Allowing Lens Availability to Dictate Format Choice

[dodphotography]

A few friends and I were recently talking about how the rise in popularity in analog photography has seen an increase in the cost of formats. A few mentioned they selected a format of choice based on the availability and cost of lenses, etc in relation to the sense that we “missed the boat” of low prices.

Obviously this is more in line with people who experimented in the past but never had a solid kit set up.

It was a curious conversation between 4x5 and 8x10 +


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan Fromm]

Well, I suppose that if wide angle lenses that cover large by larger are hard to find and very expensive, that could be a reason for people who want to shoot wide to choose a smaller format. For huge by huger this might be true of normal lenses. I make this last comment because I get occasional questions about where to find, for example, a 2500/12.5 Apo-Saphir.

For curiosity and because I rarely encounter people shooting film, why do you and your friends believe that shooting film is more popular than it was a few years ago? I haven't been very interested in the matter so haven't looked for hard data on film sales. In fact, I'm not sure where to find it.

Further on this point, are usable lenses for 8x10 really rare and expensive? I don't shop for them so don't follow prices.

[Mark Sampson]

The prices of used "modern" view camera lenses has declined considerably in this decade. I see good-condition used lenses selling here for a fraction of what I paid for the same optics 25 years ago. The 'classic' and 'cult' lenses (Goerz Dagors et al.) are still up there, it seems. I can't speak to the pre-WWII and brass lens market.
But I'd say the far more important cost is that of the film. You buy a lens or three, that's a one-time expense. 4x5 film isn't cheap. 8x10 film is expensive. ULF film is exponentially more so. Note that many LF shooters these days are using x-ray film, despite the compromises involved... or shooting wet-plate, which is a step into another world.
The cost of the outfit- camera, lenses, tripod- will be quickly rivaled by these expenses if you're a serious 8x10 (or larger) worker.
(Full disclosure: I chose 4x5 long ago as the best compromise between image quality, cost and bulk.)

[Two23]

... or shooting wet-plate, which is a step into another world.



I have now stepped into that world.:D


Kent in SD

[dodphotography]

The prices of used "modern" view camera lenses has declined considerably in this decade. I see good-condition used lenses selling here for a fraction of what I paid for the same optics 25 years ago. The 'classic' and 'cult' lenses (Goerz Dagors et al.) are still up there, it seems. I can't speak to the pre-WWII and brass lens market.
But I'd say the far more important cost is that of the film. You buy a lens or three, that's a one-time expense. 4x5 film isn't cheap. 8x10 film is expensive. ULF film is exponentially more so. Note that many LF shooters these days are using x-ray film, despite the compromises involved... or shooting wet-plate, which is a step into another world.
The cost of the outfit- camera, lenses, tripod- will be quickly rivaled by these expenses if you're a serious 8x10 (or larger) worker.
(Full disclosure: I chose 4x5 long ago as the best compromise between image quality, cost and bulk.)

Context matters... in relation to their cost when new at the height of production in the market, sure...

But 10 years ago on eBay you were seeing them being sold as near door stoppers.

The rise has been in the last 5 years , just tracking prices on forums, eBay etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dodphotography]

I have now stepped into that world.:D


Kent in SD

I find plates to be an intriguing way of working. It’s interesting ... both easy and yet immensely difficult


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Context matters... in relation to their cost when new at the height of production in the market, sure...

But 10 years ago on eBay you were seeing them being sold as near door stoppers.

The rise has been in the last 5 years , just tracking prices on forums, eBay etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I've seen that, and the cult stuff going up even faster.

I am lucky and got in at a great time, and paid next to nothing for most of my gear including cult lenses.

I won't sell, because they probably won't get cheaper, and I'll probably miss whatever it is I sold.

As to your original post - it does seem like more and more folks want to jump up or even start all the way at 8x10. This is confusing to me, due to the lack of options for wet printing from 8x10. In contrast, 4x5 enlargers can be had for peanuts still, and has more than enough on film to make big prints, if one does their job well. I don't see these folks doing alt process generally, so I don't think that's it, though admittedly 8x10 contact prints (silver gelatin) are also compelling. But "large" is IN right now so perhaps it's just mostly hybrid process.


For curiosity and because I rarely encounter people shooting film, why do you and your friends believe that shooting film is more popular than it was a few years ago? I haven't been very interested in the matter so haven't looked for hard data on film sales. In fact, I'm not sure where to find it.

I don't offhand know data points but film is way up after bottoming out. Yeah, you don't see it on the street everyday, but I do see people with 35mm on occasion out IRL these days.

[dodphotography]

Yeah I've seen that, and the cult stuff going up even faster.

I am lucky and got in at a great time, and paid next to nothing for most of my gear including cult lenses.

I won't sell, because they probably won't get cheaper, and I'll probably miss whatever it is I sold.

As to your original post - it does seem like more and more folks want to jump up or even start all the way at 8x10. This is confusing to me, due to the lack of options for wet printing from 8x10. In contrast, 4x5 enlargers can be had for peanuts still, and has more than enough on film to make big prints, if one does their job well. I don't see these folks doing alt process generally, so I don't think that's it, though admittedly 8x10 contact prints (silver gelatin) are also compelling. But "large" is IN right now so perhaps it's just mostly hybrid process.



I don't offhand know data points but film is way up after bottoming out. Yeah, you don't see it on the street everyday, but I do see people with 35mm on occasion out IRL these days.

My mentor in grad school told me if he wanted a bigger print, he got a bigger camera. I’m with him. I’ve shot 810 for the last 8 years or so but always kept a minimal kit. It made me appreciate (or become envious) that for the cost of my 210/240 graphic kowas in 810 I could get a 65,90,135,150, 210 4x5 glass for the same cost.

I scan for the web but contact print everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Contact prints are certainly a nice option.

Are you enlarging from 8x10 at all?

What if you want a 16x20 print?

[Pete Roody]

Contact prints are certainly a nice option.

Are you enlarging from 8x10 at all?

What if you want a 16x20 print?

Use a 16x20 camera of course! :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

A perfectly reasonable idea :).

[fotopfw]

It looks that the surplus is drying up. There used to be a multitude of lenses for reasonable prices.

Indeed prices for film are going up, but I'm way more selective than I used to be, that compensates for that.
The larger the format, the more selective I become.

[Two23]

Could it just be that a relative handful of people are buying dozens of lenses? I have x8 lenses made before 1860 and three more made 1861-1865, plus about 6 made 1900-1930 and 5 modern lenses Nikons, Rodenstock, Fuji. I know I have a tiny collection compared to some.


Kent in SD

[dodphotography]

Contact prints are certainly a nice option.

Are you enlarging from 8x10 at all?

What if you want a 16x20 print?

