optics question

[esearing]

Could a lens be designed such that the rear element always produces an image circle of 200mm, but the front elements could be swapped such that the angle of coverage goes from wide to tele? Or could a spacer tube for the front element or rear element change the focal point such that it would render a similar image circle?
I.e. a kit with effectively 65mm, 90mm, 135, 180, 250mm front elements with decreasing angle of views with same max aperature.

This would require one back element and one shutter.

[Steve Goldstein]

Some of the Nikon telephotos were built something along these lines - the front cell remained constant and the rears were changed. There were two families, 360/500/720 for 4x5/5x7 and 600/800/1200 for 8x10. While Nikon's literature claimed a constant image circle for each family, I believe the IC actually increased as the focal length got longer.

What you propose is probably possible, but you might not want to pay for it... I hope Jason (Nodda Duma ) chimes in.

[Jim Jones]

Some old 35mm Kodak Retina models had interchangeable front cells to change the focal length. Casket lens sets have been around much longer. The image circle might vary with different combinations of lenses, but as long as it was adequate there would be no problem.

[xkaes]

There have been lots of convertible lenses made over the decades for formats from subminiature cameras to large format. Most just switch between two focal lengths, but some have much more flexibility. Several 16mm cameras had wide-angle and tele-photo converters that fit on the front of the normal lens. The Canon Demi C half-frame had an interchangeable front element, as well. I have never heard of a set-up with quite the range you are talking about, but there are a ton of wide-angle and tele-converters -- of numerous strengths -- designed for the front of a normal lenses of any format. Quality? That's another issue. I know some are really quite good -- like the converters for the Minolta Dimage A series -- but some are not worth a dime. Impact on the image circle? I'm sure you will hear from others with more knowledge in this area.

[Bob Salomon]

Some old 35mm Kodak Retina models had interchangeable front cells to change the focal length. Casket lens sets have been around much longer. The image circle might vary with different combinations of lenses, but as long as it was adequate there would be no problem.

Jim, lots of 35 cameras used interchangeable front elements to change focal length. Besides the Retina the Contaflex Hmong TLR versions), Voightlander Bessamatic, Diax and Braun Paxettes come to mind.

[esearing]

I assume in theory the lens makers could create the equivalent of a small format 28-100mm zoom lens, but for 4x5 it would likely be quite large and max fstop would likely drop off as you zoom in as it does in smaller formats. In a simple lens system the middle lens would travel from front to rear while outer lenses are fixed.

[Dan Fromm]

Eric Searing asked about convertible lenses, got good and correct answers. But he added a condition that I don't think anyone addressed:


I.e. a kit with effectively 65mm, 90mm, 135, 180, 250mm front elements with decreasing angle of views with same max aperature.

As Bob Salomon in particular pointed out, there have been many 35 mm cameras with interchangeable front elements. None, as far as I know, in which all combinations had the same maximum aperture.

Jim Jones mentioned casket sets. In the second half of the 19th century, many makers made Rapid Rectilinear casket sets for LF cameras, none with the same aperture for all focal lengths. Casket sets, with single cells well corrected anastigmats, continued to be made for LF cameras after anastigmats came in, were mostly gone by around 1930. Again, each combination had a different maximum aperture.

The last casket sets offered were Berthiot's Ser. IVc, which contained 3 or 4 individual lenses. Last offered around 1951. These are somewhat an exception to the different apertures for each combination rule, single cells were typically f/12, combinations f/6.7 - f/8. There was only one Ser IVc set for 4x5 (cataloged for 9x12), #1, with six focal lengths, 88, 100, 135, 142, 230 and 305 mm. Not exactly what Eric wants.

As far as I know there was only one family of wide angle casket sets, based on cells from lenses Berthiot later sold as f/14 Ser VIa Perigraphes. Practically speaking, non-existent.

Short answer, Eric, get a mule.

[ic-racer]

Many 'convertible' lenses have been made for large format. However, if one desires the highest image quality, non-convertible lenses are better. Not everyone wants the sharpest lens, so any lens can be made a convertible. Try using any of your lenses with just the front or rear element. You can try them mounted on the front or rear, you have 4 combinations to try.

[Dan Fromm]

ic, close but no cigar. Not all LF lenses are separable. Separable lenses are, I think, mainly more-or-less symmetrical. Tessars certainly aren't separable. And single cells typically have focal lengths very approximately twice as long as the complete lens.

Changing a single cell's orientation won't change its focal length. And not all shutters are symmetrical. Compur/Copal/Prontor #1s, for example. Cells that fit them can't be swapped front-to-rear.

[Nodda Duma]

Yes, it could be done. However, it wouldn't be any cheaper than a set of fixed focal length lenses on separate lens boards to swap out as needed. Especially in today's market.

A large format continuous zoom would be fun to design. It wouldn't be as big as one would think.

[xkaes]

The closest example I have is with my Yashica Samurai Z. The built-in lens is a 25-75mm zoom. SUPER sharp which is good because it is a half frame camera. I have two front end converters for it. A really neat 0.43x Vivitar wide-angle converter which turns it into an 11-32mm wide-angle zoom, and a Tokina 2X tele-converter which creates a 50-150mm telephoto zoom. Converting that into 4x5 format is basically lenses from 60mm to 600mm. Others here will trash it, of course, but it works great for me. No, I do not use these converters on my 4x5 gear -- but I could.

A similar set of converters might work for your situation, but as others have pointed out, why not just buy the entire lenses? If you have one lens/shutter and six "converters", why not use seven lenses instead? Size and weight will be about the same, and perhaps cost.

With a 150mm LF lens, a x0.43 converter would be 65mm, and a 2x would be 300mm. Not a bad spread. I might just give it a try!

