PDA

View Full Version : Voigtlander Heliar lens the ones from the late 1800-1900



Steven Ruttenberg
11-Oct-2017, 16:53
I take landscapes, night scapes of cities/bldgs, some portraits, some close-up work, flowers, gadgets, etc Eventually will try old school astrophotography

I am looking at buying one or two of these for my 4x5 (and 8x10 if I start liking portraits and such). From the research I have done, reading on the patents, visiting the Kenneth Lee Gallery website and some others, the images for portraits and other objects appear to be really good. (I am not sure how well it would work for landscapes though) Anyway, from what I can tell unless I am missing something, there is a diaphragm which I really like is it is practically round at any aperture, but not "shutter" so, if I am seeing this correctly, one would have to determine the length of exposure for given aperture, then manually expose the film by using a lens cap or dark cloth to uncover lens for required amount of time then cover back up.

If I wanted to convert one of these lenses to use an actual shutter to "automate" the exposure portion, what are my options? One of the reasons I want to use this lens and similar types is the absolutely round diaphragm of these lenses. I wish the more modern ones that I use for landscapes had round diaphragms. I wonder if it is possible to convert a modern lens to accept a diaphragm that provides for round apertures.

Aside from the old Voigtlander Heliar designs, #3A and up, what are other lenses of this era that are comparable or better? The scientific lens company, Bausch and Laumb, Wallensack are some I have run across that for the most part have decent reviews and round diaphragms.

I saw one guys website where he was selling lenses for like 30K for old school ones and his photos for like 100K plus, so unless those lenses are made of pure gold, etc, I don't think I will be buying those lenses anytime soon, they cost as much as the 2.7 acres of land I am looking at!

Thanks for any help

Alan Gales
11-Oct-2017, 17:19
I think the best shutter is the Sinar shutter. It works on the Sinar Norma, F series and P series cameras. Also some modify their cameras to take the Sinar shutter. If you buy a Sinar shutter just make sure you get the Sinar cable release with it. These are hard to find and are expensive on their own.

Some use Speed Graphic cameras for their focal plane shutters. These are very popular with the Aero Ektar lenses which don't have a shutter.

There are also the old Packard pneumatic shutters that were used on old wooden 8x10 cameras. They fit behind the front standard like the Sinar shutter. I believe some have fitted these shutters to the front of lenses also.

Dan Fromm
11-Oct-2017, 17:25
If you haven't read Arne Croell's account of Voigtlaender lenses, do. Now. http://www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf

You've described the apertures of Compound and older Compur shutters. They're as round as can be.

If you want to use a Heliar type with a Waterhouse stop that has a perfectly round aperture, look into Voigtlaender's own Apo-Skopars (Heliar types, name notwithstanding) and Boyer's Apo-Saphir process lenses. But since the Heliar look derives from aberrations that aren't fully corrected near wide open, these f/9 process lenses may not give you what you think you want. If you look into Apo-Skopars, beware of separated lenses. The cement that Voigtlaender used when they were making these lenses has aged very poorly.

If you have the money, skgrimes will be happy to put your Heliar cells (extracted from a shutter) in a barrel with a slot for Waterhouse stops. They'll put the slot in the right position and make the stops too. To get timed exposures, you'll have to hang the lens in barrel -- this goes for the process lenses too, although some were sold in shutter -- in front of a shutter or hang a shutter in front of the lens. There's not much to it, skigrimes will be happy to help, for a price, or you can get a camera that can use a Sinar behind-the-lens shutter or a Packard shutter.

Oh, and by the way, here http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/voigtlander_2.html is a 1964 catalog that lists new production coated Heliars in Compounds. There's really no reason except stupid pretentiousness to want older ones.

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Oct-2017, 18:00
Thanks for the feedback. I am reading the book you reference and I did see the catalog before. Looking again. Seems to me whichever lens is available and in good working order will work. Of course being coated has an advantage.

I will check out skgrimes. By hanging lens hou mean covering it with a cap or cloth and removing for specified time?