I enlarged 810 in grad school , luckily we had a Devere. At the end of the day I found a way to justify and come to terms with the limitations of contact prints.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dodphotography]

Could it just be that a relative handful of people are buying dozens of lenses? I have x8 lenses made before 1860 and three more made 1861-1865, plus about 6 made 1900-1930 and 5 modern lenses Nikons, Rodenstock, Fuji. I know I have a tiny collection compared to some.


Kent in SD

There are certainly a few bad apples that have created a market that is only available to the 1% of photographers willing to grossly overspend for what they desire. It’s unfortunate, people know it is but no one ever wants to address it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Will Frostmill]

I can't comment on lens availability.

But as to why 8x10 for "younger folk?"

1. Wood and brass cameras look cool. Bigger ones look cooler.
2. Big lenses look cool. Brass ones look cooler.
3. Out of focus areas fall off differently on 8x10, when doing 50mm-equivalent or wider portraits, 8x10 is in the near macro regime. So, the ultimate, "my big camera has special bokeh".

A fourth point: if I could afford the film, and the right lens, I'd be doing all that too. :)

[goamules]

As a guy that got into LF and wetplate around 2006, I can say there was a price spike about 5 years ago, but it's going back down. Like a lot of fads, I've seen it a lot over my life - up fast, then down slowly.

Those that know me know me and a few others here bought and sold a ton of lenses in 2007-2014, I keep price records. By 2014 the golden era was over. I used to be able to sell a brass lens, or any LF lens really, on this forum within 1 day. Usually within 2 hours. Any lens, from a Tessar to a common RR. Then their common-ness started to become more apparant, and people stopped "collecting" any and every brass lens. For a while, the Best manufacturers like Dallmeyer and Voigtlander held very high values. Then the smaller ones started slipping in value. I sold a 12" Voigtlander petzval back then for $3000 PLUS a lens traded to me WITH the cash! Sold a Dallmeyer 4D for $1500. Those prices are hard to attain today. The Best quality and sizes are still pretty high, but not like that. The VERY best - huge petzvals, rare soft focus, are higher than ever before. But the average 7" petzval or 14" tessar is about half what it cost in 2010.

[Daniel Stone]

Shoot what you can afford to, and don't go into debt to afford toys.

[Alan Gales]

That makes sense to me. If you like wide or long lenses for 8x10 then it can get pretty expensive.

Most of us started film with 35mm because that was what we could afford at the time. With digital most start with a crop sensor camera.

A new top of the line, full frame Sony Alpha with fast glass can get pretty expensive. I couldn't afford it even if I sold all my 8x10 gear! ;)

[Bernice Loui]

Image format size should depends on goals, not availability-cost of lenses and.... be it film or electronic based.

8x10 has never been a low cost film format and IMO based on years of 8x10 image making during the time when film based photography was at it's peak, mid to late 1990's. Beyond film cost, hardware related to 8x10 from film holders to lenses, camera, enlarger, darkroom and ... have always been limited and expensive. 8x10 film does make nice contact prints.

That said, there was a era about the early 2000 when so many were ditching their film cameras for digital. This included many commercial studios that went from 4x5 or larger film to digital for many, many reasons. This was the era of vast film based hardware being essentially dumped on the market and any where it can be dumped or junked.

What appears to be happening today, 8x10 and larger film formats have become popular due to image makers wanting something distinctly different than images made electronically (digital from start to finished print) and wanting a departure from traditional enlarged silver gelatin based prints.

I've never been of the opinion of different alone is good enough to pass a being creative or artistic. For any of that to happen, there must be a solid foundation or method and ways to allow for and properly support creativity and artistry regardless of the chosen medium of expression.


So, consider what the finished print needs to be then work backwards from size of the mounted print, how that print will be made post film exposure, processing of exposed film, where images might be produced, what optics might be involved to create the finished print, what film types and related could be required for the finished print with the camera being the last item on this list. reason for this being, foto folks tend to believe the camera dictates the finished print. That is when the reality of how optics interact with the camera can become a serious limitation and problem. This fact is more specific to a view camera as most roll film cameras and similar are sold as camera brands with their brand of lenses that have often been designed for that brand's camera. Since view cameras do not function this way, it is mistaken to use this ideology when making view camera choices.

Back to the original question, 4x5 is the most common with the most easily available range of optics available. 5x7 _ 13x18cm is the largest common film format that will support the largest variety of optics available. Once at 8x10, the choices in optics, camera and all related is greatly reduced with the cost of all related also significantly increased.


Bernice





A few friends and I were recently talking about how the rise in popularity in analog photography has seen an increase in the cost of formats. A few mentioned they selected a format of choice based on the availability and cost of lenses, etc in relation to the sense that we “missed the boat” of low prices.

Obviously this is more in line with people who experimented in the past but never had a solid kit set up.

It was a curious conversation between 4x5 and 8x10 +


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jody_S]

Allowing Lens Availability to Dictate Format Choice? I suppose to some degree, since I can't afford a modern ultra-wide for 8x10 but I was able to buy a Super-Angulon 65/5.6 for under $100. But thinking of the process I go through when I shoot, I prefer to think that I 'see' whatever it is possible to photograph with the kit I happen to have with me at the time. If I have the 8x10, I don't compose images in ultra-wide format. If I have the soft focus lenses, that's what I try to imagine. If I have a magnifying glass and some duct tape, I'll work with that.

Of course I'm not working toward specific goals re. images, I'm just trying to improve my vision and to a lesser degree, my technique. If I had to deliver 8x10 architectural images, then I would find the money for the lens.

[Nodda Duma]

Dan, some evidence of rebounding film interest.. Henning Serger reported in post 23 of this thread a tens of millions unit backlog amongst the major film manufacturers. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/catlabs-x-film-320-35mm-has-finally-arrived.168866/ He also mentioned later a very significant and ongoing increase in the Asian film market.

Adox and Ilford have both reported sales increases of 5-10% though I can’t find direct references right now.

[fuegocito]

I think the cost was always there, but for some reason 810 somehow really elbows its way into as part of the starting point entering LF film realm. I remember back in late 80's when people say LF, it's usually mean 4x5 and 45 only. I know of only two person who used both 810 and 1114 in Toronto, I assume Bob Carnie knows more. Back then I bought my first LF lens, a second hand Symmar 210mm for $400.

[Two23]

As a guy that got into LF and wetplate around 2006, I can say there was a price spike about 5 years ago, but it's going back down. Like a lot of fads, I've seen it a lot over my life - up fast, then down slowly.