Why not just try a set of diopter lenses for the front. That would be lighter than extra lenses. A 150mm lens can be turned into a 60mm lens with a #10 diopter lens on the front. OOPS. Once again, I'm sure I've crossed the line of LF purity. I'll be in the basement awaiting the mortar fire!

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm

[Jim Andrada]

Just a comment re the Nikkor with interchangeable rear cells. I have the 360/500/720 and the lens(es) are surprisingly sharp in all configurations.

[Pere Casals]

Could a lens be designed such that the rear element always produces an image circle of 200mm, but the front elements could be swapped such that the angle of coverage goes from wide to tele? Or could a spacer tube for the front element or rear element change the focal point such that it would render a similar image circle?
I.e. a kit with effectively 65mm, 90mm, 135, 180, 250mm front elements with decreasing angle of views with same max aperature.

This would require one back element and one shutter.


Some of the Nikon telephotos were built something along these lines - the front cell remained constant and the rears were changed. There were two families, 360/500/720 for 4x5/5x7 and 600/800/1200 for 8x10. While Nikon's literature claimed a constant image circle for each family, I believe the IC actually increased as the focal length got longer.

What you propose is probably possible, but you might not want to pay for it... I hope Jason (Nodda Duma ) chimes in.

A reversed Nikon T... It would be interesting to know what criterion Nikon used to rely in interchangeable rears instead of fronts, a lens designer perhaps would say it...


Yes, it could be done. However, it wouldn't be any cheaper than a set of fixed focal length lenses on separate lens boards to swap out as needed. Especially in today's market.

A large format continuous zoom would be fun to design. It wouldn't be as big as one would think.


I would like to introduce a question in that discusion... what happens when giving up the symetric design for LF lenses?

LF lenses have to work with very large circles, and for sure the symetric (or close) design is sound for the corrections do work in the outer as in the center.

The Nikon T design is non symetric and with interchangeable rears, but image circle is not large for the focal, here in page 11: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

...it says angle of coverage is from 11º to 22º (very f/ dependant !). So the Nikon T design it may be appropriate for extra long focals as with a narrow angle the format can be covered.

Still, for sure it can be done, but if we sacrifice the symetric design and want to obtain a well corrected and large circle (65º...) with interchangeable front cells, then perhaps we will need a lot additional elements to make front and rear parts independently well corrected, better than the Symmar convertible, in order it works.

IMHO that design saves shutters, lens boards, and weight, but the challenge would be correcting well aberrations, flatness and distorsion of the full system without going too much expensive. This is IMHO, perhaps an optician can say it for sure.

In part the Cooke Triple convertible and Symmar convertible are nice solutions in that direction. Some discredited those lenses in the converted configurations because not being aware of the focus shift when stopping (at least with the symmar), but we have to remember that "according to an article by Gordon Hutchings in View Camera magazine, July/August 2004. Ansel used the 19" (480 mm) component for "Aspens, Northern New Mexico," 1958; both components to get 12" (300 mm) for "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park," 1940; and the 23" (580 mm) component for "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," 1941. Enough said?"

http://www.kenrockwell.com/schneider/150.htm

[Pere Casals]

A large format continuous zoom would be fun to design. It wouldn't be as big as one would think.

Yes but... any succesful zoom in the LF history ? why ?

I'd ask what will it happen with focus flatness in the film plane if we have 60º coverage, and with distorsion, and Sph and Chr aberrations...

Sure it could be done with a lot of elements and with the help of Asph, perhaps it would be difficult to beat MF performance if not going too much big and too much expensive. Still a simple system it would be nice for creative usage, but competing (cost-performance) with a plasmat derivative in the +60º coverage realm it is not easy.

[Len Middleton]

The last casket sets offered were Berthiot's Ser. IVc, which contained 3 or 4 individual lenses. Last offered around 1951. These are somewhat an exception to the different apertures for each combination rule, single cells were typically f/12, combinations f/6.7 - f/8. There was only one Ser IVc set for 4x5 (cataloged for 9x12), #1, with six focal lengths, 88, 100, 135, 142, 230 and 305 mm. Not exactly what Eric wants.


Dan,

Was the Wisner convertible plasmat sets (made by Schneider) considered casket sets?

Seen them offered on rare occasions, so not certain how successful they were in the market, or how practical they were in actual use...

Just looking for clarity.

Thanks,

Len

[Dan Fromm]

Len, of course you're right. I'd forgotten them completely. Thanks for the correction.

[Jody_S]

Yes but... any succesful zoom in the LF history ? why ?

I'd ask what will it happen with focus flatness in the film plane if we have 60º coverage, and with distorsion, and Sph and Chr aberrations...

Sure it could be done with a lot of elements and with the help of Asph, perhaps it would be difficult to beat MF performance if not going too much big and too much expensive. Still a simple system it would be nice for creative usage, but competing (cost-performance) with a plasmat derivative in the +60º coverage realm it is not easy.

I had a Reitzschel Telinear for a few years, an early (1920s?) LF zoom lens (though mine was the smallest, designed for 9x12cm). Did it actually zoom and produce an image? Yes. Would I use it? No.

1) calculating aperture was a PITA, and 2) the aperture was located just in front of the rear element, which means that at the wider configuration it would cause extreme vignetting, so practically, the lens had to be used wide open.

[Pere Casals]

I had a Reitzschel Telinear for a few years, an early (1920s?) LF zoom lens (though mine was the smallest, designed for 9x12cm). Did it actually zoom and produce an image? Yes. Would I use it? No.

1) calculating aperture was a PITA, and 2) the aperture was located just in front of the rear element, which means that at the wider configuration it would cause extreme vignetting, so practically, the lens had to be used wide open.

Interesting... thanks for pointing it, I did not know Rietzschel Telinear. I searched information on it and it's a very interesting lens. I was knowing the Adon but not the Telinear...

