I get to shoot 2 Holy Grail Pinkham and Smith Semi Achromatics in a comparison

[Jim Galli]

The long version is HERE (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison.html): for the P&S students and experts.

But for the rest, I'll just post the important stuff. The pictures made.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/DSC_0007.JPG

This'll take a couple of posts, so be patient.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-1_hisS.jpg
pic 1 his lens

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-1_mineS.jpg
pic 1 my lens

[Jim Galli]

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-2_hisS.jpg
pic 2 his lens
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-2_mineS.jpg
pic 2 my lens
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-3_hisS.jpg
pic 3 his lens
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-3_mineS.jpg
pic 3 my lens

Kodak 2D 6.5X8.5 format. Aerial Recon Panatomic X film. Developed in PyroCatHD
All exposures 1/15th sec by Packard Shutter

[ghostcount]

Very cool!

Thanks for sharing.

[jcoldslabs]

Jim,

Interesting comparison. But I'd like to ask what I'm sure is a delicate and hard-to-answer question. P&S lenses are often discussed with a degree of reverence that borders on the irrational. I am a huge fan of soft focus work, but I don't see the "magic" you mention in these shots. That being said, what is it, in your opinion, that elevates these lenses to cult status? Is it the glow or the combination of clear definition within the halos or something else? In other words, you have many photos on your site taken with other SF lenses that seem equal if not superior to the P&S shots. Of course, it may be that on-screen is not the best place to make the comparison.

I'm genuinely curious and not trying to troll you, I swear!

Jonathan

[jp]

It's holy grail stuff because it was a lens of choice for original American pictorialism. People like Coburn and Day. Coburn had a bunch of them due to variations (as shown here). I saw that on eBay but it was a big risk as it was and you three seemed to handle that smartly. Seems like a lot for one piece of mystery glass in a tube, but cheap compared to a new Zeiss or Nikon 35mm pro wunderglass.

[goamules]

Johnathan,
Like anything subjective, what you like depends on you. I love these shots. I don't like super-saturated color shots of deserts however. Everyone is different.

The short answer is if you don't see the magic, maybe it's not there for you.

[Jim Galli]

I'll be the first to admit that part of the magic is a lot of baloney because of the P&S name on the engraving. A Verito is about 1/5th the cost and bottom line is, a Verito in someone with talent's hands is going to produce better pictures than a P&S is in mine. So, your real question is how much of this is undefinable baloney and my answer is, probably a lot.

Still, the fineness of the over-all diffusion in that 3rd picture of the broken glass on the car is about as good as it gets. I need to load some more film, because I used the last of the holders on these, but if I get a chance, while the discussion is still alive, I'll do a 3rd picture of that same subject with a Verito for you.

[William Whitaker]

Another fine Galli-adventure. Thanks for the fun-ride Jim!

But I still say it's not the magic, but the magician.

[jcoldslabs]

Jim, Garrett: Keep in mind I am like a kid pressing his nose up against a candy store window since I have no proper soft focus lenses of my own and must be content with magnifying glasses or the rear elements from certain lenses for my own SF work. My dearth of "proper" SF gear makes the "real" stuff seem all the more tantalizing and mythical. Maybe I just don't WANT $4,000 lenses to be that good since I doubt I'll ever be able to afford one!

And for the record I find the P&S examples very pleasing but not necessarily all that more so than other SF examples.

Jonathan

[Mark Sawyer]

I've never owned a P&S (although quite a few of my lenses qualify as PoS...) But I've worked with quite a few other soft focus lenses, and each has its own signature, sometimes bold, sometimes subtle. 99-cent magnifying glasses can't give the effect of a P&S, but then a P&S can't give the effect of a magnifying glass, and both can give beautiful results. The P&S is rare and historically significant, so it commands a great price. Also, I really, really want one, and that alone triples the price... :(

One thing Jim's comparison shows is that there's a fair variation between different examples of the Pinkham and Smith's, even of the same model of similar vintage. Which alone makes me think they were inexact enough in manufacture that other lenses could match their magic.

I'll agree with Jim that the Verito will stand right beside the P&S, as will quite a few other soft lenses. And maybe someday I'll say that with first-hand knowledge!

[Tracy Storer]

How cool. Thanks for sharing Jim !

[BarryS]

I'm surprised that the optical signature is so close between both lenses--given the reputed variation of the early Semi-Achromatics. It may be the variation was only present in the earliest hand-made examples.

[Jim Galli]

I'm surprised that the optical signature is so close between both lenses--given the reputed variation of the early Semi-Achromatics. It may be the variation was only present in the earliest hand-made examples.

I think these both are the early hand ground ones. That's why the semi achromats disappeared from the catalog. By series IV the hand ground ones were history.

[Jim Galli]

Just 4 Jonathan, 4 new images ~ 2 with 11 1/2" Verito for comparison. It won't make the P&S's come down, but it might make the V's go up! BTW, the 11 1/2" Verito used for these is 4 Sale. Contact me off line.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-3_VeritoS.jpg
11.5" Wolly Verito

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-4_mineS.jpg
not sure why this film is so dirty, but please allow it This is my Series I #3

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-4_hisS.jpg
this is his Series I #3

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/2_Serie_I-3_Comparison/P-4_VeritoS.jpg
This is Verito again

[jcoldslabs]

Thanks, Jim. There seems to be a difference in character between the P&S and Verito. If I'm not mistaken most of these lenses play around with varying degrees of chromatic and spherical aberration for their soft focus effects, so it makes sense that they would achieve somewhat similar results, but each lens' "recipe" clearly has its own visual signature even between the two P&S examples.

J.

[ederphoto]

Somehow i like the verito better . I assume you shot these in a different times of the day .Now we just need one of the broken glass with your 12" struss for dessert !

[Jim Galli]

Thanks for commenting. Yes, totally different light, one afternoon, one late morning. The '38 Ford is the latest muse so sooner or later it will get shot with lots of different glass.