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Oct-2017, 18:01
I think the best shutter is the Sinar shutter. It works on the Sinar Norma, F series and P series cameras. Also some modify their cameras to take the Sinar shutter. If you buy a Sinar shutter just make sure you get the Sinar cable release with it. These are hard to find and are expensive on their own.

Some use Speed Graphic cameras for their focal plane shutters. These are very popular with the Aero Ektar lenses which don't have a shutter.

There are also the old Packard pneumatic shutters that were used on old wooden 8x10 cameras. They fit behind the front standard like the Sinar shutter. I believe some have fitted these shutters to the front of lenses also.

Thanks for the input

Dan Fromm
11-Oct-2017, 18:49
By hanging lens hou mean covering it with a cap or cloth and removing for specified time?

Absolutely not. That's not a good way to get a short timed exposure.

Lenses can be mounted in front of shutters. I've done this with many lenses, using an adapter that has male threads at the rear to screw into a shutter and female threads at the front that accept the lens. That's part of what hanging a lens in front of a shutter means.

The other part means mounting the lens on a board that attaches to a standard with a shutter behind it. Packard shutters go behind the standard. So do the Sinar shutters that Alan Gales mentioned in post #2 above. There are also Mentor Panorama cameras with roller blind shutters behind the front standard. I've seen a very nice home-made 16 x 20 camera that used a Mentor shutter. Its builder told me that demand for Mentor shutters for that application had driven the price of Panoramas higher than he liked.

Shutters can be mounted in front of lenses. I use a Compound #5 that attaches to an skgrimes adapter that attaches to the front of my 900 Apo-Saphir. Packard shutters can also be mounted in front of lenses.

You really should learn the technology before you start spending money.

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Oct-2017, 19:35
I'm not spending any money until I have everything knowledge wise. Being an engineer, I want to learn all before I do anything. On occasion though, sometimes I learn just by doing, but I make it a calculated doing. So, my asking the questions here is starting up the learning curve on terminology and mechanics.

Thanks for the reply.

JeffBradford
11-Oct-2017, 20:44
Packard shutters are still being made. http://www.packardshutter.com/

Two23
11-Oct-2017, 20:55
There's really no reason except stupid pretentiousness to want older ones.


Well, hold on there. My favorite 20th C lens is my c.1922 150mm Heliar, in Compur. Love this lens! Am I "pretentious"? No. Am I "stupid"? Debatable. I do like uncoated lenses in general because they have a lower contrast that I like. I've enjoyed collecting and using LF lenses made from 1905 to ~1930. This seems to have been a golden age for not only lenses but also shutters. I love them! For me, they are a connection to the past and the photographers that photo'd the world as it was during their time. I think it's just cool that I can attach something to my camera that was made over 90 years ago and still make photos with it! So no, I'm not stupidly pretentious. Maybe I'm just stupidly romantic.


Kent in SD

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Oct-2017, 22:22
Well, I known I can be silly stupid. I like the shutters all round and such. Star points annoy me, for one, especially when people debate their quality. I also like the boceh round diaphragms give too. Plus I like the look of photos with them. And yes, I agree about the connection to the past. One of the reasons I got into LF and went back to film. Digital is sterile to me.

What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.

For landscapes I am often having exposures of seconds to minutes. People are a bit different, but somehow they did it well back in the last couple centuries or longer ago.

LabRat
11-Oct-2017, 22:42
You may not need a lens from the specified period you mentioned... A pre-war uncoated lens is a start for testing to see if you like the "old world"...

Many photo subjects won't notice what type of lens you are using... Get a specific type of lens when it is best for what you tend to do most, but usually a Tessar type is a good "old skool" design that won't clean out your bank account...

Steve K

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Oct-2017, 00:17
You may not need a lens from the specified period you mentioned... A pre-war uncoated lens is a start for testing to see if you like the "old world"...

Many photo subjects won't notice what type of lens you are using... Get a specific type of lens when it is best for what you tend to do most, but usually a Tessar type is a good "old skool" design that won't clean out your bank account...