Those that know me know me and a few others here bought and sold a ton of lenses in 2007-2014, I keep price records. By 2014 the golden era was over. I used to be able to sell a brass lens, or any LF lens really, on this forum within 1 day. Usually within 2 hours. Any lens, from a Tessar to a common RR. Then their common-ness started to become more apparant, and people stopped "collecting" any and every brass lens. For a while, the Best manufacturers like Dallmeyer and Voigtlander held very high values. Then the smaller ones started slipping in value. I sold a 12" Voigtlander petzval back then for $3000 PLUS a lens traded to me WITH the cash! Sold a Dallmeyer 4D for $1500. Those prices are hard to attain today. The Best quality and sizes are still pretty high, but not like that. The VERY best - huge petzvals, rare soft focus, are higher than ever before. But the average 7" petzval or 14" tessar is about half what it cost in 2010.

A year ago I bought a 12 in. Voightlander Petzval c1862 with flange for $500. I love that lens! Have it on a 5x7 Korona right now, will eventually get either full plate or 8x10 for it.

I do love lenses; the older the better. They give me a connection to the photographers of the past, and I think they look pretty damn cool.


Kent in SD

[Bernice Loui]

Similar observation with 8x10 popularity with image makers new to view camera and sheet film. Have pondered this occurrence too. Could it be due to interest in alternative process contact printing, belief bigger film is better, or ?

Yet, how many who begin their view camera journey with 8x10 have fully understood the cost, complexity and more related to the 8x10 sheet film process. How many stay with 8x10 for year after year or move on after a short time trying?

This could be a topic all it's own.


Bernice



I think the cost was always there, but for some reason 810 somehow really elbows its way into as part of the starting point entering LF film realm. I remember back in late 80's when people say LF, it's usually mean 4x5 and 45 only. I know of only two person who used both 810 and 1114 in Toronto, I assume Bob Carnie knows more. Back then I bought my first LF lens, a second hand Symmar 210mm for $400.

[dodphotography]

For me... 8x10 checks off two boxes for me.

1) I love contact prints
2.) it’s easier to use... I can’t see a 45 Gg and I hate loupes.

And a bonus 3) connects me to the past knowing I’m using the same formats as my hero’s (walker evans, Atget, Nixon, etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Noel]

Use a 16x20 camera of course! :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with Pete, and have been for over 40 years.

[Jim Noel]

My first LF was a 4x5 SPeed Graphic in 1938. Just after WWII, about 1948 I added a 5x7 Deardorff which I still use. IN about 1960 I saw my first really good large contact print, platinum of course, and decided that was for me, so I added 8x10. I still use all these plus 7x17 ahd 5x12, but currently am emphasizing 8x10, although a much lighter camera because at my age,I'm weaker. . Always contact prints and always alternative processes. AS for lenses, I am always looking for a new to me older lens which I can afford. I am even experimenting with pinhole on8x10 trying t get effects which are a little different from the mainstream. When I had a store in the 80's, we all but gave away brass lenses which now will run into several hundreds or even thousands of dollars. It certainly is not easy for newcomers in this field of photography so it thrills me when a student, or anyone else makes the commitment.

[Mark Sawyer]

I've always found my choice of format dictated my format choice...

In wet plate, doubly so...

[dodphotography]

I've always found my choice of format dictated my format choice...

In wet plate, doubly so...

I was a mere observer of the conversation since I’m already set up for 8x10 and have been working for a while with the format but the perspectives being discussed were interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Salomon]

I was a mere observer of the conversation since I’m already set up for 8x10 and have been working for a while with the format but the perspectives being discussed were interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always found that what the client would pay dictated the choice of format!

Except for when a Peabody facility in Stamford, CT burned up and they needed pictures to document it!

The ashes ruined a 35mm, my shoes and clothes!

[dodphotography]

Similar observation with 8x10 popularity with image makers new to view camera and sheet film. Have pondered this occurrence too. Could it be due to interest in alternative process contact printing, belief bigger film is better, or ?

Yet, how many who begin their view camera journey with 8x10 have fully understood the cost, complexity and more related to the 8x10 sheet film process. How many stay with 8x10 for year after year or move on after a short time trying?

This could be a topic all it's own.


Bernice

I agree... at least in my circle of friends it’s more a tool of differentiation and certainly a more fine art approach. I don’t think my age group (I’m 34) are using the cameras for technical purposes... if that makes sense.

Most people I’m friends with are after the Nixon / Sternfield / Shore look where an 8x10 is used in the same snapshot style of a Leica.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Kasaian]

In my own experience, format (8x10) dictated lens availability!
Fortunately there are plenty of old lenses which cover 8x10.

[Bernice Loui]

Generation Differences.

There was a time in photographic history when 4x5 sheet film was THE most common sheet film size for many reasons. 4x5 Speed Graphics were the staple for new paper images, commercial ad images were 4x5 film based as this allowed exploiting the ability of a view camera's movements to correct for geometric image challenges, portraiture as the 4x5 image ratio fit the traditional image expectation. Back then, view camera folks were more often than not highly skilled working photographers with varying degrees of formal education in how the technology of film-chemistry-optics functioned. The better photographers IMO, had a personal history as painters or similar artist using the technology of film-chemistry base photography
as there means of artistic expression. There was viable commercial market for high quality images produced and image excellence was judged by various peers along with a public that was not exposed to billions of electronics images up-loaded daily.

8x10 was not a common sheet film format due to cost, camera size, optics limitations and much more.. There was a time before the enlarged print when contact prints were the print making means which dictated larger film sizes for larger finished prints. Seem we are rapidly heading back to the beginnings of photography and prints made by direct film to print images with no enlargement involved using photographic process that date back to the birth of photography as rebellion to the billions of electronic images shared by up loads daily.

One can say the dilution and slow destruction of "crafted" expressive images has been degraded-discounted and some ways destroyed by the ease and availability of electronic images transmitted wireless by data up loads at billions of images per day. There will be many who will Violently Disagree with me on this assertion on LFF. Yet, this is an observation made from studying visual art found in a variety of museums, galleries, individual collections, experiencing and living around working photographers and owners-workers in large photographic labs from the late 1970's to late 1990's in San Francisco.

~Those who have been reading my post on LFF for years will know, I'm very unforgiving on technical points and can have technical expectations that do not follow the typical generation of view camera folks. Part of that comes from the text written above.

IMO, the current folks who have set their initial interest in view camera based images with a 8x10 camera are folks who are seeking something different away from the very common electronic based images. While this is a very good thing in many ways, most who have never exposed a sheet of film often do not understand or realize the mountain of learning and challenges that comes with the sheet film based image print making. Yet, if not for the current generation of interest in sheet film of any size, film based images would likely be long dead by now.

My hope for this generation of sheet film based print makers would be to gain some appreciation of the rich history and truly excellent works produces by not only "famed" photographic artist using a view camera as their print making tool of choice, but to fully appreciate the once vast body of commercial, scientific, graphic reproduction, Aerial and more forms of photographic work produced over the decades of film based images.


