Petzval Picture Post Thread [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Jim Galli

4-May-2007, 22:07

I'll stick my neck out and we'll see where if anywhere this will go. Kevin's Bokeh thread, and W. Linne's Wide Open thread have pre-staged interest in lenses with signature Bokeh.

The idea will be to begin some picture post threads that show what folks have made with the different lens types. A Verito thread, Cooke Portrait thread, Heliar etc.
Give enough details like f stop etc to get an idea of what the different lens types might be good for.

The following 4 pictures were made today with a Kodak 5X7 2D and an 8" f5 Darlot Lantern Petzval. Film was Aerial Recon Pan X rated @ ASA 32, and developer was Rodinal 1:100 6.5 min.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/021502/57_2D_PansiesE.jpg
pansies

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/021502/57_2D_TPE.jpg
TP

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/021502/57_2D_LensesE.jpg
antique lenses

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/021502/57_2D_TomatoPlantE.jpg
tomato plant

I hope others will join in with some of your photos made with a petzval formula lens. With participation, these threads could become quite useful for those looking for a particular style or look. Someone might read through this and say, well, I know I don't want a Petzval!

Eric James

4-May-2007, 22:58

This is a great idea!

I don't own this lens so I can't contribute by posting an image, but here is my subjective impression:

The high contrast area of the pansy photo seems a bit disturbing. On the subjective bokeh scale, ranging from "blissfully mellow" to "projectile-vomit inducing", I'd rank it mildly disturbing. The insignia on the Kodak lens medallion is also mildly disturbing, as is the corduroy background in the same photo. The hood on the Rodenstock lens is a bit edgy too.

All other out-of-focus areas are pleasing to my eye, and I would surmise, "this lens has good bokeh"...er... "this lens makes images with nice bokeh":)

I've made my case in Kevin's, "Bokeh, Bokeh, Bokeh" thread by arguing that lens and shutter attributes are not the sole determinants of good bokeh. Bokeh is in the image, and extra-optical contributions are vital determinants. I believe that these photos support this notion.

Thank you for starting this thread Jim - I have high hopes for it!

Shen45

5-May-2007, 03:15

Great idea Jim,

Petzval on a 5x4 about 9" lens with no identification. Shot with a studio shutter. Aperture about f8.

Steve

Walter Calahan

5-May-2007, 04:46

You want to talk Bokeh!

RB Graflex 4x5 SLR customed rigged with a Kodak Aero-Ektar 178mm f/2.5 lens. Provia 100F, 1/1000 of a second at f/2.5. Washington DC Cherry Blossoms.

Please visit my web blog: http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Cheers/Musings/6734C5D1-80F8-4FEB-A9A0-B8EB6BDE0C13.html

m messerly

5-May-2007, 07:30

I enjoy this type of post, as I love the glow/diffuse/other properties of older or unusual lens designs. Very attractive 'study'.

Joe Smigiel

5-May-2007, 08:20

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/Robin_01a72.jpg
10" x 12" Ruby Ambrotype on purple glass
Dallmeyer 3A Patent Portrait Lens w/waterhouse stop (f/8 sh?)
11x14 B&J view

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/Ellen_glass.jpg
6.5" x 8.5" full-plate ambrotype on black glass
Darlot portrait Petzval lens (~7.5") with waterhouse stop
homemade 8x10 box camera

Love those Petzvals...

Joe

Ash

5-May-2007, 10:55

Love those shots Joe, and everyone else too.. but especially Joe ;)

Ken Lee

5-May-2007, 15:05

The image of the woman in the woods is spectacular.

To my limited seeing, most photos of nudes - especially those taken outdoors - look contrived, but this one is truly magical.

In addition, I find it amusing that it breaks so many precepts concerning "how to make a good photograph". It goes to show that it's often best and most courageous for the artist to follow the Muse wherever she leads.

william linne

5-May-2007, 16:49

Petzvals??? I think I've used one or two of them.

Here's a picture I took at Land's End in San Francisco on my last day with the Chinese girl.

william linne

5-May-2007, 16:52

And another.... The second to last woman to betray me (for anyone keeping count)

Eric James

5-May-2007, 21:54

In William's image and Joe's first image I see a characteristic of the Petzval bokeh that I don't like. (Don't get me wrong, I like both portraits - particulary William's (I would love to see a print!)) The OOF area of these photos seems to swirl around the center of the image. I find this distracting because it pulls my eye away from the photographer's subject.

I've seen this characteristic in other lenses noted for their ability to render pleasing bokeh (e.g. the Nikon 70-200mm VR). I don't know if it due to optical design, or some aspect of the subject and motif, but I suspect it has something to do with both. Perhaps there's a knowledgeable forum member who can lend some insight into this phenomenon.

Jim Galli

5-May-2007, 22:07

Perhaps there's a knowledgeable forum member who can lend some insight into this phenomenon.

Sorry Eric, I'm not that person, but, I will comment that the so-called swirly-bokeh is something that folks are interested in just now. Typically if a Petzval lens that is not really meant for the format that it's being used on is employed, like a 12" Petzval on an 8X10 the far corners get really wild. A lot of people are after this "look" and William Linne, Joe Smigiel and Kerik have found the combinations.

Below is a classic straight Petzval Portrait. This one is done with a 22" Voigtlander lens at about f10 on 11X14 format. It has the center sharpness and rapid falloff that the Petzval's are famous for.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JohnColeS.jpg

Neil Purling

6-May-2007, 00:04

The swirly bokeh is caused by uncorrected coma (so I have been told). I hope that I am right on this. Have you seen any of the work by Domenico Foschi? He has used a Petzval or another optic that produces that swirly bokeh as a creative tool beyond portraiture.

http://www.dfoschisite.com/portfolios/images/italia/lg/carraie_italy.jpg

http://www.dfoschisite.com/portfolios/images/italia/lg/russi_italy.jpg

It depends on the tones of the out of focus areas. It is easy to see that they might become a distraction.

Ole Tjugen

6-May-2007, 01:14

I've seen this characteristic in other lenses noted for their ability to render pleasing bokeh (e.g. the Nikon 70-200mm VR). I don't know if it due to optical design, or some aspect of the subject and motif, but I suspect it has something to do with both. Perhaps there's a knowledgeable forum member who can lend some insight into this phenomenon.

The swirl is not so much a result of optical design as of physical design - it's caused by physical vignetting at large apertures.

The reason it's seen more often with "lenses noted for their ability to render pleasing bokeh" is that these tend to be used wide open far more often! But you'll see it with just about any lens used wide open - as here - a FED 50mm f:3.5 (http://www.bruraholo.no/bilder/morning.jpg). Not exactly a "famous bokeh lens" :)

Wimpler

6-May-2007, 02:01

Periskop Aplanat lens: I think the lens design is similar to a petzval. In the first shot you see the lens on the original camera. I used it on a 4x5 monorail, paper negative, lens at f22.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/112/304077141_4b5fb61948.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/116/315685293_c83938af50.jpg

Ash

6-May-2007, 05:42

so here's my first and only photo using the petzimex I hacked (front element from a Hanimex 300mm/4,5 slr lens 35mm/MD mount I think).