Steve K

And keeping my bank account intact is a good goal. :)

Steven Tribe
12-Oct-2017, 01:44
When we talk about the F4.5 Heliar, we are actually discussing two different lens designs.

Voigtlander made the Heliar at the start of the 20th century using their experience of selling a licenced Taylor/Cooke triplet anastigmatic lens layout. They then produced the Dynar, which was a more radical optical design. Around 1923, the Original Heliar layout was changed to the new "Dynar" optics in the F4.5 Heliar and the new F3.5 Heliar always had the "Dynar" design. By contrast, the Universal Heliar always had the original Heliar design, even in the coated post WWII production.

So, if you looking at photographs you need to know the approximate date of the image making, as rough guide to the lens type.

plaubel
12-Oct-2017, 01:59
What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.


They did understand the light, an often missing point of today.
And they have been tricky in developing negatives with more than two baths and different chemicals.

Bokeh is more a matter of lens construction tha a matter of diaphragm construction.

Pere Casals
12-Oct-2017, 02:03
Well, I known I can be silly stupid. I like the shutters all round and such. Star points annoy me, for one, especially when people debate their quality. I also like the boceh round diaphragms give too. Plus I like the look of photos with them. And yes, I agree about the connection to the past. One of the reasons I got into LF and went back to film. Digital is sterile to me.

What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.

For landscapes I am often having exposures of seconds to minutes. People are a bit different, but somehow they did it well back in the last couple centuries or longer ago.

Hello Steven,


I'm an admirer of Heliar imaging subtleties, let me tell you what I learned until now.

Beyond excellent link provided by Mr Fromm perhaps you know this: http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

My most desired glass is Universal Heliar 36 (for 8x10) , as you may see this glass was born in 1926 and it takes the 1902 design, but adding a difusion ring to adjust softness, this ring displaces the inner element out of its "ideal" position in order to add an adjustable amount of spherical aberration.

The term "Universal" comes from the 1926 aesthetical canon, this lens can be a general sharp taking lens, or an adjustable soft lens, so a Pro of the era had two lenses in one. The "kind of softness" it delivers it is particularly pleasing (to me), this comes from the "shape of the difusion", here in this shot (zooming in) you can see that some light from distant bright points is directed to the center of the image, this tells about the "nature" of the difusion, in the same way that there are different kinds of Bokeh, here difusion is set at 2.5:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24080971035/in/photolist-o4rK9d-GvJNan-F5DHuX-rpxVVY-FSu6Xo-P3vjNj-Gm5Rfm-qQR1qq-nnucQW-CFXgHM-mPf6rW/


Beyond difusion, of course the Heliar Bokeh nature is also impressive, IMHO japanese photographers are the most proficient to evaluate that, japanese imaging subculture about Bokeh is very strong, they are able speak hours long about bokeh subtleties of a glass. And it is not by chance that Heliars were highly regarded in Japan.


Shutter:

In the far past, with low speed emulsions of the era, shutters were not "mandatory" at all, still old camera (bulb...) shutters for barrels could be used.

As Told by Mr Gales the straight way is a Sinar shutter, but the 36cm it also can be DIY mounted in a Compound #5, I don't know if the #5 limits a bit max aperture.

170814

Another DIY way I consider is to take a Graflex Speed Graphic shutter and to mount it in the rear of the front standard.

Regards

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5715/24080971035_a5dfd7dd57_k.jpg

Jim Andrada
12-Oct-2017, 02:22
And they were working with very slow emulsions - and not panchromatic either. Slow emulsion = long exposure = something that wasn't so hard to time by hand. Anyone with a pulse can count seconds fairly well with a bit of practice. Development by inspection works pretty well too, with practice.

By the way, love the train photo!

Pere Casals
12-Oct-2017, 02:53
They did understand the light, an often missing point of today.


+100




Bokeh is more a matter of lens construction tha a matter of diaphragm construction.

Just adding that most of bokeh nature depends on how spherical aberration is corrected in out of focus areas. Optical design targets perfect spherical aberration correction for the in focus area, but out of focus areas can result over or under corrected in the front or in the back of the focus plane.

