the shots are not adequately in focus. They are not examples of what a good RR can do. Here is a shot I did on 8x10 the other day with an F7 Euryscop (Voigtlanders name for RRs). There are several things that could be going wrong:


Model moving during 3 sec exposure.
Film plane in holder not matching ground glass.
Faulty lens.



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7383/9886852615_f5ffd51511_c.jpg

Nice shot, Garrett; my wife may have moved in one or two, but not all the photos; it was between one and two seconds exposure.
The film plane/GG alignment is great, the other photos I've taken are sharp where I want them to be.
In what way could the lens be faulty? The previous owner had great results, and I would trust him implicitly.

Thank you all for your answers; I think the problem is mine, and working more with this lens should make me work better with it and show off its potential.
Again, your advice is much appreciated.

Vaughn
3-Oct-2013, 12:23
Fast modern lenses focus easier because they are faster -- less DoF at 5.6, so that perfect focus is in a narrower zone and easier to nail than at f11.

The model might have held still for the exposure, but might have drifted a little forward and/or back between focusing and the start of the exposure...one of the reasons the old-times had head supports for their clients. A string from the camera to the forehead might be useful to double check the model's position.

Have fun!

Ari
3-Oct-2013, 12:41
Thank you, Vaughn!
I think I will double-check first doing some still-lifes, making sure that I am at fault using non-moving objects.

Mark Sawyer
3-Oct-2013, 12:51
my wife may have moved in one or two, but not all the photos; it was between one and two seconds exposure...

My experience has been that motion is more likely to happen in the ten to thirty seconds between focusing and actual exposure than during a one or two second exposure. It's easy for the sitter to slowly move off the plane of focus...

I'd say do a few still lifes or landscapes just to prove to yourself what the lens can do. If the old lenses were easy, they wouldn't be as much fun!

Ari
3-Oct-2013, 12:55
My experience has been that motion is more likely to happen in the ten to thirty seconds between focusing and actual exposure than during a one or two second exposure. It's easy for the sitter to slowly move off the plane of focus...

I'd say do a few still lifes or landscapes just to prove to yourself what the lens can do. If the old lenses were easy, they wouldn't be as much fun!

My wife has an unnatural ability to remember the exact plane of focus, walk away and return to the same exact spot, but she is capable of making a mistake now and then :)
I will try a still-life.
Thanks again, Mark.

Maris Rusis
3-Oct-2013, 16:55
I think there are two critical focus planes for soft focus lenses that work via spherical aberration; the plane of best CONTRAST and the plane of fine DETAIL. The "detail" plane is further back (with a back focussing camera) than the "contrast" plane. The ambiguity is reduced at small apertures so I focus stopped down (maybe f16 or even f22) and then gradually open the aperture and watch the image structure change until it looks right. After some practice the assumption that "looks right" amounts to "is right" seems to work reasonably well.

Ari
3-Oct-2013, 17:52
Maris, thank you for the information.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not a soft focus lens, though looking through a loupe at maximum aperture (f8), the image is somewhat soft.
I have seen, and shot, photos with this lens at f11 and the softness disappears.

Tobias Key
4-Oct-2013, 03:28
Have you considered that focus may shift with stopping down the lens?
Also a rough check on DOF master and I would guess you have less than 1cm depth of field at your camera settings. That's narrow enough that you could accurately focus on an eyelash and stand a fair chance of the eyeball being out of focus. In other words a [add the expletive of your choice] nightmare.

Emil Schildt
4-Oct-2013, 04:01
Well - I have never used loupes when focussing... (and sometimes that gets me into trouble)

I think I see motion blur on the bottom ones... Your wife is alive! And even if you and she are thinking she stays still very well - 3 secs are a "lifetime"... especially when smiling - when holding her head up straight with no extra support....

Practice! again and again. You certainly have a great model for your quest!

SergeiR
4-Oct-2013, 04:38
Ari, try flash. Then you guaranteed to not have movement during exposure and can move swiftly to other posssible conclusions.

Armin Seeholzer
4-Oct-2013, 04:53
Have you considered that focus may shift with stopping down the lens?

I would also focus at f11 as I do it with all older lenses. Many of them have a small amount of Focus shift, when you stop them down! So use the same f stop as you taking the shoot!

Cheers Armin

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 06:29
Have you considered that focus may shift with stopping down the lens?
Also a rough check on DOF master and I would guess you have less than 1cm depth of field at your camera settings. That's narrow enough that you could accurately focus on an eyelash and stand a fair chance of the eyeball being out of focus. In other words a [add the expletive of your choice] nightmare.

Yes, quite right; my problem is when viewing through the GG or loupe I don't get a clearly defined "in focus" moment.
The mechanics are indeed a nightmare.
Thanks, Tobias.


Well - I have never used loupes when focussing... (and sometimes that gets me into trouble)

I think I see motion blur on the bottom ones... Your wife is alive! And even if you and she are thinking she stays still very well - 3 secs are a "lifetime"... especially when smiling - when holding her head up straight with no extra support....

Practice! again and again. You certainly have a great model for your quest!

Thank you, Emil; I can live with motion blur, that's ok. But if I can't focus properly (my fault or the lens' fault), it takes away the fun.


Ari, try flash. Then you guaranteed to not have movement during exposure and can move swiftly to other posssible conclusions.

Sergei, I thought of that yesterday, then I remembered that I sold my Dynalites :)
The alternative is to shoot still-life, which I did.
Thank you.

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 06:30
Thank you, Armin; that is what I tried yesterday, results coming later.