Bernice



I agree... at least in my circle of friends it’s more a tool of differentiation and certainly a more fine art approach. I don’t think my age group (I’m 34) are using the cameras for technical purposes... if that makes sense.

Most people I’m friends with are after the Nixon / Sternfield / Shore look where an 8x10 is used in the same snapshot style of a Leica.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[William Whitaker]

Is the real question posed by this thread perhaps, "What Drives Format Choice?"?

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, no given film or electronic imager format is idea for all print making needs.

Better to work backwards from print size-print content and visual demands back to film or imager sizes that could work, then optics involved with the camera and print size and print content as the determinate for camera.

IMO, the mistake is to allow the camera to dictate all rather than allowing the print and print content to drive the other aspects of the print making process.



Bernice






Is the real question posed by this thread perhaps, "What Drives Format Choice?"?

[Vaidotas]

Interesting.
There might be various reasons.
I invested in to 8x10 and bigger formats coverage lens and working with 5x7, because at this moment I need intense workflow, which includes digital (5x7 max fit to my flatbed), best works will go to contact printing.
Another reason - there is so much fun with XIX century full/half plate lens.
Still looking for a chance to get 8x10 or bigger camera for a right price.

[jp]

I use LF for soft focus shooting mostly, aero ektar being the common exception.
Mostly 4x5 speed graphic because that's what works with the AE and 7-9" range soft focus lenses that don't have shutters. The speed graphic provides the shutter speeds needed for daylight use of lenses close to wide open. Back in the day they might have used an auto-graflex or other SLR for quarter plate or 4x5 uses of SF.
Sometimes 8x10 if I want the look of the Kodak 305 portrait for wider angle crazier SF, or big triplets.
So, yes, lens choice drives camera/format choice for me. The camera is just an adjustable box except when it has the shutter I need.

Common SF lenses remain affordable I think because many people who are short term owners don't take the time and effort to become proficient; The learning curve is deceptive. It sounds simple but might take 6-10 outings to get the hang of the lens, and that is a challenge most people don't want that badly. Uncommon SF lenses remain expensive. But no worse than contemporary new high end glass like a new pro silent unobtainium coated 24-70 2.8 zoom for your DSLR.

[fuegocito]

Is the real question posed by this thread perhaps, "What Drives Format Choice?"?

I agree, I think for many people is which photographer or what type of photography inspire them, hence follow the work formula of the said technique/gears...

Given that there are a healthy group of contemporary fine art photographers who uses 810, plus the revival of wet plate and etc certainly give a spot light on that particular format.

[Mark Sawyer]

I use LF for soft focus shooting mostly...

One consideration is that the effect of soft lenses is best seen at the scale of the negative they make. Spherical aberration does not enlarge particularly well. Soft focus also goes especially well with the tonal gradations of a contact print, which for many is justification for format choice in itself.

[jnantz]

Context matters... in relation to their cost when new at the height of production in the market, sure...

But 10 years ago on eBay you were seeing them being sold as near door stoppers.

The rise has been in the last 5 years , just tracking prices on forums, eBay etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IDK before lets say 2004 when our own jim galli set up his website &c brass lenses were considered junque
and it was the reason to get something like a speed graphic or a graflex slr these were the days when you could spend
IDK 150$ on a 14" verito or vitax or less and people would wonder what you were thinking / what you put on your cheerios .

I can see what you mean though; sometimes its kind of fun to buy a lens and figure out what kind of camera you can buy that it fits on. I have a casket set
purchased a few years ago and I have wanted to put it on something to make a round image on paper.

[dodphotography]

I mean... my buddy sold a Wehman for 3300 (wow!)... I’ve seen Fuji 600C’s fetch over 3k.

Some stuff has dropped big time, others have skyrocketed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jnantz]

A fourth point: if I could afford the film, and the right lens, I'd be doing all that too. :)

I hate to be a wet blanket but there are ways of making something look like it was made with a large format camera with beauqua
and everthing that looks large format with a smaller format camera or a smaller than 8x10 or 16x20 camera: it just takes thinking outside
the box and knowing what to do to make things look a certain way. That said, still there is really nothing like setting up an 11x14 camera and
hoping the wind dies down so you can remove your tin coffee cup and count to 5.

[Bernice Loui]

Assertion remains, proper image making with vintage soft focus lenses demands contact printing. This means 8x10 contact print from 8x10 film works. Enlargement degrades the subtle visual qualities of soft focus lenses. 2x enlargement is about MAX for prints made with film using soft focus lenses.

I've been subjected to less than appreciative comments about this on LFF and else where.


Bernice



One consideration is that the effect of soft lenses is best seen at the scale of the negative they make. Spherical aberration does not enlarge particularly well. Soft focus also goes especially well with the tonal gradations of a contact print, which for many is justification for format choice in itself.

[John Kasaian]

I hate to be a wet blanket but there are ways of making something look like it was made with a large format camera with beauqua
and everthing that looks large format with a smaller format camera or a smaller than 8x10 or 16x20 camera: it just takes thinking outside
the box and knowing what to do to make things look a certain way. That said, still there is really nothing like setting up an 11x14 camera and
hoping the wind dies down so you can remove your tin coffee cup and count to 5.
ROFLMAO! That's the way it always seems to go, doesn't it?

[Bernice Loui]

Been subjected to this with prints viewed in real life... does not pass the "eye" test.


Bernice



I hate to be a wet blanket but there are ways of making something look like it was made with a large format camera with beauqua
and everthing that looks large format with a smaller format camera or a smaller than 8x10 or 16x20 camera: it just takes thinking outside
the box and knowing what to do to make things look a certain way. That said, still there is really nothing like setting up an 11x14 camera and
hoping the wind dies down so you can remove your tin coffee cup and count to 5.

[Bernice Loui]

There was a time when LOTs of 12" Kodak Portrait lenses in shutter were dumped into the trash once the Kodak Ilex# 5 shutter was extracted for lens remount back in the day when a 12" Kodak Portrait was easily had for $50 USD or less. This was also the era when a 16" Kodak Portrait was easily had for just over $100 and the mass volume of soft focus lenses where homeless and discarded. Same was true for Heliar in barrel (BIG ones) and most all BIG barrel lenses. This was the time when modern lenses from the big four had high resale value, wood field cameras (Dorf and th like were an exception) and most field cameras in general had little market value while monorail cameras like Sinar P, Linhof and etc held their value extremely well. Keep in mind this was a time when the color film fridge was very common and it was a daily occurrence to see a working photographer purchase film by the case to be used that day.