Also we can mention Circular (or Swirl) Bokeh, this hapens when lens entrance or exit pupil is trimming the discs generated by aperture.

Dan Fromm
12-Oct-2017, 04:51
What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.

The ancients you're thinking of had "modern type" lenses -- anastigmats -- and modern type shutters. I recently went through the Bulletin of the French Photographic Society for, roughly, 1889 - 1922. Long story. Those volumes contain many reports on newly introduced lenses and shutters.

Check your assumptions.

Jim Andrada
12-Oct-2017, 10:31
But did the ancients have light meters???

If anything I guess they might have had some kind of extinction "meter" as mentioned in Wikipedia.

The earliest[when?] type of light meters were called extinction meters and contained a numbered or lettered row of neutral density filters of increasing density. The photographer would position the meter in front of his subject and note the filter with the greatest density that still allowed incident light to pass through. The letter or number corresponding to the filter was used as an index into a chart of appropriate aperture and shutter speed combinations for a given film speed.

Dan Fromm
12-Oct-2017, 11:18
Jim, I don't think the ancients had light meters. I just inadvertently blew away the copies of BSFP that I'd downloaded so I can't check them easily. Writing project is finished, don't need, blah blah blah. Mistake.

Thinking of mistakes, I think you're mistaken in thinking that the ancients used only what we'd see as very long exposures. I'd swear that I've seen reports of exposures as fast as 1/300 before 1910. Again, don't have the sources ready to hand, sorry.

I do have Fabre 1889 ready to hand, just skimmed his shutter section. He mentions only one shutter speed, 1/100.

I think we underestimate the gear the ancients used, especially after the early 1890s. By them emulsions were much much faster than they'd been when photography was young. By then there'd been quite a lot of R&D work on making photography practical.

Pere Casals
12-Oct-2017, 12:35
Jim, I don't think the ancients had light meters.

The ancient type of light meters were extinction meters.

IIRC a numbered density filters of increasing density were used to see the subject by eye. The lowest desnsity filter that allowed to see the subject was used to determine exposure. I cannot tell the era or how popular were.

plaubel
12-Oct-2017, 14:03
I have an old Actinometer where you have to look through a tiny filter.
By changing the density you get a view like "subject in moonlight" ( in other words there is nearly nothing to see), and from there you have to read the exposure values seen on a tabel.
I don't believe in much popularity :-)

But I find this old exposure cards somehow usuable:

170822

170823170824

Pere Casals
12-Oct-2017, 14:42
Interesnting !!

Mr. Ponting, on Scott's Antarctic Expedition (1910), used similar Watkins Bee Exposure Meter in the far south, with impressive results.

https://www.google.es/search?q=Ponting,+on+Scott%27s+Antarctic+Expedition&rlz=1C1AOHY_esES708ES708&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2u6jhhuzWAhVEOxoKHRDtD60QsAQIRQ&biw=1920&bih=993

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Oct-2017, 15:56
Hello Steven,


I'm an admirer of Heliar imaging subtleties, let me tell you what I learned until now.

Beyond excellent link provided by Mr Fromm perhaps you know this: http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

My most desired glass is Universal Heliar 36 (for 8x10) , as you may see this glass was born in 1926 and it takes the 1902 design, but adding a difusion ring to adjust softness, this ring displaces the inner element out of its "ideal" position in order to add an adjustable amount of spherical aberration.

The term "Universal" comes from the 1926 aesthetical canon, this lens can be a general sharp taking lens, or an adjustable soft lens, so a Pro of the era had two lenses in one. The "kind of softness" it delivers it is particularly pleasing (to me), this comes from the "shape of the difusion", here in this shot (zooming in) you can see that some light from distant bright points is directed to the center of the image, this tells about the "nature" of the difusion, in the same way that there are different kinds of Bokeh, here difusion is set at 2.5:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24080971035/in/photolist-o4rK9d-GvJNan-F5DHuX-rpxVVY-FSu6Xo-P3vjNj-Gm5Rfm-qQR1qq-nnucQW-CFXgHM-mPf6rW/


Beyond difusion, of course the Heliar Bokeh nature is also impressive, IMHO japanese photographers are the most proficient to evaluate that, japanese imaging subculture about Bokeh is very strong, they are able speak hours long about bokeh subtleties of a glass. And it is not by chance that Heliars were highly regarded in Japan.


Shutter:

In the far past, with low speed emulsions of the era, shutters were not "mandatory" at all, still old camera (bulb...) shutters for barrels could be used.

As Told by Mr Gales the straight way is a Sinar shutter, but the 36cm it also can be DIY mounted in a Compound #5, I don't know if the #5 limits a bit max aperture.

170814

Another DIY way I consider is to take a Graflex Speed Graphic shutter and to mount it in the rear of the front standard.

Regards

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5715/24080971035_a5dfd7dd57_k.jpg

Picture is awesome

Pere Casals
12-Oct-2017, 16:10
Picture is awesome
also photograher is awesome, please see other photographs of Leo Velimir!

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Oct-2017, 16:16
After even more research, terminology, compatability, etc, a good fit for the Voigtlander Heliars from 3A up, the Ilex No 5 Universal shutter is a good fit. The lens mounting thread is 3.00 in front and rear, for the 11.75 Heliar f4.5 298-300 has a max opening of 2.62 inches (66.6mm) so, using a max iris for the Ilex of 2.5 inches gives a slight f stop reduction to about 4.7. Information from here https://sizes.com/tools/shutter_photo.htm

Max shutter is 1/50 of second, but for my intended use that is really fast and people generally can sit still longer than that, except for my nutty 5 year old boy :) I can also front mount it without having the optics remounted in a custom tube by skgrimes (which is relatively cheap, but not that cheap, even cheaper to front mount, but risk of vignetting if movements used) Anyway, it looks like now the options are available to mount most "ancient" lenses into modern shutters, more or less. But I only plan on obtain a few for use, besides the 11 3/4 voigtlander. Depends on how my tastes develop. But I am also starting to collect them and build a small museum of sorts in my house. I love optics, lenses, cameras and cool mechanical things like them, telescopes too.

Anyone know of a good optics shop that can restore lenses? Deglue, reglue, align, etc?

Two23
12-Oct-2017, 16:16
Interesnting !!

Mr. Ponting, on Scott's Antarctic Expedition (1910), used similar Watkins Bee Exposure Meter in the far south, with impressive results.

https://www.google.es/search?q=Ponting,+on+Scott%27s+Antarctic+Expedition&rlz=1C1AOHY_esES708ES708&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2u6jhhuzWAhVEOxoKHRDtD60QsAQIRQ&biw=1920&bih=993

The Bee meter was not the extinguishing type if I remember right. It involved putting a bit of specially treated paper into the meter and giving it a quick exposure, and compare the result. That sounds like it was more like a crude Polaroid test shot to me.


Kent in SD

Dan Fromm
12-Oct-2017, 16:49
Anyone know of a good optics shop that can restore lenses? Deglue, reglue, align, etc?

The one most often recommended here is http://www.focalpointlens.com/. I've never used them, replacing the lens has always been less expensive than having it reworked. A lens designer posts here as Nodda Duma. Ask his advice.

Old lenses are cemented with Canada balsam, newer with synthetic adhesives. There have been many discussions here about separating and recementing cemented lens groups. The site's search engine isn't particularly good. This sticky http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses is in the lens section. It contains, among other things, instructions for using Google Advanced Search with sites. Try it.

About aligning, how best to do it depends on the lens. V-blocks are often recommended, but according to a friend who sort-of worked at Boyer, the firm's last owner aligned Beryl groups (Boyer's Dagor type) by hand. Again, ask Nodda Duma.