[Jody_S]

Interesting... thanks for pointing it, I did not know Rietzschel Telinear. I searched information on it and it's a very interesting lens. I was knowing the Adon but not the Telinear...

Most people think the Adon was the first 'zoom' lens, but in fact the Reitzschel version pre-dates it. I never opened it, but it seems to have been quite simple with a front and a rear element. I didn't use it enough to learn if it was better at the shorter or longer focal length.

[Bob Salomon]

Most people think the Adon was the first 'zoom' lens, but in fact the Reitzschel version pre-dates it. I never opened it, but it seems to have been quite simple with a front and a rear element. I didn't use it enough to learn if it was better at the shorter or longer focal length.

Zoom lens or varifocal lens? While what they do is similar in the end, change focal length, what happens when they do it are very different,

[Drew Wiley]

Here we go again. People inferring that it was good enough for Ansel, it's good enough for us. But have you ever seen those particular images enlarged more than 3X ? The aspen shot seems to hold up; but the others lose definition.

[Jody_S]

Zoom lens or varifocal lens?

Varifocal, of course. There were no zoom lenses in the 1910s or 20s.

[Bob Salomon]

Varifocal, of course. There were no zoom lenses in the 1910s or 20s.

From Wikipedia:

“The first true zoom lens, which retained near-sharp focus while the effective focal length of the lens assembly was changed, was patented in 1902 by Clile C. Allen (U.S. Patent 696,788). An early use of the zoom lens in cinema can be seen in the opening shot of the movie "It" starring Clara Bow, from 1927.”

[Pere Casals]

From Wikipedia:

“The first true zoom lens, which retained near-sharp focus while the effective focal length of the lens assembly was changed, was patented in 1902 by Clile C. Allen (U.S. Patent 696,788). An early use of the zoom lens in cinema can be seen in the opening shot of the movie "It" starring Clara Bow, from 1927.”


Varifocal, of course. There were no zoom lenses in the 1910s or 20s.


Here we distinguish "zoom lenses" from "true (parfocal) zoom lenses". IMHO the concept is fuzzy. Perhaps "true zoom" is more related to cinematography, but "zoom" is a more generic term in still photography, I'd say.

I fact the same wiki article you cite soon starts naming zooms to any variable focal length lens...

Anyway today parfocal design is obsolete in DSLRs, as varifocal is technically better and the electronics mantains focus while zooming with varifocal lenses (as the case of Nikon 70-200 f/2.8), having great advantages (weight, size, cost).

[Pere Casals]

Here we go again. People inferring that it was good enough for Ansel, it's good enough for us. But have you ever seen those particular images enlarged more than 3X ? The aspen shot seems to hold up; but the others lose definition.

Drew, do you think that were AA lenses performing under 25 lp/mm ? Not at all!

If one can obtain 50 lp/mm in 4x5 (IMHO a difficult challenge for most situations) this would be worse IQ than 8x10 at 25 lp/mm, mainly because film is degradating IQ at 50lp/mm in common low micro contrast.

If having 25 lp/mm an x5 enlargement still would show 5 lp/mm on paper, so no flaw would be seen with the viewer's nose on a 1,2m print.

What I say is if not all AA photographs were completely sharp it could be because other reasons, like DOF, focusing, wind or enlargement.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, here we distinguish "zoom lenses" from "true (parfocal) zoom lenses". IMHO the concept is fuzzy. Perhaps "true zoom" is more related to cinematography, but "zoom" is a more generic term in still photography, I'd say.

I fact the same wiki article you cite soon starts naming zooms to any variable focal length lens...

Anyway today parfocal design is obsolete in DSLRs, as varifocal is technically better and the electronics mantains focus while zooming with varifocal lenses (as the case of Nikon 70-200 f/2.8), having great advantages (weight, size, cost).
No question about the terminology. But zoom lenses are o
Dear then the poster stated.
BTW, I sold the Voightlander Vario 36 to 82mm for the Bessamatic when it was originally introduced in 1959. Interesting lens but heavy!

[Pere Casals]

No question about the terminology. But zoom lenses are o
Dear then the poster stated.
BTW, I sold the Voightlander Vario 36 to 82mm for the Bessamatic when it was originally introduced in 1959. Interesting lens but heavy!

Bob, you really sold entire ships of glass, I think I can calculate it, just taking the serial numbers in the active years and guessing the production share that was going to your markets... this is a large amount of glass... that glass amount is not a joke...

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, you really sold entire ships of glass, I think I can calculate it, just taking the serial numbers in the active years and guessing the production share that was going to your markets... this is a large amount of glass... that glass amount is not a joke...

I wish I had. But my background in photo sales started in a very well equipped regional retailer in 1957 and ended as a well known USA importer and distributor that heavily specialized in European and, especially, German photo products. Along the way I also worked for the 8mporter and distributor of Sinar and Nikon at the time that Nikon introduced their LF lenses. So I represented Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider lenses during that time.

[Alan Gales]

A large format continuous zoom would be fun to design. It wouldn't be as big as one would think.


A 90mm to 210 or 240mm zoom would be nice for the 4x5 shooters. I'd be afraid to ask what it would cost though! :cool:

[Pere Casals]

A 90mm to 210 or 240mm zoom would be nice for the 4x5 shooters. I'd be afraid to ask what it would cost though! :cool:

IMHO in LF a zoom is less needed because you always can crop and still having IQ in excess, smaller formats have severe IQ problems when making a crop...

[Drew Wiley]

Pere, I didn't have time at that moment to qualify my statement that other factors were no doubt cumulatively involved. AA's film plane was never truly flat, and his enlarger was primitive (the largest prints were contracted out to a commercial lab and printed under his supervision). The films were much grainier than today. Camera shake would be obvious; but huge shutters have a more subtle effect. Still, I doubt the convertible lenses of that period were in the same sharpness league of modern lenses. Gel filters probably help much either, esp behind the lens.

