Lens help needed (8x10 wet plate)

[jpheneger]

Hi all,

I just acquired an ANSCO American Optic 8x10 Studio camera and I need help in identifying what lens choice would be good for doing wet plate portraits. I would imagine something in the range of a 300mm f//5.6 would be perfect, but as this is my first 8x10 (and first wet plate camera) I am not sure where to start.

[Bob Salomon]

300mm is too short for flattering head and shoulder portraits on 810 because of foreshortening. You need something longer then a normal lens.

[Corran]

300mm or 12" lens is perfectly fine for many types of portraits. Longer lenses will get progressively harder to deal with for a multitude of reasons.

There are plenty of 300mm f/4.5 Tessar-type lenses out there - you want speed for wet plate. One I suggest to look for is a Gundlach Radar 12" f/4.5.

[Bob Salomon]

300mm or 12" lens is perfectly fine for many types of portraits. Longer lenses will get progressively harder to deal with for a multitude of reasons.

There are plenty of 300mm f/4.5 Tessar-type lenses out there - you want speed for wet plate. One I suggest to look for is a Gundlach Radar 12" f/4.5.

Since he didn’t specify what type of portraits he wants to do I did. I stated too short for head and shoulders. Also, it’s a bit short for ¾ length as well.

Why let him discover, after buying the camera, lens, holders, plates, etc + his time to discover big noses, protruding foreheads, etc. because he has too short a lens?

You should be offering guidance.

[Corran]

Textbook definition of a proper "portrait" lens is a bit outdated, especially when getting into bigger plates and longer lenses where magnification becomes more significant and focal length is less relevant due to focusing closer. I have shot head-and-shoulders portraits with a 300mm on 8x10 and find no issues wrt foreshortening. One of my friends made some beautiful WP portraits on 4x5 with a 90mm focused very closely!

My advice is to look at photos here in the monthly portrait threads and get an idea for what focal lengths and types of portraits you plan to do. Longer fast lenses will get expensive quick. If you discover you can make do with f/9 or perhaps even less options expand.

[Mark Sawyer]

First, what size plates will you be making, full 8x10, whole plate, or 6x8? Many wet plate photographers use converted 8x10 film holders, which are cut for a smaller size. (I like 6x8, because you get 6 from a 12x24 aluminum sheet, as opposed to 3 whole plates or 8x10s.)

A 300mm would be fine as a portrait lens for 6x8 or whole plate.

[Tin Can]

could cell phone selfies have changed our 'perspective'

Literally

[Bob Salomon]

could cell phone selfies have changed our 'perspective'

Literally

Probably not as much as TV has.

[Tin Can]

I do watch more TV than look at selfies on cell phones, never!

Might be an age thing


Probably not as much as TV has.

[Bob Salomon]

I’m watching the impeachment coverage on MSNBC. They have a panel discussion with 5 people sitting at a curved table. Michael Steel is on the end, closest to the camera on the left end of the table and boy, does he ends up with a huge left shoulder!

[Two23]

I’m watching the impeachment coverage on MSNBC. They have a panel discussion with 5 people sitting at a curved table. Michael Steel is on the end, closest to the camera on the left end of the table and boy, does he ends up with a huge left shoulder!


I'd personally rather watch 12 hours of the Kardashians.:D As for lens, I now shoot 8x10 wet plate and own several 12 inch lenses: Peerless rapid rectilinear, Wollensak Velostigmat, Nikon 300mm M f9, and an 1862 Voigtlander Petzval. I agree that 12 in. is a bit too short for classic portraits. My favorite lenses for portrait are a Heliar and the Velostigmat. However, for shooting wet plate I'm a bit of a purist and will only use period correct lenses. I'm suggesting something like a 14 to 16 inch rapid rectilinear. These are fairly common to find, don't cost a ton of money like a similar sized Petzval, period correct with classic look, and look pretty cool on the front of a wooden camera. Much cooler than an early 20th C. lens for sure.;)