Two23
12-Oct-2017, 17:39
The Tessars can be very nice, especially wide open. Below is a CZJ Tessar I use that's from c.1914. And, don't forget the Velostigmats! Those give a soft, low contrast look as well--another of my favorites. Maybe I have too many favorites? The Velostigmat is in a fancy Volute shutter and is c.1910. Not only do I love the "look" these vintage lenses & shutters give, I also love the way they look!


Kent in SD

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Oct-2017, 18:02
I definitely like the look of the Velostigmat. It just looks cool. Part of wanting to use old lenses in their original barrels, is the mystique.

Imagine, your out and about with your fancy point and shoot, or high end digital camera and fancy quad-coated lens (being facetious) your camera is made from magnesium, carbon fiber, plastic, etc and you got yourself a 64GB super fast memory card. Then you run across someone with a wooden 4x5 or 8x10, a lens made from real brass (not painted or anodized) shooting a portrait or landscape, taking an eternity to compose the shot and ready the camera. You focus manually, you take a meter reading manually, you set shutter speed, based on your chosen f stop, meter reading and film choice, insert a film holder, wind up the shutter, grab your mechanical cable release and take the picture. Then in amazement when they ask to see the picture, you tell em come back in two weeks. Best part is, your picture is infinitely better most likely than anything they have been shooting. And all the while you were preparing, they took like 50 shots of whatever.

I just think it is cool how what I have is so different and unique to almost everyone else and how I have learned more about photography switching back to film and going to 4x5 than most of them will know about their next meal.

Basically, its the wow factor you get when they see you with something essentially from the 18th-19th century and getting the performance of a modern 10,000 dollar digital set up. :)

Hugo Zhang
12-Oct-2017, 18:20
Steven,

There is a 300mm Heliar in compound #5 shutter on ebay selling for less than $700 with shipping included. You might consider it as your first portrait lens to practice. Heliars are among my favorite.

Hugo

Dan Fromm
12-Oct-2017, 18:54
Basically, its the wow factor you get when they see you with something essentially from the 18th-19th century and getting the performance of a modern 10,000 dollar digital set up. :)

As engineers go, you stand out for sloppiness with dates and, presumably, numbers. When, pray, was photography invented?

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Oct-2017, 21:48
As engineers go, you stand out for sloppiness with dates and, presumably, numbers. When, pray, was photography invented?

Whatever. And yes I most definitely meant to say 18-19 century. Since one of the lenses I am considering is from the 19th century and,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera

I would say, the first camera was around 5th century BC, camera obscura and by the 16th century lenses were being used. As for what we think of as photography the Beginning of the 19th century around 1816.

When I said 18th-19th century I was referring to how people would view and think of a wooden camera with a brass lens and popping in and out wooden film holders.

As an engineer, I am far from sloppy, and keep those airplanes you fly on from falling out of the sky. Also work on satellites, space station, and the new spaceship Orion, as well as helicopters and other stuff.

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Oct-2017, 21:49
Steven,

There is a 300mm Heliar in compound #5 shutter on ebay selling for less than $700 with shipping included. You might consider it as your first portrait lens to practice. Heliars are among my favorite.

Hugo


Have that being watched.

plaubel
13-Oct-2017, 02:25
As an engineer, I am far from sloppy, and keep those airplanes you fly on from falling out of the sky. Also work on satellites, space station, and the new spaceship Orion, as well as helicopters and other stuff.

Superb.
Great stuff for NASA forum :-)
But dear engeneers of today, please don't forget that it wasn't you who kept flying subjects from falling out of the sky.
This has been this great ancient guys which developed other things, too.
Great lenses, fantastic mechanisms ( and aesthetics, too) in cameras, trains and so on.

Myself i feel absolutely comfortable in using wood and brass, as you described before.
My preference isn't any applause, I just want to create photographs while having fun.
This old stuff always give me fun, and sometimes the wanted results.

I guess that I have understood that ancient photographers have used their lenses as special tools for special situations.
Without access to Photoshop they had to equalize contrasty situations in example, so they grabbed mild lenses in this special case.
The same for portraits - a mild lens with wide opening, and a big negative size gave, and will give, the wanted results ( to me).