Bernice

[John Kasaian]

My first 8x10 lens was an old 14"-er that cost more than my first car ($450, IIRC.)
I'd read here about guys with a couple or three lenses for 4x5 asking about which one to use or which lens to buy next, all the time reminding myself how grateful I should be just to at least have a camera, a lens, a tripod and three film holders. I found having a single lens was more of an opportunity than a limitation.
Slows one down---makes one think long and hard about where to place the camera to gather the light and stick it on a sheet of film.
I wouldn't trade that eddykayshun for the world!

[jnantz]

ROFLMAO! That's the way it always seems to go, doesn't it?

sure is ! ;)



Been subjected to this with prints viewed in real life... does not pass the "eye" test.


Bernice

Bernice
Obviously you aren't squinting enough, your bar isn't set low enough and you don't have enough instagram followers ! :)
I shot some film today using a secret technique I won't pollute this thread by talking about, and I am certain that if I
posted an image printed via my Durst M601 and mailed you a physical print you would not have any clue what it was made with...
I also have a technique that allows me to expose a 8x10 sheet of film and you would think it was made with a crappy disposable camera.
John

[Bernice Loui]

Some years ago at a local LF print sharing event...

*Participant one, shared a print with me. Comment was the image was overly sharpened due to the lens being stopped down too much and this is a digital B&W print. Print maker told me the lens was stopped down to f90 then "sharpened" in photoshop before the digital print was made.

** Participant two, put up a print less than 30 seconds later it was apparent to me this image was made using a Dagor. Some discussion and information about the print followed by the print maker. At that point, asked the print maker if this print was made using a Dagor.. print maker's reply was yes.

There are those who have been at this for a l-o-n-g time and can tell visually what these difference are. In much the same way experienced musicians can tell if a Stradivarius is real or not by the sound. Developing this takes decades and looking at a LOT of images and making a LOT of images from loading film to dry mounting the print.

~Never underestimate the ability of human pattern recognition~



Bernice



Bernice
Obviously you aren't squinting enough, your bar isn't set low enough and you don't have enough instagram followers ! :)
I shot some film today using a secret technique I won't pollute this thread by talking about, and I am certain that if I
posted an image printed via my Durst M601 and mailed you a physical print you would not have any clue what it was made with...
I also have a technique that allows me to expose a 8x10 sheet of film and you would think it was made with a crappy disposable camera.
John

[Corran]

In much the same way experienced musicians can tell if a Stradivarius is real or not by the sound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkMVThdIUYc

As someone who was a professional musician in a couple of orchestras, has three degrees in music, and has been a recording engineer for well over a decade with a lot of experience listening critically to musicians playing classical music: no, they can't.

Regarding your anecdotal stories - what Dagor? Old? New? Coated? f/9 versions like G-Claron lenses or original f/6.8 Goerz model, or someone else like the old Schneider Symmar? What if the Dagor was shot at f/90? It's nonsense to say that you can "tell" if a "Dagor" was used in 100% of cases.

[jp]

One consideration is that the effect of soft lenses is best seen at the scale of the negative they make. Spherical aberration does not enlarge particularly well. Soft focus also goes especially well with the tonal gradations of a contact print, which for many is justification for format choice in itself.

Indeed! I can't enlarge more than 2x and soft focus gets messy... Since it's a blend of soft and sharp, the sharp part enlarges faithfully and the soft gets too soft. It's messing with the blend that made the original size good. So print size is part of the format choice, contact printing being most common.

[jnantz]

Some years ago at a local LF print sharing event...

*Participant one, shared a print with me. Comment was the image was overly sharpened due to the lens being stopped down too much and this is a digital B&W print. Print maker told me the lens was stopped down to f90 then "sharpened" in photoshop before the digital print was made.

** Participant two, put up a print less than 30 seconds later it was apparent to me this image was made using a Dagor. Some discussion and information about the print followed by the print maker. At that point, asked the print maker if this print was made using a Dagor.. print maker's reply was yes.

There are those who have been at this for a l-o-n-g time and can tell visually what these difference are. In much the same way experienced musicians can tell if a Stradivarius is real or not by the sound. Developing this takes decades and looking at a LOT of images and making a LOT of images from loading film to dry mounting the print.

~Never underestimate the ability of human pattern recognition~



Bernice

Hi Bernice
Jerry Katz, the chemist who did all the analysis and microscope work for Photo Lab Index told me a story years ago. It goes that he developed 8mm movie film in his proprietary monobath and enlarged the negative to 16x20. It was on display at a party Morgan+Lester were having. Ansel Adams was there and was admiring the print. When Mr Katz told him it was from a 8mm negative Maestro Adams was amazed because he thought it it was from a LF negative..
Seems that sometimes a cheep Chinese knock off Stratavirus sounds like a Strativarius ....

YMMVFTSITDW
John

[Mark Sawyer]

I wish we could still get nitrate film. Then the size of the flaming POOF!!! when we burned our bad negatives could be a factor in our choice too...

[Bernice Loui]

~Quite arrogant and Egotist to believe since "I" cannot see or discern the difference, then "YOU" cannot either.~

As for the Ansel Adams (BTW, AA is not THE all knowing-all authority in Foto matters) story, it's just a story, noting more, nothing less and does not tell about the entire context of events and all related to what happened at that moment in time.


Bernice

[Ethan]

Replying to the original question, though one should never spend more than one comfortably can, I don’t feel like there is a lot of limitation on what you can do based on budget. Remember that it is what the photographer does behind the camera that makes a good photo, not the camera itself. When getting into something new, I notice, in myself and others, the urge to buy that nicer lens, or better body etc. with the idea that better equipment will produce better results. This of course, doesn’t work, and almost always isn’t a good idea. I’ve bought various bits and bobs for my kit that weren’t needed, but if I only counted the pieces essential to the process, I probably bought my 4x5 kit for under $200. That isn’t a whole lot, and is around the same amount as one could expect to spend on a decent but not spectacular 35mm kit. I haven’t looked at medium format much, but I don’t think it’s very different. With large format, people might get scared off by price tags on the really expensive lenses and fancy bodies, but very rarely is that stuff really needed, and especially with 4x5, because of old press cameras, there is a lot of inexpensive equipment out there.

With this in mind, my suggestion to people thinking about choosing formats based on pricing is to stop. The entry level stuff is all relatively inexpensive (I haven’t seen a new digital kit for anywhere near entry level film equipment, for any format), so stop worrying about what you may or may not be able to afford down the road. Instead, think about what it is you want to do with your camera, and choose based on that. I chose large format because I like shooting landscapes, and I think this is best for that, though if you want to do street photography, obviously that probably isn’t the right choice.

[Bernice Loui]

Similar observation, yet unable to convince more than a few soft focus lens-print folks this is true and very real.
IMO, soft focus, ideal print is contact print.