[Drew Wiley]

Gels probably DIDN'T help. Scuse me. But since those lenses weren't even close to apochromatic, certain filters probably exaggerated a halo. Even the Wisner casket set had a problem with blue light, requiring a yellow cutoff filter. I'd imagine Cooke these days has excellent control; but you pay for it.

[Pere Casals]

Drew, with the sharp Aspen you cite ( "Aspens, Northern New Mexico," 1958 ?) Ansel used the 19" (480 mm) component alone of the Cooke triple convertible. This may show a perfomance level for converted configurations.

[xkaes]

IMHO in LF a zoom is less needed because you always can crop and still having IQ in excess, smaller formats have severe IQ problems when making a crop...

I can't remember the last time I made a print from a 4x5 negative without cropping at least a little. And many times I have cropped a lot -- although some purists consider any amount of cropping a mortal sin. But the same goes for all of my smaller formats -- often to fit a paper format -- but I also frequently crop the paper to fit the subject. That means my results are largely "subject driven" and not film or paper driven. You have to do that if you love panoramas!

[Pere Casals]

I can't remember the last time I made a print from a 4x5 negative without cropping at least a little. And many times I have cropped a lot -- although some purists consider any amount of cropping a mortal sin. But the same goes for all of my smaller formats -- often to fit a paper format -- but I also frequently crop the paper to fit the subject. That means my results are largely "subject driven" and not film or paper driven. You have to do that if you love panoramas!

Well, we are free to crop or not. What is clear is that if wanting a particular composition with a particular perspective we may need an intermetiate focal that we don't have, then single solution is to crop as zooms are not "popular" in LF... and zooms are ot necessary in LF because we can crop and still having lots of IQ. Single question is if we have a lens kit with +30% or +50% progression. Anyway best may be having a single lens and exploting it :) Perhaps it is the way to get better photographs.

[Jody_S]

From Wikipedia:

“The first true zoom lens, which retained near-sharp focus while the effective focal length of the lens assembly was changed, was patented in 1902 by Clile C. Allen (U.S. Patent 696,788). An early use of the zoom lens in cinema can be seen in the opening shot of the movie "It" starring Clara Bow, from 1927.”

Well that's what I get for not checking exhaustively before hitting 'reply' on this forum. I thought commercially-successful zooms started showing up in the late 1950s, but never bothered checking when the first design was patented. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

[Bob Salomon]

Well that's what I get for not checking exhaustively before hitting 'reply' on this forum. I thought commercially-successful zooms started showing up in the late 1950s, but never bothered checking when the first design was patented. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, of course.

Not if zoom lenses were being used in the 20s!

[Alan Gales]

IMHO in LF a zoom is less needed because you always can crop and still having IQ in excess, smaller formats have severe IQ problems when making a crop...

Pere, you have a valid point. It would of course all depend upon how good the zoom was. I remember when zoom lenses first came out for 35mm and they couldn't match a fixed focal length lens at all.

Just be careful mentioning cropping though. I once mentioned on one of the forums using a wide lens on 8x10 that didn't quite cover and cropping out the darkened corners. I got jumped on! "What, why shoot 8x10 if you are going to crop?". ;)

[Bernice Loui]

Lenses that do not properly cover 8x10 is often due to the image maker using a lens that is not designed for 8x10 or is using a lens designed for 8x10 beyond it's design limits.

Brings up, why not simply go to a smaller format where lens choices are FAR greater and overall lower cost?


As for LF zoom, is there really a need?

Change is focal length (Wide, Normal, Tele) is directly related to front to back perspective size. Many smaller format (including digital) image makers use zoom lenses to fame an image intended from where they stand rather than moving to a image making location that results in the image intended. Granted this is not possible in all image making cases, but can apply to many image making using any camera. Serious film and video folks expend an awful lot of effort to set up the image making location and apply what is needed to achieve the desired image effect.

Zoom lens scene from Kubrick's Clock Work Orange opening. Combination of a modified Angenieux 12-240mm f3.5 on a Mitchell 35mm camera pulled on a rail cart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTuuXL8lakE


Bernice



Pere, you have a valid point. It would of course all depend upon how good the zoom was. I remember when zoom lenses first came out for 35mm and they couldn't match a fixed focal length lens at all.

Just be careful mentioning cropping though. I once mentioned on one of the forums using a wide lens on 8x10 that didn't quite cover and cropping out the darkened corners. I got jumped on! "What, why shoot 8x10 if you are going to crop?". ;)

[xkaes]

Just be careful mentioning cropping though. I once mentioned on one of the forums using a wide lens on 8x10 that didn't quite cover and cropping out the darkened corners. I got jumped on! "What, why shoot 8x10 if you are going to crop?". ;)

I tried to warn you.

I once made an 1x5 FOOT panorama on the Mogollon Rim in Arizona from a 1x5" section of a 4x5" negative (Agfapan 25) with a 65mm Fujinon SWD. My large format class was blow away by the quality and could not figure out how I did it. The professor never taught us about the importance of cropping, but all the students learned about it.

[Pere Casals]

I once mentioned on one of the forums using a wide lens on 8x10 that didn't quite cover and cropping out the darkened corners. I got jumped on! "What, why shoot 8x10 if you are going to crop?". ;)

Well, I see at least one reason, not walking 2h with a 8x10 in the back !! If a Nikon SW 150 frames to much mountain for the composition we want and a 210mm do not frames all we want... then we can crop or we can walk :) , or run... if light is changing !!


Brings up, why not simply go to a smaller format where lens choices are FAR greater and overall lower cost?


Bernice, one can make "the mistake to look throught a 8x10 GG..." (as Jim F. says), IMHO 8x10 is an overkill regarding IQ, being 4x5 (and 5x7!) way enough for most jobs.