Regarding old and "modern" LF lenses I can say as an example that my old Xenar 210mm always gave me "better " results than my modern version.
Sharp, if necessary, mild if required.
The modern one was sharp, of course a very good lens in this sense, but I am glad in starting up my LF photography with such a characterful lens like the old Xenar.

Yes, I love to hang my 360mm Heliar onto the bigger cameras, but if I have to choose only one lens some day, I probably would keep my old Xenar, if it is not possible to uprade to an Universal Heliar :-)

Ritchie

Dan Fromm
13-Oct-2017, 05:00
I guess that I have understood that ancient photographers have used their lenses as special tools for special situations.
Without access to Photoshop they had to equalize contrasty situations in example, so they grabbed mild lenses in this special case.

The same for portraits - a mild lens with wide opening, and a big negative size gave, and will give, the wanted results ( to me).Ritchie

Ritchie, my perspective may have been warped by a recent read through some of the late 19th century French photographic literature, but I think you've got your history wrong.

The material I've read showed that those ancients (late RR era, i.e., readings from 1888 - around 1900, by which time anastigmats were seen to be preferable) valued resolution, contrast and coverage. Just like us. To the extent that they used special tools, the special tools were wide angle lenses for large groups and situations where backing up wasn't possible.

They valued speed because they had very slow emulsions and couldn't count on making portrait subjects sit absolutely still during long exposures. That's why portrait photographers valued Petzval lenses. They didn't want the bizarre images Petzvals give off axis, they wanted central sharpness and above all speed.

They used what we'd see as very large formats -- but they also did, e.g., split 7 x 13 stereo views -- because they contact printed.

As lenses improved, mainly because of progress in glass making, lenses got sharper and faster and coverage grew. This allowed use of smaller formats. You can see it in the range of formats for which lenses were offered.

Pere Casals
13-Oct-2017, 05:05
The Bee meter was not the extinguishing type if I remember right. It involved putting a bit of specially treated paper into the meter and giving it a quick exposure, and compare the result. That sounds like it was more like a crude Polaroid test shot to me.


Kent in SD

True, the Bee was of the actinometer type, marketed since around 1890s

Dan Fromm
13-Oct-2017, 05:09
Whatever. And yes I most definitely meant to say 18-19 century. Since one of the lenses I am considering is from the 19th century and,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera

I would say, the first camera was around 5th century BC, camera obscura and by the 16th century lenses were being used. As for what we think of as photography the Beginning of the 19th century around 1816.

When I said 18th-19th century I was referring to how people would view and think of a wooden camera with a brass lens and popping in and out wooden film holders.

As an engineer, I am far from sloppy, and keep those airplanes you fly on from falling out of the sky. Also work on satellites, space station, and the new spaceship Orion, as well as helicopters and other stuff.

The camera obscura doesn't capture images. It is a drawing aid and is still used for that. The devices we call cameras project images on to sensitized surfaces -- no lens needed -- which capture them. No sensitized surface, no camera, no photography.

You're equivocating, acting as though the word camera always meant what it now does in English. This is a mistake. Sloppy thinking or, perhaps, unexamined assumption.

plaubel
13-Oct-2017, 06:55
Ritchie, my perspective may have been warped by a recent read through some of the late 19th century French photographic literature, but I think you've got your history wrong.


Hi Dan,

I like to see it this way:

Because it is the history, we don't know everything of this episode, so I agree that my tiny knowledge is wrong here and there.

Unbelieveable sometimes, how far the techniques has been 120 years ago.
First color slides, 1897, very early 1/1000 seconds, puh!
No, we can't bring in much today, so I believe.

But I absolutely believe they have had a war between the fractions of older and newer lenses.
And their has been uprising amateurs, but also the profs, both with different requirements and gear.

The main group of technique affinators praised the new stuff, and of course some things become possible first time in a photographers life with this new lens designs.

Otherwise we know this phenomenia from the digital area where suddenly everything became better - but it took two decades to become even or better - new always has to be better..

On the other hand some remaining photographers staying tuned in pictorialism or in "describing the light" instead of making sharp pictures only.

