Veritar instructions?

[Whir-Click]

Wollensak's 1950 Veritar lens brochure is available at cameraeccentric.com and elsewhere. I have also seen passing reference in forum posts to a separate set of Wollensak-published instructions for using and focusing Veritar lenses. However, earnest googling has not turned up that document.

Does anyone have a link to these separate instructions, or a hard copy that could be scanned and shared?

Thank you very much.

[Peter De Smidt]

The focus will be behind what looks in focus on the ground glass. Here's a link to a hi-res Veritar photo test: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q8ykf3dxwykjn03/Faux_Veritar_4-0171.tif?dl=0

[Whir-Click]

Thank you for your reply and example, and your longer thread on lens comparisons (including the Veritar) is a tremendous resource. What I've gleaned from forum posts is that, as the lens is stopped down, all increase in depth of field is behind the original focal point on the ground glass.

I have seen reference to a publication with over 10 pages of Wollensak instructions specific to the Veritar. Might anyone have a copy: "Portrait Veritar Lens" (Rochester: Wollensak Optical Company, ca. 1955.

[djdister]

Also keep in mind that the Veritar is just an improved version of the Verito lens, so info regarding the Verito should also prove helpful. In general, if shooting the Verito/Veritar lens at near wide open apertures (f/4, f/5,6, f/8), you focus it at the taking aperture. If you stop down the Verito/Veritar, you will lose the soft focus effect almost entirely.

Here's a page with some Verito info:
http://apenasimagens.com/en/verito-veritar-wollensak-en/

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't have a copy, and I'd love to see one. I have read the instructions for the Kodak Portrait Lens, though, and in my experience they are useful for the other true SF lenses. These lenses are challenging to focus. The best advice is to practice, which is why I set up my test scene with a ruler. Practice going into and out of focus. Always do so at the shooting aperture. Get some cheap film (xray?) and take some practice shots. Getting a better ground glass might help, as will a really good loupe. I use the Pentax Lupe 5.5x. And having a really good darkcloth/reflex view....helps. But it's still hard! Putting a light source in the picture can help, such as a small flashlight, a dim clear light bulb...... If you now how focus changes as you vary the aperture, you can focus stopped down to f/8 or f/11, which while dim are easier to focus, adjust your camera, e.g. move focus out 2mm, open lens up to taking aperture and take your picture.

[Mark Sawyer]

The focus will be behind what looks in focus on the ground glass...

If panchromatic film is used, the focus will always be where it is on the ground glass. Any focus shift will only happen when you stop down the aperture. The only focusing instructions necessary with soft lenses using spherical aberration is "focus at the taking aperture".

There may be some soft spreading of the depth of field beyond the primary focal plane due to the undercorrected spherical aberration, but that will be apparent on the ground glass.

[Peter De Smidt]

My results don't agree with Mark, but he has more (and better) experience, and so listen to him!

[Whir-Click]

Mark, that is an interesting point and a caution I hadn't considered in my plans to practice with X-ray film. The Kodak Portrait instructions repeatedly emphasize that what you see on the ground glass is what you get on the negative, but I imagine that is assuming panchromatic film. I'd love to compare with Wollensak's original Veritar instructions if a copy surfaces.

Thank you all for your comments. The wealth of knowledge you have contributed to this site is a wonderful resource for those just dipping a toe in the soft focus pool.

[Mark Sawyer]

The Kodak Portrait Lens is corrected for chromatic aberration, but I don't know if that's enough to correct everything for X-ray film. You've got me on that one!

Modern panchromatic b/w film matches the visual spectrum pretty darn closely, so if you were using that, a lot of the old worries about soft focus lenses or chemical focus vs. visual focus aren't worries any more. But even with "what you see is what you get", it still takes a while to get those softies just right...

[jnantz]

sorry it took me this long to see this thread,
thanks whir-click for the email

i have had/used a veritar for 16 or so years
and mine came with a bad xerox of the booklet

i had uploaded this copy here before, and elsewhere
not sure what happened to it but here it is again ..
this is the information wollensak gave with their lens ..
and while i know other portrait lenses aren't the veritar
i still think about how they have suggested focusing with thei rlens
and what they suggest lighting to be &c

the PDF i had before i tried to upload before and it was too big
hope this helps

john

[russyoung]

Thanks for the upload, John.

Russ

[mdarnton]

I read instructions for a SF lens just the other day that cleared something up for me. I don't remember which lens it was, but the maker warned that the lens should be focused for sharpness, not contrast. That rang a bell with me because when I focus various SF lenses I have had a problem with this, vibrating between contrast and sharpness, which do not appear at the same point. The maker warned that it is tempting to stop when the view has the most snap, and this is wrong--that you need to look carefully with a loupe and ascertain the sharp spot, ignoring the way you would normally focus by looking for the best overall effect.

[lab black]

Thank you John. The Wollensak Verito instructions are most helpful.

[jnantz]

Thanks for the upload, John.

Russ


pleasure's mine russ !


Thank you John. The Wollensak Verito instructions are most helpful.

lab black, its for the veriTAR, a different lens than the veriTO
not sure if they ever printed instructions for the veritos ( would have been helpful thought ! )

[jnantz]

I read instructions for a SF lens just the other day that cleared something up for me. I don't remember which lens it was, but the maker warned that the lens should be focused for sharpness, not contrast. That rang a bell with me because when I focus various SF lenses I have had a problem with this, vibrating between contrast and sharpness, which do not appear at the same point. The maker warned that it is tempting to stop when the view has the most snap, and this is wrong--that you need to look carefully with a loupe and ascertain the sharp spot, ignoring the way you would normally focus by looking for the best overall effect.

hi michael

what do you mean by this ?
do you mean, once you find the sweetspot, and
construct your image around that everything else
hopefully will fall into place ?
kind of like " water finds its own gravity" ?
i hate to admit this, but i am terrible at understanding the mechanics of this
sort of stuff, and stopdown and focus, and squint my eyes for the contrast
to drop all the mid tones out, and kind of ... wing it.
the old manuals had great instructions, and usually written so formal, like poetry almost.

[LabRat]

I find that with my 9" Verito, I could roll the focus around and the effect will vary, and there will be other sharp points (more & less) through the range, so I can choose the effect I like, and there will be some skeleton bones of a sharp(ish) point to anchor the image "sharpness"...

I figure that the instructions were for the orthochromatic era, and would settle the focus for green/blue of the films, but now with pan films, if it will focus at other spectra also, that will also record, so that gives us more choices for effects... (Thank you, chromatic aberration!!!)

Steve K

[mdarnton]

No, I'm talking about using a magnifier, and the thing I read said specifically that you should not focus without one because you will be thrown off by the contrast.

Yes, my lenses float through focus too, but there seems to be one spot better than the others.

[LabRat]

No, I'm talking about using a magnifier, and the thing I read said specifically that you should not focus without one because you will be thrown off by the contrast.

Yes, my lenses float through focus too, but there seems to be one spot better than the others.

Yes I agree that there is a dominant focus point, and yes, you are correct... That would be better for a portrait or something that requires the sharpest (soft) point at that f stop, but for some subjects (like a flower, etc) that might be nice with the max "bloom" of the focus, one could roll around the focus and see what you like on the GG that should render well on pan film... So there are other "settings" too...

Steve K

[William Whitaker]

I focus for the most pleasing rendition on the ground glass, figuring that's what's going to be on the negative (using panchromatic materials). Trying to focus a lens which is inherently 'out of focus' is like trying to pee in the corner of a round room.

Before you hang me, yes, I know 'out of focus' is not strictly correct. But that's the way I think of it and in fact, spherical aberration, which in many SF lenses is what gives us their charming effect, is the result of different zones of a lens/mirror not bringing light rays to the same focus. So I'm not too far off, I don't think....

[LabRat]

I also find that there are several imperfect focus points if I roll the focus over a longish focus travel that I use as a softness "dial" setting... There is a primary point where most of these come into focus together, but as the focus is rolled (fairly far), a smaller percentage of these come together (with a softer effect)... So the # of points together are my softness "dial"...

I primarily shoot C/U with mine, and prefer using a monorail camera (with front and back focusing), as a front focusing camera C/U (2 or 3" away) changes the lens to subject distance and my softness "dial" becomes less linear while looking for these points (as the image size + focus points go a little screwy)... I also find that I can artificially create a DOF effect by carefully finding the point where a few points are in front or behind the primary focus point (of an inch or so)...

I remember reading in an old Wolly ad that they will send a rep to your studio to give you a full tutorial on their use with purchase of these lenses... I don't think they will make good on that now... :-#

Steve K

[lab black]

John,
In all the excitement of reading the focus instructions for my Veritar, I inadvertently wrote Verito instead of Veritar. Again, thanks for the clarification and the very helpful instructions.
LB

[Harold_4074]

I have pointed this out a few times in the forums (and had it confirmed by others once or twice) so I will mention it again:

The softness is not only related to distance from the focal plane, but also to the radial distance from the optical center. In a typical head-and-shoulders composition, the eyes (which are normally expected to be the sharpest things in the image) are about a third of the way down from the top of the frame. This sometimes leads to an odd result where the eyes are as sharp as than can be, but the fabric of clothing near the center of the frame is even sharper. The solution is to focus with the lens axis centered on the eyes, then use camera movements to compose. If the eyes are the sharpest things in the picture, the fact that the bottom of the image dissolves into blur seems not to detract at all.

[cowanw]

In addition to the above I find that the depth of field characteristics favour the Graf and Cooke RVP favour focussing on the ears.
The Universal Heliar, Kodak Portrait , Verito, Imagon and Veritar favour focussing on the nose.
Cooke soft and the Velostigmat soft favour focussing on the eyes
For portraits

[Whir-Click]

As the OP, my sincere thanks for the Veritar resources and insights shared here.