But perhaps there are powerful aesthetical reasons and spritual drives to shot 8x10 and beyond. Of course a pro had to optimize costs, and he was using what he really needed. An artist is different, if Sally Mann wants 810 then she wants 810, and don't ask. Then an amateur like me... this is difficult to explain, beyond G.A.S.



Anyway we should remember that a lot of Pro portrait photographers using 6x6 Hassies always cropped by routine. One told me something like "look, the Hassy was not square format for me, simply I didn't need to rotate the camera, and just I could decide later if it was portrait or landscape orientation."

One can have skills like Cartier B. to nail all framings, but IMHO also a lot of Pros do prefer to shot slightly open to have choices later to refine composition.

Still nailing framing at shot time is a nice exercise, cinematographers are (or were) well trained in that.

[Jody_S]

not if zoom lenses were being used in the 20s!

lf?

[Bob Salomon]

lf?

OK, was used.

[Pere Casals]

Here there is interesting description about the Adon being sold since 1891 through the 1950s, I found...

http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_L36.html

[Alan Gales]

Proper wide lenses with plenty of coverage for 8x10 are expensive. They are also big and heavy. In my opinion, if someone only had an 8x10 camera with a normal focal length lens (300-360mm) and only wanted to shoot a wider lens on rare occasion there are alternatives. There are inexpensive wide lenses (on 8x10) that just cover or almost cover 8x10. You could always crop just a little with one that didn't quite cover.

I was surprised to read that Clyde Butcher owned a 121mm Super Angulon. I've got one for 4x5 but I could use it on 8x10 straight on with no movements if I ever shot that wide. I imagine Clyde used it because it doesn't weigh a ton and he didn't need any wiggle room.

[xkaes]

There are inexpensive wide lenses (on 8x10) that just cover or almost cover 8x10. You could always crop just a little with one that didn't quite cover.

There you go again, using that dreaded word, "CROP". Just because it's a new year does not mean "the purists" are any more open to the practice. It just means they are one year older -- and more set in their ways. BTW, I just received my 2018 Burpee seed catalog -- for my 2018 CROP. I always plant beets and carrots, but after they sprout, I always have to CROP the CROP. So CROPPING is pretty common in my life -- in and out of the darkroom.

[Pere Casals]

using that dreaded word, "CROP".

IMHO there is nothing wrong in cropping or in not cropping. It is very valuable having made a sound framing in the camera and later making a contact print or enlargement of the original framing. Also it is very valuable using the perfect aspect ratio for an scene and perfectioning composition in post. And of course it is very valuable knowing when is worth cropping or not.


It is true that commercial photographers have a certain tendence to shot slightly wider than necessary in order to have more choices in the post... but they need to make money every week from shots.

[Alan Gales]

There you go again, using that dreaded word, "CROP". Just because it's a new year does not mean "the purists" are any more open to the practice. It just means they are one year older -- and more set in their ways. BTW, I just received my 2018 Burpee seed catalog -- for my 2018 CROP. I always plant beets and carrots, but after they sprout, I always have to CROP the CROP. So CROPPING is pretty common in my life -- in and out of the darkroom.

But isn't a 4x5 camera just a cropped 8x10 camera? :)


I started out with 35mm. I ended up printing 8x10 Cibachrome prints of my Kodachrome slides. You had to crop that long 35mm slide to get proper 8x10 prints. It was a dilemma sometimes. Do I compose for projection or do I compose for the print. Many times I would take two shots. One for each.

[Bernice Loui]

It is much about learning, developing the discipline and skills to see-visualize the image in mind within the boarders of the sheet of film (in this case).

There are image makers that used the film holder borders as part of the image. There are other image makers that get a rough estimate of what the image might be then crop-adjust as needed post process.

Both methods produce results. IMO, learning to craft the image in mind, in camera, no crop with minimal adjustment for post process is ideal and an efficient use of resources by greatly reducing wasted film and wasted post process time spent trying to fix what should have been made proper on the in-camera film.

This mind set is not much different than what film and video produces expect in their finished work. It is also why director view finders are hung amount the neck of these producers or why still camera instructors suggest a sheet of board cut out with the film format window. It is much about learning to see before putting any of this on to film or digital imager or any image recording device.

As for 8x10, accept this is not a low cost film format, accept the cost associated with film, lenses, processing and etc. Accept this is the reality of going up in film size. It is all part of the trade-offs baked in to image making.



Bernice





Well, I see at least one reason, not walking 2h with a 8x10 in the back !! If a Nikon SW 150 frames to much mountain for the composition we want and a 210mm do not frames all we want... then we can crop or we can walk :) , or run... if light is changing !!

Bernice, one can make "the mistake to look throught a 8x10 GG..." (as Jim F. says), IMHO 8x10 is an overkill regarding IQ, being 4x5 (and 5x7!) way enough for most jobs.

But perhaps there are powerful aesthetical reasons and spritual drives to shot 8x10 and beyond. Of course a pro had to optimize costs, and he was using what he really needed. An artist is different, if Sally Mann wants 810 then she wants 810, and don't ask. Then an amateur like me... this is difficult to explain, beyond G.A.S.



Anyway we should remember that a lot of Pro portrait photographers using 6x6 Hassies always cropped by routine. One told me something like "look, the Hassy was not square format for me, simply I didn't need to rotate the camera, and just I could decide later if it was portrait or landscape orientation."

One can have skills like Cartier B. to nail all framings, but IMHO also a lot of Pros do prefer to shot slightly open to have choices later to refine composition.

Still nailing framing at shot time is a nice exercise, cinematographers are (or were) well trained in that.

[xkaes]

...it is very valuable using the perfect aspect ratio for an scene...

I'd love to hear your definition of that -- but asking for definitions and clarity sometimes seems to be another NO-NO, much like CROPPING.

[Pere Casals]

There are image makers that used the film holder borders as part of the image.