I may mount it again and take another photo today if I can wake up!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-9a-2.jpg

Hugo Zhang

6-May-2007, 07:08

Vitax lens, a modified Petzval.

Joe Smigiel

6-May-2007, 07:32

...The OOF area of these photos seems to swirl around the center of the image. I find this distracting because it pulls my eye away from the photographer's subject...

And I disagree totally.

IMO, the peripheral swirl concentrates attention on the sharp central area and mimics natural human visual perception more closely as a result, especially when combined with the the falloff of illumination at the edges. Plus, the distortion causes the "roundness of form" for which these lenses are famous. Combined, these effects make the central area pop forward in the images and produce a slight illusional 3-D effect.

As Jim notes, the application of the Petzval on an oversized plate was quite intentional.

Joe

Paul Fitzgerald

6-May-2007, 09:29

Hi all,

Jim, thanks for the thread and idea. Now I have to go out and play :rolleyes:

Joe, girl in woods, perfect

Wimpler, love the flower

Ash, interesting, very interesting

Ole, here - a FED 50mm f:3.5. (http://www.bruraholo.no/bilder/morning.jpg). So that's what lutefisk tastes like. I always wondered. :eek:

Good morning people.

Ken Lee

6-May-2007, 10:19

What is FED ?

Gene McCluney

6-May-2007, 10:26

What is FED ?

FED was a long lived line of 35mm rangefinder cameras and lenses made in Ukraine up thru the 1980's at least. Originally starting out as a copy of the LEICA camera of the 1930's., it evolved over the years into a more original design. The lenses are in Leica screw-thread mount and will work on Leica brand cameras. Some people really like the resolution and "bokeh" of the Fed lenses. The original "normal" 50mm lens on the Fed was basically a "Tessar" design.

Ole Tjugen

6-May-2007, 10:27

What is FED ?

It's a "tiny-format" (35mm) camera, made in a factory started by Feliks Edmundovich Dzershinsky who may be better known for starting what eventually became the KGB.

The camera is a Leica-derivative, with it's own series of lenses. Some of the lenses were industar, others were only marked "FED". This particular one is a copy of a collapsible Leitz Elmar, which is itself a Tessar derivative...

Since this is the LF forum i didn't post the picture itself, but linked to it as an illustration of the causes of "swirly bokeh".

jnantz

6-May-2007, 12:56

vitax ...

not swirly, but petzvally just the same

william linne

6-May-2007, 15:16

It's amazing what people will pay for them.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

6-May-2007, 15:34

I have quite a few Petzval-type lenses and really love them. However I dislike the swirly bokeh in my own work and simply use Petzval-type lenses because they are fast and surprisingly sharp within 50 degrees or so at portrait distances. Consequently I tend to be quite conservative in judging their coverage. Attached is a poor scan of an 11x14 ambrotype taken with a 22" f4 Dallmeyer lens. Although the scan doesn't necessarily show it, it is a brutally sharp image, probably a bit too sharp.

I have written this before, but I think it worth repeating; Although we often regard Petzval lenses as "soft focus" they were not intended to be in the 19th century. The soft-focus look wasn't desirable until the advent of pictorialism in 1880s, and all those lovely SF lenses (All the Pinkham-Smith lenses, the Nicola Perscheid, Eidoscope, Verito, et cetera) were designed in reaction to the apparent sharpness of the Petzval. It all seems quite different in the 21st century.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

6-May-2007, 16:15

I have attached a 4.25x5.5" tintype on aluminum I made with a 1930s 11" f3 Dallmeyer Petzval at f8. As you can see this lens is quite sharp. On 4x5 it is as sharp as my 1970s Xenotar, but with nicer bokeh.

Uli Mayer

7-May-2007, 01:10

Ole wrote:
The swirl is not so much a result of optical design as of physical design - it's caused by physical vignetting at large apertures.[/I

Why this?- Mechanical vignetting is used for cutting off unwanted rays for[I] improving performance. How should it introduce a "swirl"?? - This would imply that vignetting is actively taking part in image formation which IMO it does not. AFAIK its only negative optical consequence would be light fall-off at large apertures - if wrongly dimensioned.

Ole Tjugen

7-May-2007, 01:22

Uli,

The mechanical vignetting is designed to cut off unwanted rays for improving performance at optimum aperture. But wide open nearly all lenses will show some "Cat's eye effect" (http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html#fig3), which when the lens is used outside the design coverage gives rise to "the swirleys". Since the design coverage is also designed at optimum aperture, most fast 35mm lenses will show this - like the "Elmar copy" I linked to.

My "swirliest" lens is not a Petzval, but a 135mm f:3.5 Xenar typ D shot wide open.

Uli Mayer

7-May-2007, 01:44

Thanks, Ole!
I forgot that. Especially a Petzval lens with its large air-spaces must be prone to show this effect, when not used carefully within its designated angular field.
Uli

Monty McCutchen

7-May-2007, 09:33

Jim Galli

7-May-2007, 10:18

Wow Monty! Thanks for posting those. I especially like the swirly one. Heart stopping.

Kerik Kouklis

7-May-2007, 11:25

Monty - Nice!! I especially like the portrait of Counti. A suggestion... next time you have ruby plates scanned, you may want to back them with something black (a sheet of trophy plate...) so they don't look SO ruby-ish. Unless you're going for this look. How do you back them when you present them? Talk to you soon...

jnantz

7-May-2007, 15:09

hi monty

those are beautiful!
i can only imagine them in person :)
must be a sight to behold ...

--john

Kevin Crisp

7-May-2007, 16:41

I'm holding out for the plasmat picture post thread.

Jim Galli

7-May-2007, 17:01

I'm holding out for the plasmat picture post thread.

I had you figured for the Protar VII picture post. :p

john borrelli

7-May-2007, 18:04

Although Joe Smigiel's nude is one of the more arresting photographs I have seen, I would not have thought that it exhibited "good" bokeh. The bokeh, if that's what is being exhibited here, is really too dramatic. I always have thought of bokeh as a smooth or creamy background to a scene, pleasing but definitely not in your face. Contrast this with Jim Galli's portrait, notice the circular shaped blur in the background just passed the man's eye; that's the kind of blur I most often associate with "good" bokeh. Imagine this blur as an object in the distance that could have been distracting in the image but instead is rendered in this soft way so it does not distract from, or compete with, the main subject. I suppose bokeh could be defined in other ways but that would be personally problematic as I was just beginning to understand the fuzzy logic involved in defining this "good bokeh". FYI there is a 35 mm web site called The Rokkor Files, one of the tests this photographer pictures for the Minolta lenses he reviews is evaluating the lens' bokeh. It's a good site particularly as it pertains to this thread and worth checking out. Great Thread and great photography!