Bernice


Indeed! I can't enlarge more than 2x and soft focus gets messy... Since it's a blend of soft and sharp, the sharp part enlarges faithfully and the soft gets too soft. It's messing with the blend that made the original size good. So print size is part of the format choice, contact printing being most common.

[jnantz]

~Quite arrogant and Egotist to believe since "I" cannot see or discern the difference, then "YOU" cannot either.~

As for the Ansel Adams (BTW, AA is not THE all knowing-all authority in Foto matters) story, it's just a story, noting more, nothing less and does not tell about the entire context of events and all related to what happened at that moment in time.


Bernice

Bernice:
Seeing I set the bar very low, squint my eyes alot, but only have 40,000 followers I am not sure how I can be both arrogant and an egoist.
I am only arrogant at this point; when I hit 100,000 followers then I can be both arrogant and an egoist. :) PM me your snail mail address I'll be happy
to send you prints of the same aspect ratio that both look terrible enough that you think they both came out of an instamatic, I can assure you that you won't be able to tell
which one was made with a 4x5 camera. ;)

Luckily JK passed away so the truth is 6feet under with him. To be honest, I don't think he'd make it very far in an interrogation by the site's members, you know, cuffed to a comfy chair a bare lightbulb overhead and tickled with the feather.

YMMV
ArrogantJohn

[Bernice Loui]

~Except that first part of the reply was not directed at John...

Honestly, number of followers means about zero. Just means one has gained the ability to cultivate a following. nothing more, nothing less as this is NOT a popularity contest and popularity does not imply truth-facts-reality.

Now that a following has been cultivated, what will one do with Priesthood... and that position of "influence"?


Bernice




Bernice:
Seeing I set the bar very low, squint my eyes alot, but only have 40,000 followers I am not sure how I can be both arrogant and an egoist.
I am only arrogant at this point; when I hit 100,000 followers then I can be both arrogant and an egoist. :) PM me your snail mail address I'll be happy
to send you prints of the same aspect ratio that both look terrible enough that you think they both came out of an instamatic, I can assure you that you won't be able to tell
which one was made with a 4x5 camera. ;)

Luckily JK passed away so the truth is 6feet under with him. To be honest, I don't think he'd make it very far in an interrogation by the site's members, you know, cuffed to a comfy chair a bare lightbulb overhead and tickled with the feather.

YMMV
ArrogantJohn

[jnantz]

~Except that first part of the reply was not directed at John...

Honestly, number of followers means about zero. Just means one has gained the ability to cultivate a following. nothing more, nothing less as this is NOT a popularity contest and popularity does not imply truth-facts-reality.

Now that a following has been cultivated, what will one do with Priesthood... and that position of "influence"?


Bernice

Bernice,
Cultivating a following and a buzzz is what it is all about. While you presecribe to the idea that it doesn't matter, in the real world .. unless you are a carefree hobbiest, doing it for fun or an educator 100K followers is pretty much the only thing that matters. Sometimes you can't get commercial work without being an "influencer" and making new content for your followers to consume ( and besting the al go rith em ) is all there is. I'll be making an unboxing video of me making an unboxing video and it will be an endless meta-loop ( like when John Malcovich went inside his own head) . My peeps can't get enough of that stuff and send me showers of love and butterfly kisses. What do I do with all that influence? I bask in the glow, and at 1¢/hit I'll be buying a super big gulp slurpee at 7-11 and some more photoflo! As my mentor Max Bialystock would say " When you got it, flaunt it baby!"
Regarding truth, there really is no such thing. Reality has nothing to do with facts: we live in a post-fact world.
BTW, I am an Overman in Slack and have been a priest since 1984. I'm not sure about you, but I know I live on a flat earth, watch the spin cycle on my Speed Queen, love Roadside, and read "Zippy" daily.
http://comics.azcentral.com/slideshow?comic=Zippy_the_Pinhead&feature_id=Zippy_the_Pinhead


... where can I mail the photo? ;)

Praise "Bob"
Jokingly yours,
John

ps. Maybe foOogle will pick the easter egg I just laid in this thread up and I will get the extra 60K followers so I can be an egoist after today? I hope so! do I owe you a commission? :)

[Corran]

Some years ago at a local LF print sharing event...


[...]it's just a story, noting more, nothing less and does not tell about the entire context of events and all related to what happened at that moment in time.

Yes, I agree with you.

I'm reminded of the audiophiles who insist on the differences between a $10 cable and a $1,000 cable made of unobtanium and pixie-dust. Then when subjected to good double-blind tests, choose the wrong cable 75% of the time.

[Dan Fromm]

As someone who was a professional musician in a couple of orchestras, has three degrees in music, and has been a recording engineer for well over a decade with a lot of experience listening critically to musicians playing classical music: no, they can't.

Bryan, on the one hand I'm with you. While I was working on the published version of my lens diary Emmanuel Bigler asked me for example shots from the lenses. I shot some, showed them to Charlie Barringer, named the lenses used and asked him to match name to shot. He failed completely.

On the other, I'm an amateur cellist who's been around and can't forget one experience. A middle aged friend decided to take up the cello. She bought an instrument and borrowed three bows from the dealer to try out. I visited her while she had them. Her husband asked me what I thought of them. So I picked them up, one at a time, felt their balances, bounced them on my left wrist, ... and then said something to the effect of "Don't buy bow A, you can live with bow B, if you can afford it buy bow C." They then told me that I'd ranked them in ascending price order. I don't think all judgments of musical instruments' quality are entirely subjective.

That said, some modern fiddles are at least as good as the best old Italian ones.

[neil poulsen]

I always found that what the client would pay dictated the choice of format! . . .

I think that it's not just what any client will pay. It's what the client who's willing to pay the most will pay.

[John Kasaian]

This Spring I was catching HUGE big mouth bass with a $12 rod and reel from Walmart and a plastic worm.
If I had a more expensive rod from LL Bean, would I get bites from bigger fish?
I doubt it.
But this has nothing to do with photography :o

[Corran]

Dan,

When I graduated high school, and was about to enter college as a music major, my parents graciously agreed to purchase me a new instrument. I went to the only store in GA that had real high-end instruments, and I was given the opportunity to try some 20-odd flutes on a table. I was instructed not to look at any of the brands, which didn't really matter because I didn't know any of them anyway since they weren't the garden variety "Yamaha" or other student-level instrument.

Anyway, when it was all said and done I and my mom (who is musically illiterate) both agreed on a flute that narrowly edged out the rest, which ended up being a wildcard thrown in the mix that was way, way over our stated budget and indeed the most expensive instrument on the table. A case was made to "buy once cry once" and the instrument was purchased. I used that instrument all through college and my musical career, only replacing the headjoint with a better one later on (that itself cost 2/3 of the whole flute). So, I get it, but nevertheless at a certain quality level it does become subjective. Comparisons of a $50 pawn-shop violin with 10-year-old strings and a good Strad would be unfair. IIRC, one of my professors told me that every Strad sounds different anyway and they would rather play on their instrument worth 1/100 than most Strads.