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

How much do you want to spend? IMO there is nothing quite as beautiful as a wet plate portrait made with a lens designed for the process - IE: a fairly long focal length Petzval, preferably f4 or wider aperture. But we are talking about lenses that currently sell for no less than $1000 for an "average" specimen of the "unbranded" (or rebranded) sort, and closer to $2000 - $3000 for something truly superb. A 12" (300mm) Petzval portrait lens will introduce some foreshortening into portraits that are just head and a bit of shoulders, and serious foreshortening if you crop right in to just the head. If you plan to make intimate (just the head/face) portraits, then you really should look at something in at least 14" focal length or (preferably) longer. I have a Lerebours et Secretan 15" F5 portrait lens and it is satisfactory for portraits as close as head-and-shoulders, but getting closer becomes tricky. However, as others have mentioned, longer focal lengths become more difficult to work with as technical issues creep in. Personally I wouldn't want to attempt portraits with a lens much longer than 15", as it starts to get challenging. Here is an example of a wet plate portrait made with this lens on 8X10 aluminum:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4597/39367576372_70ba5de374_h.jpg

Regarding budget: if you can't spend $$$$ on a period lens, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with more modern lenses of a similar focal length. If I were to start out with one lens for head-and-shoulders portraits, I think I would choose something like a Kodak Commercial Ektar in the 14" focal length. You can get a lot of mileage from that lens and it will cost you far less to acquire: currently, this lens can be found for about $500-$850 for a very nice specimen. Sure, you can find listings for up to $2000 for this lens, but if you are patient, you will find one under $500 with relative ease. There's no need to pay more than $1000 max for this lens, so shop wisely.

[C. D. Keth]

Personally, I think 14” is the perfect portrait length for 8x10. I appreciate the vintage lenses but I don’t particularly think they suit my taste. If I were in your shoes, I’d try to find a 14” tessar or a 14” commercial ektar. The commercial ektar I’ve a beautiful aesthetic to them that isn’t entirely modern yet not 19th century either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulbarden]

If I were in your shoes, I’d try to find a 14” tessar or a 14” commercial ektar. The commercial ektar I’ve a beautiful aesthetic to them that isn’t entirely modern yet not 19th century either.

Regarding that last point, I would say that I have made wet plate collodion images using modern optics like a Schneider Symmar-S and found the contrast and sharpness renders as "too sharp" on collodion plates. It has a harshness and "edginess" that is hard on the eyes. Older lenses are better for wet plate work IMO because they have a somewhat softer rendering that suits the contrast of wet plate work. I am specifically referring to lenses like the 14" Commercial Ektar, which is a stunning lens. Of course some folks would disagree, and that's fine - its a matter of personal tastes. But it seems to me that if it's portraits you are producing, contrasty, razor-sharp fine detail is not something you want to include in your recipe. Although of course I am making the assumption that its your goal to flatter the subject.

[C. D. Keth]

Although of course I am making the assumption that its your goal to flatter the subject.

That has often not even been on the table in my portraiture. [emoji1787][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cuypers1807]

Are you shooting indoors with strobe/continuous light or outside? You can get away with slower lenses outside but if you are indoors the faster the better. Expect to need 4800 WS of light or more with strobes. Don't disqualify modern lens options. Why does your work have to look like everyone else? The depth of field is so shallow in wet plate that concerns over lenses being "too sharp" are not valid.

[jpheneger]

I plan to make full 8x10 portraits using glass plates. My goal is to be able to shoot anything from a 3/4 portrait to a head & shoulders shot.

[jpheneger]

Are you shooting indoors with strobe/continuous light or outside? You can get away with slower lenses outside but if you are indoors the faster the better. Expect to need 4800 WS of light or more with strobes. Don't disqualify modern lens options. Why does your work have to look like everyone else? The depth of field is so shallow in wet plate that concerns over lenses being "too sharp" are not valid.

I am shooting indoors with strobes. I am more concerned with getting a fast lens at a reasonable price than I am with any specific brand, or even a super sharp lens. I am considering getting a Industar 37 just to get started, knowing that I'll likely replace it.