George Kara

7-May-2007, 18:44

All I can say is wow on some of these comments. I think that Joes nude is an absolute masterwork. Fuck the bokeh, or anything to do with technique. That feeling from the shot is why photography is an art and not just a craft.

It is all about feeling and using the right tool to capture it. Feeling Feeling, Feeling Feeling guys. Evocative and provocative.

Jims toilet paper is also very evocative. It reminds me of the experience I had last week with some particularly good salsa.

Jim Galli

7-May-2007, 19:02

Jon Wilson

7-May-2007, 19:17

Here are two 10 x 12 wet plate collodion Ambrotypes done on Red Ruby Glass. Both done with a Dallmeyer 3A; one that shows the swirl some like and others have stated they don't and the other without the swirl. I happen to like the swirl for some applications, while at other times I prefer it without. That's why I love the lens so much is it can accomplish both depending on the application.

Hope you enjoy,

Monty

I love the swirl too! Great shots and thank you for sharing them! BTW, is the swirl effect which was produced in your photograph of the girl, as compared to the still life, due to the distance from the camera to the focus point or did you adjust the rear cell? Jon

Joe Smigiel

7-May-2007, 21:01

Thanks for all the positive comments on the image I posted.

Joe

Eric James

8-May-2007, 00:28

Although Joe Smigiel's nude is one of the more arresting photographs I have seen, I would not have thought that it exhibited "good" bokeh... Great Thread and great photography!

Joe Smigiel has defended this photo's OOF area earlier in the thread when I characterized the swirl as "mildly distracting". I've reconsidered my comments with the help of his response (I can do this, can't I?). I think that these tiny jpegs don't do these photos justice; and I think that my focused evaluation of these images' bokeh has over emphasized the OOF qualities. It's now clear to me that the folks here shooting with these lenses have employed their OOF rendition wittingly with great effect.

I'll wait to see these or similar images in print before I chisel out my opinion in granite:)

I love the swirl too! Great shots and thank you for sharing them! BTW, is the swirl effect which was produced in your photograph of the girl, as compared to the still life, due to the distance from the camera to the focus point or did you adjust the rear cell? Jon

John, without any evidence to the contrary, I believe you're correct concerning the importance of distance between the focus plane and out-of-focus swirl. I haven't seen the so-called swirly bokeh (SB) in any photos that don't have OOF areas a few meters or more from the focused subject.

I'd also like to suggest that the SB often shows up when the OOF area is composed of trees or tree branches. This is true of every photo with SB I've run across. Some characteristic of tree branches lend themselves to SB - not just in this optical formula, but with other lenses that provide SB.

I still don't understand the source of the swirl. For example, why does it appear as a swirl, rather than being more concentric?

Monty - your photo of the girl with the wagon is beautiful!

As an after thought, notice the similarities in Joe's and Monty's portraits: the subject is centered thus capitalizing on the artist's expected OOF rendition; the OOF subject is composed largely of trees positioned multiple meters from the focused subject; the SB leads the eye to focus on some dramatic portion of the image (the nipple/face or the girl's curly hair).

Struan Gray

8-May-2007, 01:09

John, without any evidence to the contrary, I believe you're correct concerning the importance of distance between the focus plane and out-of-focus swirl. I haven't seen the so-called swirly bokeh (SB) in any photos that don't have OOF areas a few meters or more from the focused subject.

I'd also like to suggest that the SB often shows up when the OOF area is composed of trees or tree branches. This is true of every photo with SB I've run across. Some characteristic of tree branches lend themselves to SB - not just in this optical formula, but with other lenses that provide SB.

Final print size has a lot of influence on just how distracting the swirl becomes. As a print gets larger the overall formal composition becomes less dominant unless you step right back. In this case the swirl distracts less and less - or at least, the photo looks less and less like it has been taken down a tunnel.

Narrowing of the iris off-axis is one source of swirl, but not the only one. Asymmetric aberrations like coma and astigmatism will also make fine detail whirl about in orbit. Some of the most swirly photos I have taken were with a cheap zoom lens on 35mm: on the macro setting close up pictures of flowers in grass ended up quite dizzy, mostly because of coma.

High-contrast fine detail will show the swirl most effectively. Tree branches against a lighter sky work well, but other things will do the job. For a very different sort of subject matter see this picture:

http://www.shorpy.com/node/480?size=_original

Effects due to the cat's-eye narrowing of the iris will be very distance-dependent, but aberrations from wide-aperture use on a poorly-corrected lens can be less so. I suspect this photo's swirl resulted from trying to keep the exposure as short as possible. Alexander Gardner presumably had access to 'better' lenses.

Ole Tjugen

8-May-2007, 01:33

...

http://www.shorpy.com/node/480?size=_original

Effects due to the cat's-eye narrowing of the iris will be very distance-dependent, but aberrations from wide-aperture use on a poorly-corrected lens can be less so. I suspect this photo's swirl resulted from trying to keep the exposure as short as possible. Alexander Gardner presumably had access to 'better' lenses.

I'll hazard a guess that that picture was taken with a Periskop-type lens. These lenses (together with Aplanats/RR's, which weren't invented until the following year) have a strong astigmatism, where the tangential focus returns to the baseline at about 30° off center while sagittal focus shoots off into the unknown. :D

Meniscii, landscape lenses and Petzvals don't return to zero at any point so the "swirl" wouldn't have been as painfully sharp. :cool:

Marko Trebusak

8-May-2007, 02:36

OK, here is my contribution. Taken with Petzval type lens from unknown Magic lantern. Roughly 6" long wide open (no other options anyway) at f4.5 and 30 sec on 4x5 Delta 100, developed in Pyrocat HD.

Marko

Jim Galli

8-May-2007, 07:09

Here's one that doesn't "swirl" :confused: although it couldn't get much wilder.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Wolly4Petzval_2s.jpg
obviously haunted house

Done hand held with a Speed Graphic and a little 4" Wollensak Projection petzval of about f3 aperture. Film was some ancient tri-X that had come in some holders with a camera outfit I bought to get the lenses. This is one of those times you wish you had been a little more serious about the quality of the capture. Do over's never seem to work.

Eric James

8-May-2007, 12:31

Struan Gray

8-May-2007, 12:49

Thanks for the explaination and other comments Struan. I've been trying to get the shorpy link to open since soon after you posted your response, but my connection is having a bad day. I might have to go to work on my day off, thanks to you:)

Shorpy is worth a browse when they get back up, but they get their photos from the Library of Congress. The photo I referred to is here:

http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cwpb/04200/04200v.jpg

Robb_Scharetg

8-May-2007, 15:37

Jim et. al.