[Tin Can]

I was once handed a $1,000,000 Strad not knowing what it was worth.

I held it for a moment then told, I had just had the above value in hand.

Brian, you must have sensed some intrinsic quality in the instrument you played.

I'm a Sea Food expert, when I see food I eat it.

[Dan Fromm]

Randy, the only way to know how a string instrument will play is to play it. Bows are another matter, with them balance and resilience can be evaluated without playing.

[PRJ]

Emperor's clothes I think.

Then throw in a little, or not so little ego.

Format size seems to me to be more about exclusivity these days among other photographers. Same with pickle size in digital cameras, and big trucks. Which isn't to say that if you use a big camera you suffer from those afflictions. People who act negatively to this post though.... No one in the real world really cares what camera you use.

For me the limitation isn't in the lenses, it is in the printing. What the biggest enlarger is that is reasonable and that is 4x5. I had an 8x10 camera for years but barely ever used it. I don't use my 4x5 all that much either because it isn't exactly spontaneous. A 4x5 enlarger is a reasonable sized enlarger. If I ever have the space for an 8x10 enlarger maybe I'll get one. It won't really make that much difference in the photos though.

[Havoc]

In a way it does for me, can't say for others. I like it wide and I'd love to go larger than 4x5. And I'd like to go for calotypes but that means contact prints if I go larger (you cannot even find a 4x5 enlarger around here). But space and available lenses within budget mean I have to stay at 4x5.

[Mark Sawyer]

Agreed. Even on the large format forum, about half the folks think of soft focus as "smear some Vaseline on the lens, or put a stocking over it." But then, I wouldn't be surprised if half the students at a Le Cordon Bleu cooking school ate lunch at Taco Bell...


Similar observation, yet unable to convince more than a few soft focus lens-print folks this is true and very real.
IMO, soft focus, ideal print is contact print.


Bernice

[jnantz]

Agreed. Even on the large format forum, about half the folks think of soft focus as "smear some Vaseline on the lens, or put a stocking over it." But then, I wouldn't be surprised if half the students at a Le Cordon Bleu cooking school ate lunch at Taco Bell...

Mark, you forgot .. the vaseline smear or stocking ( or smoke stained filter ) all require a clear spot in the middle, otherwise its not soft focus but a hot-mess ! MMMM, Taco Bell; a good, tastey way to get one's sodium content for the month for 99¢. I'm not going to translate what I heard "Chilito" is slang for, it's as funny as Chevy trying to market the "no va" to spanish speakers. Bernice I have gotten to 98,000 ! Thanks again for the bump, I love my adoring followers.

[Mark Sawyer]

There you go. A dirty lens, even if it's clean in the middle, is a poor imitation of the effects of spherical aberration...


Mark, you forgot .. the vaseline smear or stocking ( or smoke stained filter ) all require a clear spot in the middle, otherwise its not soft focus but a hot-mess ! MMMM, Taco Bell; a good, tastey way to get one's sodium content for the month for 99¢. I'm not going to translate what I heard "Chilito" is slang for, it's as funny as Chevy trying to market the "no va" to spanish speakers. Bernice I have gotten to 98,000 ! Thanks again for the bump, I love my adoring followers.

[jnantz]

There you go. A dirty lens, even if it's clean in the middle, is a poor imitation of the effects of spherical aberration...

I fergot to mention those tricks only work with one of those pretzel lenses

[Drew Wiley]

This is like getting a deal on a pair of shoes and then expecting your feet to conform to them afterwards, comfortable or not. It's smart to buy view lenses that work with multiple formats; but these days the differential in the cost of respective sheet film sizes is a far bigger factor to consider than lenses per se, if expense is your priority.

[Greg]

Interesting post to follow...

For me the choice of formats had and has more to do with my final presentation prints. Started out with 8x10 because I wanted to make contact silver FB prints. When I wanted to also print larger contact silver FB prints, acquired an 11x14. The preferred lenses I wanted for both formats just took time to acquire. Then began printing Platinum/Palladium prints from digital negatives. This allowed me to shoot film which did not have to match the final print sizes. For ease and portability shot 120, and when that wasn't a factor, shot whole plate. Also started to shoot FX digital. Lately have been choosing the format more based on the scenes that I want to photograph. Have done comparison shots of a scene with a Nikon D850 and my 11x14. Final 11x14 gallery framed prints from both formats, to most viewers, are indistinguishable. From 4 feet away I'd challenge anyone to ID the original format used to capture the scene... that is except for a friend who is an experienced LF and ULF photographer. Still weekly haul out the LF and ULF equipment just because I totally enjoy using it, but now most of the time shoot medium format digital... great for color and for making digital negatives for Platinum/Palladium. Exception now is when I want to experiment with darkroom Lith printing... 120 and 8x10 films my choice. 120 enlarges well and the 8x10 is for contact prints.
So now to the topic of lens availability.... just have never found it to be a problem. Hardest lens to acquire was a 5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope lens for my 11x14. Took me 2 years to acquire this optic and have SK Grimes mount it into a shutter. For whole plate and 8x10, was a 330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar. Trick, I believe, is not to set one's sights on acquiring a Hypergon, Biogon, Apo-Lanthar, or similar "rare" optics. Unfortunately missed the boat on acquiring them in the 70s and 80s when their prices were more than reasonable. They are around but you have deep pockets to acquire any one them. Petzval lenses a whole other matter.... Acquired some back when they were all but given away, held onto them, and eventually sold them (with no regrets) to acquire my present LF and ULF lenses.

[Mark Sawyer]

I fergot to mention those tricks only work with one of those pretzel lenses

Now you're twisting my words in knots...

[jnantz]

Now you're twisting my words in knots...

;) i've been in the mustard mines all day long...

[John Kasaian]

;) i've been in the mustard mines all day long...

All of the sudden, I'm hungry for pretzels and mustard.

[goamules]

I let the design of my lens dictate my shots:

Extreme Wide Angle - LF imitation "selfie" photos with round faces and big noses
Fast Petzval - architectural shots of toilet functioning, to show proper Coriolis effect
Any Leica lens - to test viewers worthiness to detect the Leica Glow, or to find someone willing to say "but the king has no clothes!"

[Bernice Loui]

Double blind testing is not a good way to testing yet extremely accepted by the "industry".

Core problem is how individuals develop their point of reference, their ability to listen and what they hear blended with Cognitive Bias and Personal Preferences.