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 06:32
So I shot this scene yesterday (Ilford FP4+, f11,5)

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/TestIL115_zps45ce1e49.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/TestIL115_zps45ce1e49.jpg.html)

I shot it on both Ilford FP4+ and some old X-ray film I have lying around.
Two exposures focus on the girl's eyelash at f11.5 (same f-stop I used for focusing).
Two exposures focus on Elmo at f32.5
I won't bore you with more details, so the 100% crops are below.
Thank you all very much.

Geoffrey_5995
4-Oct-2013, 06:33
I'll just add that using a lens cap for a shutter can be tricky. I do a great deal of wet plate photography and taking the lens cap on and off incorrectly can cause camera shake, which is increased when the focus is racked out. Also, as beautiful as your wife is, she probably moved during exposure, this is quite common. In wet plate a posing brace stand is used to keep the subject still. You might want to try having your wife stand against a wall to insure she is still or use a brace of some sort. Perhaps also use a hat or larger lens cap that is easy to remove and replace. Try these methods to determine if it is the lens or the way you are uisng it. Are you using a loupe to insure sharp focus? Hope this helps.

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 06:34
X-ray film, f11.5
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/CropX115_zps3773057b.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/CropX115_zps3773057b.jpg.html)

FP4+, f11.5
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/CropIL115_zps4dd61290.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/CropIL115_zps4dd61290.jpg.html)

X-ray film, f32,5
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/CropX325_zpsfcc4f0fe.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/CropX325_zpsfcc4f0fe.jpg.html)

FP4+, f32,5
http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/r790/Ari4000/CropIL325_zpsa1cd09db.jpg (http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/Ari4000/media/CropIL325_zpsa1cd09db.jpg.html)

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 06:40
Elmo at f32,5 is nicely sharp on FP4+ film, and the girl is ok too at 11,5 on Ilford film.
The focusing, however, took a long time, and I ended up using my best guess, only possible with a non-moving subject.

So I'm inclined to think that I am part of the problem (my eyes are terrible these days), and the lens is harder to focus than other lenses of similar design and vintage.

Thanks again to everybody, I really appreciate your input, opinion and expertise.

PS-I'm not sure what I accomplished with this exercise, besides seeing the limits and qualities of this lens, and realizing that I need to put a lot of work into using it and getting used to it.

Thanks for your patience.

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 09:34
I'll just add that using a lens cap for a shutter can be tricky. I do a great deal of wet plate photography and taking the lens cap on and off incorrectly can cause camera shake, which is increased when the focus is racked out. Also, as beautiful as your wife is, she probably moved during exposure, this is quite common. In wet plate a posing brace stand is used to keep the subject still. You might want to try having your wife stand against a wall to insure she is still or use a brace of some sort. Perhaps also use a hat or larger lens cap that is easy to remove and replace. Try these methods to determine if it is the lens or the way you are uisng it. Are you using a loupe to insure sharp focus? Hope this helps.

Geoffrey, I saw the slight shake that happens with the lens cap shutter, so I made the lens cap fit the lens a little bit looser to avoid that problem.
I suppose normal working methods will have to change when using this lens, such as having the subject lean against a wall.
Yes, I have two loupes, a 5x and 12x, but the focusing is still very difficult with both loupes.
Thanks for your suggestions.

eddie
4-Oct-2013, 10:36
har har har. i got to the party late. i was gonna say model movement.....:)

now get back out there and shoot some more with this lens!

Ari
4-Oct-2013, 10:51
har har har. i got to the party late. i was gonna say model movement.....:)

now get back out there and shoot some more with this lens!

Nope, if you had to focus with this lens, you'd also say "where's the point of sharpness?"
But given your, and most others' here, experience with these lenses, you probably wouldn't look for such a sharp point of focus to begin with.
Yes, my model did move, in all likelihood, but the lens is still hard to focus.

I do promise to use the hell out of this lens, though :)

jp
4-Oct-2013, 11:30
With the soft focus lenses, indeed the area of in-focus is great. It's like layers of in-focus focus stacked on each other and you have to pick the right one. Doesn't snap in and out like a plasmat. A bright catchlight in the eye can be focused on to provide the smallest glow to determine it's in focus. You'll see in and out of focus at the same time with soft focus! You'd have to minimize the out of focus portion of the image at the plane of focus basically, rather than trying to find the in-focus portion.

Mark Sawyer
4-Oct-2013, 11:46
But this isn't a soft focus lens. Good RR's are quite sharp; Weston used one for some of his Group f/64 work.

Ari, between the long exposures of a live subject in dim light and the very shallow depth of field, you've set yourself quite a challenge! But you know what you're doing, and I think we're just telling you what you already know...

ScottPhotoCo
5-Oct-2013, 00:19
What ground glass are you using? I just upgraded my GG from what was in it with glass from Steve Hopf and there is quite a difference in focusing ease.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Ari
5-Oct-2013, 05:16
Thank you, Mark and JP; Tim, I use the Toyo GG, I have no trouble focusing any other lenses, even a TR triple convertible.
I think it's just a question of using the lens often and getting used to this quirk; it can obviously render a sharp image, but it is very hard to focus sharply.

Thanks again!

eddie
6-Oct-2013, 04:48
sell it and buy something that is easier for you to use......

Mark Sawyer
6-Oct-2013, 11:50
If at first you don't succeed...


sell it and buy something that is easier for you to use......

Ari
6-Oct-2013, 19:57
sell it and buy something that is easier for you to use......

Thanks, Eddie, not yet an option.


If at first you don't succeed...

Exactly :)