A very interesting thread to say the least. Thought I'd throw a few out there, although they're not Petzval lenses, however they do have an interesting 'visual signature' none the less.

1st shot (Bar shot) is with a Reitzschel 135/1.9 (L) shot at 1.9, (R) @ 2.8., shot on a Speed Graphic-Polaroid film. Quite a difference between 1.9 & 2.8 eh?

2nd shot done with a Grun Anistigmatic (9" I think, @ 4.5-W.O.) on NC 160/Speed-Graflex Type D. Wonderful lens, great look, hard to find.

3rd shot-150/2.8 Xenotar-W.O., on a 3.25x4.25 Super D, VC 160. Great old standby lens, works for everything.

4th shot-©David Burnett (got to put that in there-he shot it), done on a Speed Graphic, 165/1.8 Ernostar, shot wide open. Very interesting signature.

I'll load more in a bit shot with other glass. Comments?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

8-May-2007, 15:49

Robb,

I have been facinated by Ernostars (with or without David Burnett) for some time, any chance you have any other images made with it? I would love to see them.

Thank you.

Robb_Scharetg

8-May-2007, 15:57

Hi Jason

I may have a few more of my kids that David shot, I'll need to look around my HD to find them-it'll be a bit before I can post.

gbogatko

8-May-2007, 15:57

I have two official Petzval style lenses: A Voigtlander brass canon and a Wollensak Studio Portrait. The Voigtlander's "wide open" is about 70mm. I haven't measured the Wolly, but it appears to be the same. Here are 4 photos; 2 with each:

1 and 4 are with the Wolly, and 2 and 4 are with the Voigtlander. F stop is around f/5 for all.

George

David A. Goldfarb

8-May-2007, 17:24

Here's an 8x10" Polaroid I posted a while back from my Voigtlander Petzval of about 10"/f:4.5 at f:5.6 for this shot--

http://www.apug.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3943&d=1137950726

Here's the lens with an SK Grimes flange and waterhouse stop--

http://www.apug.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3905&d=1137532488

Jan_6568

8-May-2007, 22:26

Here is Puyo-de Pulligy The Adjustable Landscape Lens sample, not Petzval type and the swirl comes from the subject but... Sinar 5x7, FP4+ developed in Pyrocat-HD, lens at stopped down to about f 92.
Taken in Sonoita grasslands, south Arizona, last weekend.

Jan

Erich Hoeber

9-May-2007, 17:55

Here are some Petzval shots... all wide open.

The first two are made with a 5 inch Petz on 4x5. It's a Dallmeyer lens of very early vintage 1861?? (with the rear elements in the original Petz configuration rather than the later reversed "Patent" configuration).

The third image is a 7" Petz on 4x5. Manufacturer unknown.

Gene McCluney

9-May-2007, 18:25

Eric, that Oval Vignette on your photos is applied when you make the print? A lens vignette would be round?

Robert Cockrell

10-May-2007, 20:20

ambrotype made with Jamin ,visa portrait lens made before Darlot took over in 1861.
best regards,
robert cockrell

Erich Hoeber

11-May-2007, 16:07

Eric, that Oval Vignette on your photos is applied when you make the print? A lens vignette would be round?

No. In those first two photos. The lens doesn't quite cover the format and there's a lot of fall-off, but it's actually a round field of course. I think it just looks oval 'cause of the 4x5 frame.

Jim Galli

30-Mar-2008, 23:03

I'm quite excited about some work I did this weekend in an old forge.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/711Tongs24Petzval_1m.jpg
Tongs & Hammers

Done with the Eastman 7X11 camera and a rare 24" Bausch & Lomb projection petzval. I love what the selective focus does to my head. Is it just me?

David Karp

30-Mar-2008, 23:06

Love that shot Jim.

Jim Galli

30-Mar-2008, 23:21

Love that shot Jim.

Thanks Dave. I worked my tush off for 2 days. 2 glorious days! I had a ball. About 26 new negs for the effort. It'll take a while to get 'em scanned. Many were done with my little Seneca full plate camera like yours. That little thing is a joy to use and the Cooke lens seems to be perfectly matched. I kind of need the money but I'm hoping no one buys it.

enochRoot

31-Mar-2008, 20:25

great shot jim! and i think i've found a new favorite format (for down the road). never hard of 7x11 before, but the proportions are great!

sapata

2-Apr-2008, 15:29

I know I'm late but I have to say that this thread it's been amazing ! I'm trying to get hold of a lens that would give me those kind of effect.

The pictures I've seen here are truly inspiring... I want to buy one now !!!

Thank you guys for sharing this...

Blueberrydesk

13-Apr-2008, 16:13

I finally got out to shoot with the lens I got off Jim a few months ago. My girlfriend's mom's mom's gravesite in Angel's Camp, CA.

http://sundownis.com/April/romaggiSmlWeb.jpg

I darkened the letters on the gravestone in PS, but I like the straight print better. Scanned from the print. FP4+ in Pyrocat HD, printed on Bergger VC FB. I haven't toned it yet, and I can't wait to try and lith print this, I'm hoping I can bring the contrast in the headstone up with that method, and tone in Sepia.

goamules

14-Apr-2008, 20:28

I decided to post a wetplate I shot today, my first with "The Littlest Petzval," a Darlot CDV of about 6" focal length. I was happy with how it worked in close.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2415097372_1d4803048b_o.png

A couple weeks ago I shot my first with "Doctor Darlot", a ginormous Petzval of about...well...8 pounds.... Lens and wetplate taken here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33261&page=2&highlight=darlot

Garrett
www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157601802735284/

gbogatko

20-Apr-2008, 10:51

Here's one with a brass-cannon Voigtlander, which I estimate to be in the 300mm range. The image circle is large, so on 4x5 (all I can afford right now) one mostly gets the sharp center filling the plate, with few typical petzval swirls around the edges.

What one does get from this is a nice shallow field depth. Opened far enough, it seems to emphasize only those tree limbs that contribute to an overall arch effect. I have other shots of this bridge from the same location and the limbs don't form an overall arch. In this instance, I like the effect. It's not so in-your-face as with a shorter version.

George

xmishx

20-Apr-2008, 13:37

Joe,

I know I'm late in the show here, but what a beautiful image. Top 5 Image material!

Thanks for sharing...

Ted

http://my.net-link.net/~jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/Ellen_glass.jpg

russyoung

24-Apr-2008, 07:03

George-

Your bridge image is subtle and gorgeous. For my taste, this is a classic Petzval rendering, understated but of distinct character, not in-your-face.