About 90+ percent of that stuff known as Audiophile is better termed Audio-Bile. As with many endeavors like this there are exceptions. If you're curious as to a interconnect technology that does make a difference based on very real ways of Nature and Physics.. Start at this Patent and look up the Patent holders other Patents, read, understand them then we can discuss... as deep technically as you wish. This interconnect is not wire, it is connections using a network which is distinctly different than wire in every way.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5142252


Bernice



Yes, I agree with you.

I'm reminded of the audiophiles who insist on the differences between a $10 cable and a $1,000 cable made of unobtanium and pixie-dust. Then when subjected to good double-blind tests, choose the wrong cable 75% of the time.

[Bernice Loui]

Yet those Italian ones are often used as a point of reference, point of standard, why?

Not all Strads are created equal, nor do sound the same in varied ways. One story about Jousha Bell's Strad:
https://csosoundsandstories.org/how-a-once-lost-stradivarius-found-its-way-to-joshua-bell/

There were many other string instrument makers from Cremona.
Guarneri played by Yehudi Menuhin is one of many examples.

For those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA4yrWLH1-ezOM_L6dpPMEQ

Documentary on this topic, within this documentary there is a comparison between modern/vintage violin.. which is preferred, watch to find out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzRHuqvMxQ&t=56s


Bernice




I don't think all judgments of musical instruments' quality are entirely subjective.

That said, some modern fiddles are at least as good as the best old Italian ones.

[Bernice Loui]

You're not going to be able to tell squat from the audio track of a youtube video played back in absurdly inadequate 'puter speakers in a room that is absolutely questionable and much more.

The more valid comparison would be done in a proper musical performance space with a world class violinist playing violins to be compared.

Can you present recordings of your solo musical performances and/or recordings made with your recording skills without intervention of a producer?


Bernice




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkMVThdIUYc

As someone who was a professional musician in a couple of orchestras, has three degrees in music, and has been a recording engineer for well over a decade with a lot of experience listening critically to musicians playing classical music: no, they can't.

[Bernice Loui]

Question is, how does one gain the ability to discern these visual differences, how to place value on them and why does any of this make any significant difference?


Bernice


Agreed. Even on the large format forum, about half the folks think of soft focus as "smear some Vaseline on the lens, or put a stocking over it." But then, I wouldn't be surprised if half the students at a Le Cordon Bleu cooking school ate lunch at Taco Bell...

[jp]

Question is, how does one gain the ability to discern these visual differences, how to place value on them and why does any of this make any significant difference?


Bernice

Value is more related to rarity/historical aspects... P&S for example is pretty rare and were used by the accomplished photographers of the day..

Sort of like different coffee grinders make more or less appropriate coffee grounds based on various settings and subjective choices and desired end results, lenses are the same.... You can't easily see the differences; you can develop a taste that will teach you the difference. After a few hundred photos with a 7.25" verito and a few hundred with a 9" Hyperion, and quite a few with a 305 kodak portrait, I can tell the difference. If you ask me to tell the difference between lenses I don't have experience with, I'd be making guesses. Cosmically big picture, none of this makes a difference. Practically, we want something repeatable that we can get to know and predict the soft behaviour in all light every time we use it. Vaseline doesn't do that.

[jnantz]

Vaseline doesn't do that. you need the mustard

[Bernice Loui]

***Core to this problem, if the audience does not appreciate, value or believe what is being offered is of value to them the offering dies***

Goes back to the number of number of folks who's offerings-creations were not valued until some event, individual or such created the perception of value for the offering.


Bernice



Value is more related to rarity/historical aspects... P&S for example is pretty rare and were used by the accomplished photographers of the day..

Sort of like different coffee grinders make more or less appropriate coffee grounds based on various settings and subjective choices and desired end results, lenses are the same.... You can't easily see the differences; you can develop a taste that will teach you the difference. After a few hundred photos with a 7.25" verito and a few hundred with a 9" Hyperion, and quite a few with a 305 kodak portrait, I can tell the difference. If you ask me to tell the difference between lenses I don't have experience with, I'd be making guesses. Cosmically big picture, none of this makes a difference. Practically, we want something repeatable that we can get to know and predict the soft behaviour in all light every time we use it. Vaseline doesn't do that.

[Bernice Loui]

Neither Mustard or Vaseline will stay put, clear finger nail polish works and stays put once dry.


Bernice



you need the mustard

[John Kasaian]

Vaseline doesn't do that.
But K-Y is water soluble, so it's easier to clean it off your lens. It's also a decent shutter lubricate in freezing temperatures.

[jnantz]

Neither Mustard or Vaseline will stay put, clear finger nail polish works and stays put once dry.


Bernice

clear nail polish is collodion so it makes sense it stays put. The mustard works very very well, especially with pretzl lenses . With fancy lenses
you really need grey poupon nothing else will do.

[Roger Thoms]

Interesting discussion, which has me thinking, if I’m out shooting b&w film and forgot my yellow filter can I just smear a little mustard on the lens?

Roger

[Dugan]

No, that would not cut the mustard.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm reporting you all to the secret Soft Focus Bureau. Expect a midnight visit from the MIF. (Men In Fuzz.)

[Bernice Loui]

OK fine, for Westerners, Gray Poupon, Easterners prefer Wasabi.. Soft with bite.


Bernice





clear nail polish is collodion so it makes sense it stays put. The mustard works very very well, especially with pretzl lenses . With fancy lenses
you really need grey poupon nothing else will do.

[Jody_S]

But K-Y is water soluble, so it's easier to clean it off your lens. It's also a decent shutter lubricate in freezing temperatures.

I don't care how good it is, there's no way I'm chancing having my wife find a jar of KY in my camera bag.

[jnantz]

But K-Y is water soluble, so it's easier to clean it off your lens. It's also a decent shutter lubricate in freezing temperatures.
LOL ! i'd be afraid i'd drop the camera after all the lithium greese i'd have to huff to get me to try that. i keep thinking of that scene in eating raoul where paul bartel is shopping for supplies :)



I'm reporting you all to the secret Soft Focus Bureau. Expect a midnight visit from the MIF. (Men In Fuzz.)
i'll make sure to have some pigs in blankets ready, institute benjamenta in the vcr and if i can corner the market on the eboink.jp all the collectable pretzl lenses i can afford on hand ! ;)

[John Kasaian]

Mmmm! Pigs in blankets! :)

[John Kasaian]

I don't care how good it is, there's no way I'm chancing having my wife find a jar of KY in my camera bag.

B-b-b-but dear, it's for the Super Angulon!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Any Leica lens - to test viewers worthiness to detect the Leica Glow, or to find someone willing to say "but the king has no clothes!"

My man! So many people fail to see the relation of the 'glow' to the films of the time.

[Mark Sawyer]

B-b-b-but dear, it's for the Super Angulon!

That would fall under "Allowing Lens Lubricant to Dictate Marital Status". A completely different thread...