I do that when I can (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/23276488430/in/dateposted-public/ , https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/)

...it is the way I love the more, but sometimes you want to shot from certain point because perspective and then you need a particular focal to frame like you want, say 163mm, but you have a 150... so single choice is using 150mm and cropping a bit... or not framing like one would like.

We can try to get best composition without cropping and with the constrains we have, or perhaps we can priorize a composition enhacement by cropping or changing aspect ratio.



I'd love to hear your definition of that -- but asking for definitions and clarity sometimes seems to be another NO-NO, much like CROPPING.

In reality, I realized that in the Ken Rockwell's web site, every scene may have an ideal aspect ratio. We can use or not rules from painters, we may want some master lines of the image ending in some corner, for example... as we can have some constrains in the composition a non standard aspect ratio may be wanted.

I've seen great photographers following those basic composition rules for a shot and breaking all rules for another shot.


The good rule is that we can follow the composition rules or not, and the other rule is that we can crop or not. So the good rule is freedom.

[xkaes]

The good rule is that we can follow the composition rules or not, and the other rule is that we can crop or not. So the good rule is freedom.

It would have been simpler to say "There is no definition".

[Pere Casals]

It would have been simpler to say "There is no definition".

Well, it is difficult to speak about beauty, expression or art, but there are entire philosophy books that are full of wisdom about it.

IMHO what are named aesthetic rules or definitions should be named aesthetic tools, or aesthetic resources... IMHO a canonic rule is not an rule itself, but an aesthetic resource that works for some people in some era, or for all and forever.

[Drew Wiley]

If you were a purist, you'd crop to the Golden Mean, and then very subtly curve your picture frame mouldings so that if anyone looked at them edgewise, they'd look straight even though they aren't. But I certainly wouldn't recommend trying everything the Greeks did.

[Bernice Loui]

Another way to "look" at this. Artistic expression can be built on foundations found in Nature such as the Fibonacci Sequence. This has been used by many artist over a very long time. Example:
https://www.markmitchellpaintings.com/blog/the-fibonacci-sequence-in-artistic-composition/

Also found in music and more:
http://blog.dubspot.com/fibonacci-sequence-in-music/

There is much photographers can learn from painters and similar. IMO, our roots are from Nature and the ways of Nature is within our being. To accept, realize and form symbiotic relationships with the way Nature really is with goals of artistic expression can result in a proper foundation for effective artistic expression.

This 5x7 film image has been public for a while, it is framed to the film holder borders. No cropping, film processed then scanned with minimal alterations to the digitized image. Resulting image is not much different than viewed and expected at the ground glass when this image was made.
https://secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/3/3/b/0/highres_337633232.jpeg


"Know what the rules and ways of Nature might be, that way both can work together to result in a symbiotic relationship of expression for both involved".

-Freedom comes with Responsibility.


Bernice







The good rule is that we can follow the composition rules or not, and the other rule is that we can crop or not. So the good rule is freedom.

[Bernice Loui]

There is more.. images are much about light and lighting beyond form and composition.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

Interesting links! also I finally understood the Fibonacci Sequence in the chords...


There is more.. images are much about light and lighting beyond form and composition.
Bernice

Yes... masters always speak about light and almost never about lp/mm ;)

In fact, lighting can critical to obtain depth sense, and this a valued feature when well managed, but not all arts have depth and volumes. An artist may work with depth or with its abscence.

I don't know if I'm wrong... but it looks to me that smaller formats are slightly more focused in composition than in LF. As in LF we have other aesthetic resources in play, like more selective DOF, plenty of movements and perspective control then sometimes composition may be relegated or directly avoided, this is obtaining a sound image while breaking "canonic" rules, just a thought, and of course it will depend on each author and on each image, I don't try to generalize, but I point what I see as certain tendence... not being able to say how weak or strong it is...

of course there are a lot of LF fotographs with completely elaborated compositions !!! just saying that I feel more proportion of sound images from LF that do not rely in elaborated composition than with smaller formats.

[Jim Jones]

. . . IMHO what are named aesthetic rules or definitions should be named aesthetic tools, or aesthetic resources... IMHO a canonic rule is not an rule itself, but an aesthetic resource that works for some people in some era, or for all and forever.

Perhaps most of the rules were formulated by analyzing iconic images. Such rules should not be universal commandments. For some, the rules control the photography. For others, it's the subject, not the rules, that is more important. Whatever sells best is the dominant guide for many successful photographers. What guidelines to follow depends on the photographer and the circumstances of each photograph. Likewise, the viewer can select rules, subject, technique, presentation, or even price tag when evaluating photographs. There are infinite paths to many goals. No one is wise enough to advise everyone how to do everything.

[Pere Casals]

Such rules should not be universal commandments.

of course...

Anyway some rules have been taught during centuries to painters and sculptors, forming a cultural substrate for today's visual arts.

IMHO the true importance of learning composition rules it that the learner (me...) gets aware of the effect of organizing lines, shapes, positions, shades, objects etc to promote expression of what we want to say.

In publicity test viewers are analyzed while exploring images and videos. Eye tracking hardware and software record the exploration path and the attention played in each spot. The sequence in what the image elements are discovered can build a narration...

I don't say at all that a photographer has to care about viewer's sight path (measurable with eye tracking) or not, just saying that there are techniques to make the viewer's eye expore an image in a certain way, and this may help a narrative.


173265

173266

173267

https://blog.kissmetrics.com/eye-tracking-studies/


Also there are great studies for the change in the feelings of a viewer when viewing graphic structures, for example lines going to corners makes the viewer get relaxed...

I repeat... IMHO all that are available resources, that can be appreciated or not. And I've no doubt that a true artist can nail a sound composition intuitively, much better than following "rules"...

(Sorry for the off...)