Russ

Jon Wilson

28-Apr-2008, 20:23

I just recently picked up this nice little petzval lens (5 inch Seroco). Here is a chrome taken this petzval....Mother & Daughter

Jim Galli

28-Apr-2008, 20:26

Sweeet Jon.

Jim Galli

5-May-2008, 07:58

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Wee_Petzvals/O2.jpg
baby owls ii

Done with a 16" Gundlach #1 Simplex movie projector petzval lens. It's 16" f11 and at this extension, about 24", I used f16 for metering. It was in the FS section and after making this photo........I pulled the plug on the sale :p

domenico Foschi

5-May-2008, 08:25

The tonalities, Jim, are precious, kind of icy just like her stare.

Jim Galli

5-May-2008, 08:37

Thanks Domenico. This film is some 18X24cm stuff that J&C was blowing out for a long time for like 10 cents a sheet because it was "defective". I've never found the defect and I wish I had bought 50 boxes of it instead of just 2. It is delicious.

Jon Wilson

5-May-2008, 11:38

Nice shot Jim....as always! BTW, the little petzval arrived today! "How sweeeeet it is!" Jon

enochRoot

5-May-2008, 13:21

got my little one today too! i think this is the one i've been looking for!

gbogatko

8-May-2008, 11:45

George-

Your bridge image is subtle and gorgeous. For my taste, this is a classic Petzval rendering, understated but of distinct character, not in-your-face.

Russ

Thanks russ!!

gb

Tom Perkins

13-May-2008, 08:34

This is my first exposure with an Eastman 2D and a Wollensack petzval, with the Packard shutter and lens from Jim in Tonopah. It is about an 8" lens and covers whole plate at infinity; covers 8x10 as here in close quarters.

Joakim Ahnfelt

13-May-2008, 14:28

Ok, after having looked at all this amazing pictures I have to ask the Stupid Question. How do you know if a lens is a Petzval?

Jim Galli

13-May-2008, 14:41

Ok, after having looked at all this amazing pictures I have to ask the Stupid Question. How do you know if a lens is a Petzval?

Petzvals are usually identified by having a cemented doublet up front, and 2 glasses with air space between at the rear. Normally long and narrowish compared to more modern designs, they cover only about 30 degrees.

CCHarrison

14-May-2008, 02:59

Joakim - read my Petval Lens Article

http://members.aol.com/summaron7/petzval.htm

Dan

Joakim Ahnfelt

14-May-2008, 06:39

Thanks Dan, will read it when i get home.

Jon Wilson

29-Aug-2008, 20:38

Elephant Ears taken with a 4 inch petzval and my "shuttered" pacemaker. The color is little off, but it is an early effort with this lens. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7763500

seawolf66

31-Aug-2008, 07:41

Jim Galli: I have yet to see something bad from any of the cupboards lens that you stashed away , Beautifull shot , Good thing the was in the photographic MOOD ![LOL]

Daniel_Buck

31-Aug-2008, 09:16

in the pits!

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/vara_04.jpg

Dave Aharonian

31-Aug-2008, 15:56

I've just started shooting a series of nudes with a Darlot Portrait lens I picked up a few months ago. Here's one of my favourites so far.

Hugo Zhang

31-Aug-2008, 18:24

Dave,

I like this one, very interesting mood. :)

Now I need a real Petzval like Darlot.

Hugo

Joe Smigiel

31-Aug-2008, 22:36

Nice image Dave.

Jim Galli

1-Sep-2008, 16:01

Jim Galli: I have yet to see something bad from any of the cupboards lens that you stashed away , Beautifull shot , Good thing the was in the photographic MOOD ![LOL]

Thanks Lauren! :)

domenico Foschi

1-Sep-2008, 16:18

I've just started shooting a series of nudes with a Darlot Portrait lens I picked up a few months ago. Here's one of my favourites so far.

Poetry.

GSX4

3-Sep-2008, 12:13

Beautiful image Dave! Wow.

Jim Galli

26-Sep-2008, 19:31

A new image with Eddie Lens 2.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/EddieLens/EddieLensRoseS.jpg
eddie lens rose

Done in 5X7 with 4 3/4 inch Bausch Lomb theatre projector lens. FP4 Dektol

MenacingTourist

29-Sep-2008, 12:46

Dave,

This is a beautiful example of why we love the Petzvals. In the right hands of course.

Alan.

Jon Wilson

26-Apr-2009, 17:11

Here is a shot I took yesterday of my grandson and wife. I used a 6 inch Gasc Charonnet f3 (estimated 6 inch and f3), a packard shutter setup with a 5x7 back on my Universal Century 8x10. The film was Arista 125 ISO.

unrealalex

27-Apr-2009, 02:22

Here is picture taken with Emil Busch 210/3.5

http://www.ambrotype.ru/blog/MeInHat.jpg (http://www.ambrotype.ru/index_en.html)
Man in a hat, Ambrotype on black glass, 8x10"

sapata

27-Apr-2009, 02:37

brilliant shot and wonderful pics on your webpage... !

Emil Schildt

30-Apr-2009, 10:58

I've just started shooting a series of nudes with a Darlot Portrait lens I picked up a few months ago. Here's one of my favourites so far.

Normally I think nudes done in the nature are "problematic" (I have done a few my self, and think it is difficult)..
But seeing this, all the pieces fall together. Like the beautiful images of Smiegel.

Greatly done! and the swirly background is a good one in this image too..

I have just fitted my very biggest petzval to my 12x16 Gandolfi (it actually looks too big even for this camera...:p ).
I mesured it to be a ca 470mm F5.6, and it weighs more than 8 kg's....
But looking at the matt screen, I gat ALL the swirlyness I will ever need..:rolleyes:

Must do some images with this one!

Kerik Kouklis

30-Apr-2009, 12:21

I agree w/Gandolfi. Most nudes in the landscape just look, well, out of place and awkward. Dave, your work rocks!

Dave Aharonian

2-May-2009, 09:33

Mucho appreciato, Kerik and gandolfi! I'm glad you like them, because I plan on shooting a lot more of them! Now that I own 4 petzvals.......

Jim Galli

2-May-2009, 11:35

monkeymon

4-May-2009, 09:44

Really nice, shows what these lenses can do without all that swirly effect thing.

Joe Smigiel

4-May-2009, 13:31

A couple from a half-plate Darlot Petzval. These were done for Wetplate Collodion Photography Day 2009 (http://www.wetplateday.org/). They are half-plate ambrotypes on black glass.

http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/Wetplate_Day_2009/WWWCPDay_050209_04.jpg http://my.net-link.net/BA/D5/jsmigiel/images/technical/collodion/Wetplate_Day_2009/WWWCPDay_050209_05.jpg

They are also the first set of portraits I've done in wetplate using electronic flash. I front-mounted a synched Packard shutter to the lens, used an f/8ish waterhouse stop, and gave full-tilt 4800ws with the main at 4 feet with a diffused 2400ws head about 7 feet away.

sapata

4-May-2009, 15:27

Really beautiful... one day I'll try the wetcollodion process.