I have read books from the early 20th century where the authors praise the charactere of lenses or give emphatically comparisms against this "wonderful" anastigmats.

Looking at the birthtime of the Imagon, there must have been other preferences and requirements than sharpness and fastness even in the 20th century.

Where exactly is the truth?


"" The material I've read showed that those ancients (late RR era, i.e., readings from 1888 - around 1900, by which time anastigmats were seen to be preferable) valued resolution, contrast and coverage. Just like us. To the extent that they used special tools, the special tools were wide angle lenses for large groups and situations where backing up wasn't possible.""

Nothing wrong with this.
But from what I have read it was common practice to choose the "right tool".
I don't believe that the old guys regulary pulled Tessars out of their pocket in really contrasty situations.

Regarding the whole situation of this long gone days - no Mulitigrade and others - they had the need to understand the light and the contrasts, they had the need to work best with their negatives, and having full contrast required pulling of all registers, mild lenses included.
That's my opinion.

""You can see it in the range of formats for which lenses were offered. ""

Since I have not much prospects out of this older days, I have to observe the today's market.
In germany, the 9x12cm Plattenkameras seem to be common to the folks until the sixties.
Rollei 6x6, too.
The 9x12 often come with terrible or cheap lenses, so the costs seem to have more value than fastness and best quality.

Todays prospects show us Lambourghinis, and trips to the space, but while this is state of the technique, this is not common.

I love to listen to real old photographers.
Once I bought a 9x12cm Plattenkamera, I have had great conversations with the female seller.
She told me that she learned for professional photographer, and this camera was a gift from her father in 1957 especially for her study time.
By the way, it comes with a simply Eurynar, nothing special, and with a simple kit of WA/Portrait/Makro/Tele single lenses for screwing in froont of the Eurynar.

She has learned in a photo studio in a not so big but not so small town, and every studio portrait was made with a 13x18cm studio camera.
After grading as a photographer she didn't want to act as a photographer - she exclusively retouched the glass plates and negatives from this studio.
Every negative got a little to big retouch of two to ten minutes in this studio.

Yes, I got some original glassplates, retouched negatives and contact prints out of her hands !
Amazing, really amazing.

There my history shows right, they have had a lot of practical experience, great knowledge, and the right tools for the given situation.
Does it count for the complete history? I dont know.

By the way - I have it all, the best developers, the second best papers, but it is hard to reprint in such a high quality in spite of Multigrade and colour head or Ilford filters, and other specialities.
Must be the old material, or my missing knowledge.

Ritchie

Pere Casals
13-Oct-2017, 07:24
By the way - I have it all, the best developers, the second best papers, but it is hard to reprint in such a high quality in spite of Multigrade and colour head or Ilford filters, and other specialities.
Must be the old material, or my missing knowledge.

Ritchie


Just a suggestion, http://phototechmag.com/selective-masking-part-iii-computer-techniques-for-the-traditional-darkroom/

This allows to reproduce old tonality fashion

plaubel
13-Oct-2017, 08:39
Just a suggestion, http://phototechmag.com/selective-masking-part-iii-computer-techniques-for-the-traditional-darkroom/

This allows to reproduce old tonality fashion


Thanks, Pere, I will have an intensive look on this !

plaubel
13-Oct-2017, 08:45
Well, I have studied this great article some times ago, but thanks again, Pere.

CCHarrison
13-Oct-2017, 10:25
My Heliar lens article

http://antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Steven Ruttenberg
13-Oct-2017, 10:49
My Heliar lens article

http://antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

I have been reading it for many days now. Well written.

Pere Casals
14-Oct-2017, 06:35
Well, I have studied this great article some times ago, but thanks again, Pere.

I've also studied this article some times, too much times :) without having tried this method in practice. I think that I'm to put it at work !!!

Pere Casals
14-Oct-2017, 06:40
My Heliar lens article

http://antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Dan, thanks for that impressive research and for mantaining that incredible source of information !!! I'm very grateful

Best Regards