[Bernice Loui]

Imager format size is irrelevant, same skill apply to any imaging system be they LF film, Roll film, Cinema, Analog video, Digital video, Digital still image camera or what ever..

The foundational skills, knowledge required to create expressive images applies regardless. It has been said among Artis, Musicians, Physicist and others in the world of Design.

Musicians practice for hours upon hours of monotonous scales and other instrument exercises beyond works of music specifically written to aid in the learning process with guidance from a master. At some point, the musician moves on from these times of toil to use these skills developed as a means of expression to audiences during their performances. This is when others decide if the musicians efforts and expression is agreeable or not.

Physicist develop mathematical, observational, critical thinking skills and more in their effort to figure out how stuff might be. These ideas-observations are then published for others to analyze, criticize, accept, discard. This is one path for growing the body of knowledge and wisdom of how Nature might actually be.

What has happened today with images, there are uncounted millions of images up loaded to numerous data servers each day. Many are buried by the sheer volume and weight of these images. This mass flooding of images dilutes the value of images that could convey a far deeper meaning.. Much like music and many other endeavors of human expression, it is a language. As with any language, time, effort and interest is required to learn it (or wiring one's brain in specific ways). If this language ability is deficient, then the deeper meaning of what a given language can express, share is discounted or muted.

Share two images made using a Canon M3 digital.
Boeing 737 wing & sun in-flight, Canon_EF wide angle zoom.
173268


Thinker, Canon_FD 80-200mm zoom.
173269


Bernice









but it looks to me that smaller formats are slightly more focused in composition than in LF

[Alan Gales]

In my opinion rules are guidelines to be learned and studied by the student. The working artist will still understand these rules and why they exist even when they no longer consciously think about them. The artist will also know when to break these rules. After all, the rules are merely guidelines meant to help them.

I know this is a simple explanation but it pretty much says how I feel about it after going to school for art and learning rules. I also know that taking art classes at community college really helped my photography. But of course that is me and my opinion about it.

[Pere Casals]

The foundational skills, knowledge required to create expressive images applies regardless. It has been said among Artis, Musicians, Physicist and others in the world of Design.


I agree with all you said, single thing is that while I also agree in that format is absolutely irrelevant to make or not great shots, it can happen that we want a look that it is unique in LF, to me an example of that is "Dovima with elephants". Avedon wanted LF for that, and IMHO he exploited very well LF look http://100photos.time.com/photos/richard-avedon-dovima-with-elephants





[I] The working artist will still understand these rules and why they exist even when they no longer consciously think about them. The artist will also know when to break these rules. After all, the rules are merely guidelines meant to help them.

+1

[Drew Wiley]

Not all of us admire Avedon's ostentatious corniness; but the choice of format was logical.

[Pere Casals]

Not all of us admire Avedon's ostentatious corniness; but the choice of format was logical.

yes... regarding the choice of format, it is easy to imagine how it would look the same photograph if it had been made with MF or 35mm, and IMHO it would not compare to that LF shot. IMHO the LF greatness is in the length of the focal and aperture combined, the focus roll-off is impressively nice, surprisingly not used in the main subject, but in the paws and in the padding... thus rendering amazing space... at least it's what I feel...

Of course Dovima w/e has a lot of other factors, just mentioning the format footprint I notice, beyond IQ...

[LabRat]

Imager format size is irrelevant, same skill apply to any imaging system be they LF film, Roll film, Cinema, Analog video, Digital video, Digital still image camera or what ever..

The foundational skills, knowledge required to create expressive images applies regardless. It has been said among Artis, Musicians, Physicist and others in the world of Design.

Musicians practice for hours upon hours of monotonous scales and other instrument exercises beyond works of music specifically written to aid in the learning process with guidance from a master. At some point, the musician moves on from these times of toil to use these skills developed as a means of expression to audiences during their performances. This is when others decide if the musicians efforts and expression is agreeable or not.

Physicist develop mathematical, observational, critical thinking skills and more in their effort to figure out how stuff might be. These ideas-observations are then published for others to analyze, criticize, accept, discard. This is one path for growing the body of knowledge and wisdom of how Nature might actually be.

What has happened today with images, there are uncounted millions of images up loaded to numerous data servers each day. Many are buried by the sheer volume and weight of these images. This mass flooding of images dilutes the value of images that could convey a far deeper meaning.. Much like music and many other endeavors of human expression, it is a language. As with any language, time, effort and interest is required to learn it (or wiring one's brain in specific ways). If this language ability is deficient, then the deeper meaning of what a given language can express, share is discounted or muted.

Share two images made using a Canon M3 digital.
Boeing 737 wing & sun in-flight, Canon_EF wide angle zoom.
173268


Thinker, Canon_FD 80-200mm zoom.
173269


Bernice

Bernice, I fully agree, and I hope that we can understand what I think is the "700 Lb gorilla" when using our "preferred" LF formats, is the loss of mobility when setting up an entire imaging "rig", as we don't have the advantage of a smaller handheld camera (that has the ability to "float" like a butterfly on a scene, shooting as it goes), but generally is weighted to the earth on it's tripod, likes a rectilinear, leveled projection (and is usually corrected to produce this), and one shot is usually the aim (as this is the time one ends up having)...

So we should have an idea of (or discover) our pattern recognition (that was evolved culturally and personally over time) so we can recognize new possibilities (with our eye/brain), our response to this stimuli, then put our imaging device in front of our POV, fufill all of the technical minutiae, release at the moment, and bring it back home to produce enough to where that thin, flat projection finds a wall to hang on... We have the challenge to make our rig "invisible" to our eye/brain so we can see right through it, merely framing what we already see, or sometimes, to train the rig towards a scene and see what the camera finds (and pick up on it)... (Or allow the invisible to photograph itself somehow...)

Beyond the "bling-bling" of techy gear, the root of what we do is based in thought, response, recognition, memory, communications, discovery, etc and like a writer, it's not just about words and letters on a page or screen, it's ideas that can communicate to others about what/why this moment in time has meaning...

I hope a greater dialog can flourish here about the "music" we can make, rather than babble techy about the instruments...

I encourage expanded discussions involving visual theory as a learning aid to developing mo/betta pattern recognition, finding/developing new ideas that open communications, moments that reveal new thought/directions, and shedding light on what we (or others) has been "unseen" (or at least bring what we know or discover to light)...

Let's use our space here to figure out how to to expand and grow...

Just some thoughts...

Steve K

(ps/ And why is this particular subject dangling off-thread, when this and other such discussions should have plenty of room to grow!?!! sk)

[xkaes]

For some, the rules control the photography. For others, it's the subject, not the rules, that is more important.

Very well said. Exactly what I was trying to convey. Unfortunately, some of us -- perhaps more than we think -- prefer to live by rules (standards, guidelines, etc.). And some of us -- hopefully fewer than I think -- can't live without them.

[interneg]

I hope a greater dialog can flourish here about the "music" we can make, rather than babble techy about the instruments...

That would require people to think about the hard work that goes into actually making worthwhile art rather than relying on ex post facto mathematical inventions that seem to only exist to profitably delude people into believing that they only need to follow someone's patent 'formula' to become a 'great artist'...

Same thing with pseudoscientific beliefs about developers or agitation patterns rather than doing the very small amount of practical work necessary to get an adequate exposure index & developing time(s).

In my experience, the bigger the technical limitations, the better the work - one lens & an engaged/ enquiring mind will produce far better results than a whole case of lenses of every possible focal length owned by someone who knows every last specification of them & has not a clue or the willingness/ ability to use them to produce anything other than bland clichés.

[Alan Gales]

Very well said. Exactly what I was trying to convey. Unfortunately, some of us -- perhaps more than we think -- prefer to live by rules (standards, guidelines, etc.). And some of us -- hopefully fewer than I think -- can't live without them.

My cousin and I were at the St. Louis Botanical Gardens many years ago. It was at the end of the day and the sun was starting to set. All of a sudden I started running. He followed not knowing why we were running. I ran up to these yellow and red tulips all lit up by the setting sun. They were planted in a diamond around a group of small green trees also planted in a diamond. Behind them was a building that had large mirrored glass windows. I quickly set up my 35mm Contax on my tripod with my 25mm Zeiss lens down low and a few inches from the first tulips.

My cousin exclaimed, "You can't do that!". I asked why, fully knowing what his answer would be. He said, "You are putting your horizon line right in the middle of the photo!". I told him to look through my viewfinder and if he didn't like it, I wouldn't take the shot. He looked though the viewfinder and said take it.

Yes, I broke a golden rule of art but there is so much going on in that photo that you don't even notice that the horizon line is smack dab center of the frame. The photograph is definitely not boring with those cool looking trees in the center of those fiery tulips. The cibachrome enlargement of that Kodachrome ASA 25 slide is matted and framed and hanging in my house today.

[Bernice Loui]

This image by Richard Avedon could have been done on any imager, image format size. Creating this image using sheet film was a choice.

During this era of photographic image making if the image creator wanted the highest possible still image quality, sheet film was the go-to choice. Also being a conceived and crafted image, the choice of using a view camera would not have been difficult.

As for this Avedon image, note how the model's dress flows in place of the elephants leg. Her and the elephants leg is essentially centered at the bottom of this image resulting in a some what symmetrical image, curvature of the elephants trunk with the model's pose adds circular form interest to this image. The film holder borders serve as a visual container. Variations of geometric forms found in Nature, no?

The lighting is essentially flat from a large diffused light source. This simplifies the image, denying the potential illusion of depth effects that could be achieved by using more direct and controlled lighting beyond the single large diffused light source.. This is part of Avedon's style. A change in visual presentation after a generation of crafted lighting by the previous generation of Hollywood portrait masters.

Another example of using geometric forms common in Nature as part of the means of artistic expression.


Bernice




I agree with all you said, single thing is that while I also agree in that format is absolutely irrelevant to make or not great shots, it can happen that we want a look that it is unique in LF, to me an example of that is "Dovima with elephants". Avedon wanted LF for that, and IMHO he exploited very well LF look http://100photos.time.com/photos/richard-avedon-dovima-with-elephants






+1

[Bernice Loui]

Rules, Regulations, Laws might not the same as the way Nature really is.

Rules, Regulations, Laws are often created, enforced, interpreted by human beings often out of their individual intellect. This is more an extension of individual or collective ideology, beliefs with aspects of individual or collective personality-mind set and life experiences mixed in. Quite subjective often contrived with an agenda in many ways.

-Consider how the color white became a rule and symbol for purity?


The way Nature really is applies to all regardless of how one wants to believe, interpret, enforce, accept, deny and .... There is no choice regarding how it affects nouns within Nature's grasp.

-Gravity tends to have a uniform affect on nouns including human beings taking a step off of and out of an Empire State Building's window. Exceptions would be if that human being has a external means to oppose the effects of Gravity.


As for creative artistic expression. This is difficult unless the artistically and creative individual has a proper and stable support system in place that fosters artistic creativity. Essentially, this would be one of the foundational elements for creative artistic expressions and endeavors. This idea is similar to knowing what it means to apply known forms in Nature in the creative endeavor.


As with Music, Paintings, Photographic images and much more the relationship between creator and audience needs to be down within a mutually understood language. Without this intimate connection, the communications between creator and audience would be difficult at best with mis-communiation and mis-understanding common.



Bernice





Very well said. Exactly what I was trying to convey. Unfortunately, some of us -- perhaps more than we think -- prefer to live by rules (standards, guidelines, etc.). And some of us -- hopefully fewer than I think -- can't live without them.