Kerik Kouklis

4-May-2009, 15:55

Petzvals and collodion are a magical combo. Here is one of my contributions to the http://www.wetplateday.org/ project. I made this as a memorial to a high school friend and world class trombonist Steve Witser who died unexpectedly a week ago at the way-too-young age of 48.

http://kerik.com/for_steve_witser_1.jpg

8x10 collodion on aluminum
Derogy Portrait Lens wide open

mtfilm

5-May-2009, 12:10

Dumb question, but does this optical look require collodion, or could it be achieved with 8x10 film, a modern 8x10 camera, and maybe a rigged Petzval type lens?

Thank you.

Kerik Kouklis

5-May-2009, 12:44

The swirliness is from using a Petzval on a larger format than it was intended. The tonality is from the collodion process. So, yes, with an 8x10 camera, film and the right Petzval, you'll get the swirlies.

mtfilm

5-May-2009, 12:55

Jeremy Moore

5-May-2009, 13:07

Kerik,

Thanks. So this swirl, adapted to film, would be more like 2 1/4 or 4x5 in size, to get the medium too large for film size?

I'm trying to achieve this for commercial applications, where collodion is not really an option.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say in regards to '2 1/4 and 4x5 when adapted to film', but the swirl comes from using a Petzval lens on a format larger than intended as Kerik said.

So, for example, if you use a Petzval designed by the lens company to be a portrait lens for 5x7 or whole plate (6.5" x 8.5") on an 8x10 camera you can induce the swirl.

Don7x17

5-May-2009, 13:38

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Oregon2009/Wedding_4s.jpg
Zeffirina & Rosie

Last month on vacation in Oregon my daughter was photographing a mexican wedding and asked me to join in the fun. We worked for Sangria and joy. Zeffirina is just a poor dishwasher but let me tell you, these folks know how to dance and have a grand time with nothing but some loud mariachi music and a pickle bucket of home made Sangria. We were well paid.

This done with the 14" Gundlach that I just sold Don. 8X10 standing at the sea in Oregon.

Outstanding image, Jim. I see this lens has excellent provenance.

And an excellent story that goes with the image. Too often people with money are snotty turds, and those without will give everything they possibly can and have joy...
Your story and image remind me of Shelby Lee Adams work...another fine photographer.

Kerik Kouklis

5-May-2009, 14:04

So, for example, if you use a Petzval designed by the lens company to be a portrait lens for 5x7 or whole plate (6.5" x 8.5") on an 8x10 camera you can induce the swirl.

What Jeremy said ^^^

Jim Galli

5-May-2009, 14:07

Outstanding image, Jim. I see this lens has excellent provenance.

And an excellent story that goes with the image. Too often people with money are snotty turds, and those without will give everything they possibly can and have joy...
Your story and image remind me of Shelby Lee Adams work...another fine photographer.

Thanks Don.

Emil Schildt

5-May-2009, 15:16

I HAVE to try also...
the swirley baggrounds are sometimes fantastic - sometimes not!
BUT, if oyu havn't tried it before, then it is FUN to try... the learning about when and how it works best must come later..

these two images, are really quick tests.
I used my GIGANTIC 8.5kg Kranz 470mm F5.6 (est) on my 12x16 Gandolfi.

If not anything else, it swirls.....

Rita in my garden:

http://www.phosee.dk/pictures/00000084/573-eksperimentering-med-objektiver-4_800x600.jpg

and Kristina

http://www.phosee.dk/pictures/00000084/572-eksperimentering-med-objektiver-4_800x600.jpg

sapata

5-May-2009, 15:48

Amazing pictures...
I've got an old lens mounted in my 1860 plate camera, I was thinking of mounting the lens in my Toyo View... any suggestions ?

Kerik Kouklis

5-May-2009, 16:34

Wow, Gandolfi, those are making me dizzy! I like them. Here's one of my favorite Swirly plates. Senior Prom 2008 (8x10 collodion on aluminum, Derogy portrait lens):

http://kerik.com/wp_portraits/images/wp112.jpg

The kids thought it was "F-ing awesome!! How'd you do that?!" :)

Joe Forks

5-May-2009, 16:36

mtfilm

5-May-2009, 18:09

Jeff Bannow

5-May-2009, 18:44

From a recent project on dreams ...

Emil Schildt

6-May-2009, 02:56

I think it's a subtle dance, honestly. Too much, and it ends up kinda like some Wayne'sWorld dream sequence, or time travel, which, to me, is not that appealing. It appears to me, the trick here is matching up the right camera format with exactly the right lens, so that you don't have too much swirl -- where it appears right on the edges, and not too much. I have no idea how you control that. I guess just by testing.

The best example in this whole thread, to me, is way back and Page One, with that nude in the woods by Joe Smigiel. Subtle and tasteful, and doesn't slap you in the face with the "effect".

Also, Smigiel's is tack sharp in at least one point, which seems to be crucial too, other than soft all over, like in other examples.

One opinion.

I think you're right.
about the sharpness: as mine is F5.6 and 470mm, used at full aperture, it is almost impossible to make this tack sharp - also because I have to alter the cassette a little to fit negatives in stead of glass negatives..
Also the movements are present (about 1 sec).

I have just made an aperture 11, and I now will see what I can do...

till then.

Kerik: LOVELY image - I can understand the Fu#### awesome comment - I get that from my students also...

Emil Schildt

6-May-2009, 02:57

From a recent project on dreams ...

jbannow: BEAUTIFUL! dreamlike..

eddie

6-May-2009, 03:12

I HAVE to try also...
the swirley baggrounds are sometimes fantastic - sometimes not!
BUT, if oyu havn't tried it before, then it is FUN to try... the learning about when and how it works best must come later..

these two images, are really quick tests.
I used my GIGANTIC 8.5kg Kranz 470mm F5.6 (est) on my 12x16 Gandolfi.

If not anything else, it swirls.....

Rita in my garden:

yup. it swirls. 8.5 KG! wow! i would love to see a picture of it one day also. what si the lens diameter?

Emil Schildt

6-May-2009, 04:22

yup. it swirls. 8.5 KG! wow! i would love to see a picture of it one day also. what si the lens diameter?

I'll take some snaps of it today...

the diameter is, as far se I remember, about 17cm.....:rolleyes:

So it needa a BIG front plate, and camera..

Jeff Bannow

6-May-2009, 04:59

jbannow: BEAUTIFUL! dreamlike..

Thanks! Glad to know it is effective then. :)

Emil Schildt

6-May-2009, 10:11

yup. it swirls. 8.5 KG! wow! i would love to see a picture of it one day also. what si the lens diameter?

as promised.

Laura for seizing..

Dave Aharonian

6-May-2009, 10:18

Here's a ridiculous Petzval set-up I've just started using. Its a small Darlot lens (about 4.5 inches) and it barely covers 4x5. I discovered that a copal 3 shutter will fit over the end without vignetting. It looks really silly but it works like a charm and its very nice to have a range of shutter speeds now.

The portrait was shot on Polaroid 665 film.

Emil Schildt

6-May-2009, 10:37

BarryS

6-May-2009, 11:58

Here's one of my first wet plates--a 5"X7" Alumitype shot on my 8x10 Kodak 2D with an 8" Darlot magic lantern Petzval. About 25 seconds wide open.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8652/wpbrasseyes.jpg

sdivot

6-May-2009, 14:30

Ok, I'm taking some liberties here. This was shot on a modified MF camera, but it IS a LF Petzval lens. And this IS the LF Lens category. This is from one of Jim Galli's wee petzvals. This is currently my favorite lens.
The image is a gumover pt/pd.
Steve
www.scdowellphoto.com

sdivot

6-May-2009, 14:32

And another....

eddie

6-May-2009, 15:09

It appears to me, the trick here is matching up the right camera format with exactly the right lens, so that you don't have too much swirl -- where it appears right on the edges, and not too much. I have no idea how you control that. I guess just by testing.

what i do is i start at infinity and then begin to focus closer watching the swirls come in. you can also vary the distance to the swirl material. using highlights like tree branches work great.

i have a voigtlander 7B that is designed for 8x10 and it swirls on 8x10 at infinity....so not all have to be used on larger than intended formats. most of the early (1870 and before) lenses have more swirl.

as promised.

Laura for seizing..

oh baby! i want one! thanks for the picture.

here is the 7B that i was talking about. 8x10 film at a bit less than infinity. (sorry if it is a re post)

Joe Forks

6-May-2009, 18:34

what i do is i start at infinity and then begin to focus closer watching the swirls come in. you can also vary the distance to the swirl material. using highlights like tree branches work great.

i have a voigtlander 7B that is designed for 8x10 and it swirls on 8x10 at infinity....so not all have to be used on larger than intended formats. most of the early (1870 and before) lenses have more swirl.

oh baby! i want one! thanks for the picture.

here is the 7B that i was talking about. 8x10 film at a bit less than infinity. (sorry if it is a re post)

I have absolutely no experience with these lenses, but what surprised me, looking at Kerik's image was the swirl limited to the background. The boy's head overlay's the swirl and that was a completely new observation for me.

I'll get me a swirly lens one of these days.

mtfilm

6-May-2009, 20:02

what i do is i start at infinity and then begin to focus closer watching the swirls come in. you can also vary the distance to the swirl material. using highlights like tree branches work great.

Eddie,

Nice effect. What would have happened if you'd had that man come closer to the camera? The swirl effect would have been reduced?

Is it written down anywhere a list of some of the buzzwords or brands that you'd look for, if you were trying to find a lens style like this, for traditional 8x10 film camera? (Or should I say "modern" film camera, compared to collodion?)

Petzval?
Are there any "inches" or lengths to look for, for swirl on 8x10?

Feels funny to have serious discussion, calling this "swirl" but I guess it works. If I was to confess, I do fake-swirl, in Photoshop, by doing a 250px feather around the edges, and then do a Radial Blur, using "Best/1" setting. But that would be heresy to admit that here, on this forum, I suppose. It's not the same, but when you're under the gun, doing commercial work very fast, it's the onliest option.

goamules

6-May-2009, 20:55

MTFILM,
There are are few designs of lenses that have this affect. A Petzval is one that is most pronounced. Any brand can do it, but typically the faster f3 to f4 ones do it more. The Verito is an actual type/make, and I have an f6 Aplanat that does it. It's caused by spherical aberrations in the out of focus area, especially if there are highlights and a busy background. So basically the subject won't ever swirl, unless the subject is out of focus and busy. There are a couple of articles on petzvals linked to in other recent posts.

eddie

7-May-2009, 03:32

Eddie,

Nice effect. What would have happened if you'd had that man come closer to the camera? The swirl effect would have been reduced?

yes, in this case it would have been reduced. BUT if i had moved closer to the busy background and re focused i could move the subject closer and still maintain the swirl.

the older lenses are less corrected so they will swirl more. most will. look for the projection lenses....those without water house stops. they will be the cheapest ones.

many kinds of lenses will swirl. i once used a 7 inch triplet lens design and had it swirl. i will look for the photo and post it if i can find it.

eddie

mtfilm

7-May-2009, 08:02

many kinds of lenses will swirl. i once used a 7 inch triplet lens design and had it swirl. i will look for the photo and post it if i can find it.

eddie

Do you guys on this forum own all the lenses? They're all bought up? And you all just come here and get jealous that everyone else found a swirlier lens than you?

Do they still come up for sale? Is there some guy here that monitors Ebay Buy It Now, and they're gone in seconds...?

What's the most common shutter? Packard? Or try to glue them to a Copal 3?

Mark Sawyer

7-May-2009, 08:12

Lots of swirl-capable lenses go by on ebay every week, some at bargain prices. You just need to know what you're looking for...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=370193880737

goamules

7-May-2009, 09:47

I agree with Mark, many makers made petzvals for 70 years. And they are just one of the lenses with the swirl aberration. What happens is fads come and go. Feeding frenzy makes the impression of rarity. Right now we are at a period of popularity. Hence, the auctions with the right keywords (swirl, etc.) will go pretty high sometimes.

But look at that great little CDV darlot that Mark points out for under $10. And I bet the same week a no-name, projector petzval with a broken tangent drive sold for over $150. I saw a top name American 1850s petzval sell for under $350 the same week a basic 1920 magic lantern lens sell for $350. It's kinda like Vegas. I tried to sell a little ML lens a couple weeks ago here and no one wanted it for $135. You will get one if you want one.

mtfilm

15-May-2009, 11:05

Yesterday, we worked with a full plate camera, and a variety of petzvals. A friend had the full-plate; I had an 8x10 Deardorff. At one point we took off a relatively small petzval, and roughly held it up to the front standard of the Deardorff and blacked out around the lens. It didn't cover, but it was still an interesting effect.

I'm looking for a way to actually shoot a job with a Petzval lens. To be able to work quickly, with 8x10, shooting film, but working with a trustable shutter. A packard I don't think will cut it; too much room for error.

The goal, to me, is to buy a Copal 3, or even Copal 2, and then try to find a Petzval that would cover 8x10, but that also would be small enough that it could be glued or mounted to a Copal 3, so that the Copal 3 did not reduce the max fstop of the lens. But this way, you'd have a trustable shutter for quick shooting.

Are there any recommendations for a "focal length" of a Petzval, to where it would be somewhat similar to a 50mm on a 35 camera? Or maybe even a 70-85mm type length, on a 35? How are Petzvals marked, in centimeters or inches or mms?

I'm not looking for a pretty solution; I'm looking for a workable solution. Whatever it takes to be able to work quickly, and responsibly.

Thanks.

Jim Galli

15-May-2009, 11:30

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Steinheil_n_Dallmeyer2/DallmeyerPortrait_2S.jpg
windowsill, backlit

Done with a 18" f5.6 Dallmeyer Portrait lens.

mtfilm, just trying to help. Reality is that the size of an f4 glass of a petzval that will cover 8X10 would be throttled to about f11 with a Copal 3 shutter. That is just the simple reality of the mathematics. If you're going to go down the petzval road successfully, imho of course, you'll need to ween yourself from modern shutters and embrace 1/25th second with a Packard. It is very repeatable. Flash sync is an option. Again, just trying to be helpful, not critical in any way. 80% of the stuff on my pages is done that way, as was the photograph above in very difficult light.

Also, the whole swirliness thing is over-rated. As soon as everyone is on board, that boat will sink. It's very trendy and more than probably over done. Again, my humble opine.

Pete Watkins

15-May-2009, 13:41

MT,
I don't know if this is any help but LUC shutters are available in Europe. They come in various sizes and have three grub screws that enable them to fit onto the front of a lens, you get about a 25th of a second exposure when you fire them. I've used one on an old British lens that covered 5x7, I've not tried it on anything bigger yet.
Pete

mtfilm

16-May-2009, 14:31

[CENTER]If you're going to go down the petzval road successfully, imho of course, you'll need to ween yourself from modern shutters and embrace 1/25th second with a Packard. It is very repeatable.

Thanks. I understand what you're saying. I'm not going to pursue it any further. But the demands of a commercial job, where you've got to "make it work right now, in any condition, perfectly", are just too high for this approach. At least for me. Thanks for the honest information.

Jeremy Moore

16-May-2009, 14:50

Thanks. I understand what you're saying. I'm not going to pursue it any further. But the demands of a commercial job, where you've got to "make it work right now, in any condition, perfectly", are just too high for this approach. At least for me. Thanks for the honest information.

I use a 9" verito I front mounted to an Ilex #5 shutter giving me shutter speeds from 1 sec - 1/50th sec and flash sync.

Gene McCluney

16-May-2009, 19:32

Thanks. I understand what you're saying. I'm not going to pursue it any further. But the demands of a commercial job, where you've got to "make it work right now, in any condition, perfectly", are just too high for this approach. At least for me. Thanks for the honest information.

To each his own. I have done plenty of 8x10 color transparencies (catalog work) with hot lights and barrel lens with packard shutter, and a stop watch.

Jim Galli

17-May-2009, 12:29

A new one done yesterday.......

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/HarleyDAvidson_5Bs.jpg
Harley Davidson Motor
Cycles

Sometimes the swirlies are fun. This done with a Voigtlander 5B 9" f3.6 on full plate. Wide open. Open shade. Packard shutter. asa 32 film.

eddie

17-May-2009, 13:49

A new one done yesterday.......

Sometimes the swirlies are fun. This done with a Voigtlander 5B 9" f3.6 on full plate. Wide open. Open shade. Packard shutter. asa 32 film.

simply awesome! i have a 7B and it is the best lens i own ...IMO ...:)

shoot it some more.

eddie

Jim Galli

17-May-2009, 14:39

Well, since Eddie goaded and I'm easily persuaded.........dos mas!

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/UglyTruck_2s.jpg
ugly truck 2

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/UglyTruck_1s.jpg
ugly truck 1

Same lens, same scenario. I originally bought the "ugly truck" when my 3 girls were about 2 1/2, 3 1/2, and 5. They are all grown up now and have given me grandsons older than they were when they rode in this truck. At our house it was simply called the ugly truck. Now there's obviously no good reason for that as anyone can see it's a handsome machine! Did you ever notice old men and their trucks begin to look more and more like each other? Just a thought.

csant

17-May-2009, 15:03

Did you ever notice old men and their trucks begin to look more and more like each other? Just a thought.

As long as "old men" don't get that swirly… :D
Beautiful shots, Jim.

Mark Sawyer

17-May-2009, 15:10

[CENTER]http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/HarleyDAvidson_5Bs.jpg

Aha! Jim's been misleading us, telling us he gets those old lenses from "little green men". Well, Jim, you've been caught driving the old Ford through a wormhole back in time to get them. I suspected as much all along!

Wonderful pictures though... :D The focus on the Harley decal is the perfect touch!

Jim Galli

17-May-2009, 15:22

Aha! Jim's been misleading us, telling us he gets those old lenses from "little green men". Well, Jim, you've been caught driving the old Ford through a wormhole back in time to get them. I suspected as much all along!

Wonderful pictures though... :D The focus on the Harley decal is the perfect touch!

Thanks Csant and Mark. Yes, I love how the harley 'wings' seem to be hovering. That's what you don't quite see in the ground glass that makes these weird petzval creations fun.

chachahavana

18-May-2009, 09:05

Hi Jim
These set of images are amazing !!
I've been following your web-site and uploads in this forum for quite sometime, I have a question to ask, will sent you a PM.
cheers
ChaCha

Jon Wilson

6-Jun-2009, 19:52

Here are 2 pictures taken with color negative film, old Kodak Pro100. The first one is a 14 inch Derogy at f8 and the 2nd one was taken with a 12 inch Voightlander with an estimated aperture of f8. The Derogy is not a petzval or at least it is marked as Derogy #4 Apl, probably an abbreviation for Aplant (sp).

Turner Reich

6-Jun-2009, 23:07

I opened this thread and my jaw dropped to the floor, before I could read the details I know there was something special about the first series of images that Jim posted on his thread. It was a Pan X and Rodinal combination.

If you were versed in it back in the days then your heart will start to pound, I don't care what people say, there was nothing that even came close to Panatomic X and in this case put to the far end of excellent.

Jon Wilson

28-Jul-2009, 19:33

Here are a couple shots taken with my 4 inch f2.7 Seroco and my Pacemaker.

Don7x17

29-Jul-2009, 11:13

Aha! Jim's been misleading us, telling us he gets those old lenses from "little green men". Well, Jim, you've been caught driving the old Ford through a wormhole back in time to get them. I suspected as much all along!
!

So this means that he is displacing them from their otherwise current owners by diverting them earlier in their time path.....anyone have lenses suddenly gone missing? ;-) ... actually according to all the science fiction books, you'd never have had them so you'd only have a vague sense of loss....

Outstanding pictures, Jim.