[jpheneger]

How much do you want to spend? IMO there is nothing quite as beautiful as a wet plate portrait made with a lens designed for the process - IE: a fairly long focal length Petzval, preferably f4 or wider aperture. But we are talking about lenses that currently sell for no less than $1000 for an "average" specimen of the "unbranded" (or rebranded) sort, and closer to $2000 - $3000 for something truly superb. A 12" (300mm) Petzval portrait lens will introduce some foreshortening into portraits that are just head and a bit of shoulders, and serious foreshortening if you crop right in to just the head. If you plan to make intimate (just the head/face) portraits, then you really should look at something in at least 14" focal length or (preferably) longer. I have a Lerebours et Secretan 15" F5 portrait lens and it is satisfactory for portraits as close as head-and-shoulders, but getting closer becomes tricky. However, as others have mentioned, longer focal lengths become more difficult to work with as technical issues creep in. Personally I wouldn't want to attempt portraits with a lens much longer than 15", as it starts to get challenging. Here is an example of a wet plate portrait made with this lens on 8X10 aluminum:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4597/39367576372_70ba5de374_h.jpg

Regarding budget: if you can't spend $$$$ on a period lens, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with more modern lenses of a similar focal length. If I were to start out with one lens for head-and-shoulders portraits, I think I would choose something like a Kodak Commercial Ektar in the 14" focal length. You can get a lot of mileage from that lens and it will cost you far less to acquire: currently, this lens can be found for about $500-$850 for a very nice specimen. Sure, you can find listings for up to $2000 for this lens, but if you are patient, you will find one under $500 with relative ease. There's no need to pay more than $1000 max for this lens, so shop wisely.

Thank you for the detailed info, I'll definitely look into the Commerical Ektar. By the way, that is a wonderful portrait!

[paulbarden]

Thank you for the detailed info, I'll definitely look into the Commerical Ektar. By the way, that is a wonderful portrait!

I hope my advice was useful. Glad you like that portrait, thanks very much. :-)

Paul

[Mark Sawyer]

I plan to make full 8x10 portraits using glass plates. My goal is to be able to shoot anything from a 3/4 portrait to a head & shoulders shot.

Then a 14 to 16 inch lens. As fast as you can afford. An f/4.5 Tessar would probably be the most cost efficient, although you might consider some of the projection lenses (Beseler, Buhl...)

[jpheneger]

Then a 14 to 16 inch lens. As fast as you can afford. An f/4.5 Tessar would probably be the most cost efficient, although you might consider some of the projection lenses (Beseler, Buhl...)

Thank you for the suggestion.

[dfort]

A few weeks ago I bought an overhead projector at a swap meet for $10. All I wanted was the fresnel lens but I also saved the lens. Seems like something you might want to experiment with.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49436270458_0db56ddaaf.jpg https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49436270493_4b771bc44b.jpg

As you can see quite a manageable size though without a shutter or iris. Maybe you could cut a slot in the housing and use waterhouse stops or perhaps wet plates are so slow that you'll need to use it wide open. I don't know.

In any case, I've got plenty of lenses for now so if you want this send me a PM and we'll figure out how to get it to you.

[paulbarden]

A few weeks ago I bought an overhead projector at a swap meet for $10. All I wanted was the fresnel lens but I also saved the lens. Seems like something you might want to experiment with.

As you can see quite a manageable size though without a shutter or iris. Maybe you could cut a slot in the housing and use waterhouse stops or perhaps wet plates are so slow that you'll need to use it wide open. I don't know.

In any case, I've got plenty of lenses for now so if you want this send me a PM and we'll figure out how to get it to you.

I would definitely take him up on that offer if I were you!

[C. D. Keth]

I would definitely take him up on that offer if I were you!

Definitely. Some old projection lenses are pretty cool looking. Just make yourself a lens cap with interchangeable Waterhouse stops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jpheneger]

I would definitely take him up on that offer if I were you!

I am not one to pass up free stuff! :D

[jpheneger]

Definitely. Some old projection lenses are pretty cool looking. Just make yourself a lens cap with interchangeable Waterhouse stops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waterhouse stops in the cap? Or did you mean "make yourself a lens cap AND interchangeable Waterhouse stops"?

[C. D. Keth]

No, I meant it like that. You may find that having the aperture in front of the front element is the best place. Behind might be the best place. I doubt that lens has a slot to hold a Waterhouse stop at the nodal point so those are your non-surgical options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk