PDA

View Full Version : Dagor Images ?



Ken Lee
19-May-2008, 09:08
Some have written that Dagor lenses do not dazzle in any one category, but are fine in all of them. Ever in search of that magic "silver bullet", I would love to see some sample photos which illustrate the Dagor look. Could anyone share ?

Vick Vickery
19-May-2008, 09:15
Look to Ansel Adams books...he used Dagors alot...not exclusively, but alot! :)

Steve Hamley
19-May-2008, 12:10
I think I can provide a useful post when I get home if I can find the right images. Anyone know off the top of their head what the maximum file size is for an upload?

Thanks,

Steve

Steve Hamley
19-May-2008, 12:41
Ken,

O.K. I found them in archived e-mail. Lets give a try. The images are of a monument in Knoxville's Old Gray Cemetery and were made with a 12" Gold Dot Dagor on 8x10, probably Ilford HP4, distance to monument about 10 feet. The exposure was probably around 2 seconds at about f:32. Light was bright overcast although the statue was in shade. The first image is a scan of the negative and you can see how the OOF areas are rendered. The second is detail in the monument. The images have been sharpened a bit to make up for my scanner, but otherwise unmanipulated in a way that would affect detail, other than sizing for the forum.

Hope you can tell something about the lens properties. Maybe, maybe not. The reason I made the jpegs was because I was surprised that the image had a kind of pleasant softness, yet if examined critically had high detail in the sharply focused areas. On the negative, you can see individual lichen fronds on the cherub.

Steve

sparq
19-May-2008, 14:24
I am no Dagor-Meister, but here are two thumbnails with links to LARGE versions from me. Both were taken with 6.8/7'' Dagor.

#1 5x7 Efke 25, Barry T.'s 2 bath formula
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/1465004873_1931a13538_m.jpg (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/1465004873_f37e9efc84_o.jpg)

#2 10x4 Kodak SR-45, Barry T.'s formula
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2220/2090492832_8e491a5f83.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2220/2090492832_d0d32667b1_o.gif)

IanG
20-May-2008, 01:13
Apologies for the size, these are shot on 10x8 Classic Pan 200 (Forte) processed in Pyrocat HD, 12" Am Opt Dagor late 1030's, coated late 40's.

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/mine1.jpg

and a section

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/mine1_lg.jpg

Ian

fuegocito
20-May-2008, 10:43
hey bro, just have the thing you are looking for, I have made a series of tests between a 9 1/2" Dagor, Artar, G-claron, Fujinon-A and a 210 symmar-s.

Here it's the image made with a Dagor series III f/6.8, 1/2sec@f/45, J&C 400 film

The following two images is a cut and paste of the rest of the lenses' 100% crop of the center and bottom right corner;

The lettering denotes the following;
D=Dagor
A=Artar
F=Fujinon-A
G=G-Claron
S=210mm Symmar-S

how do people upload super large images???

Bill_1856
20-May-2008, 11:33
A characteristic (which I don't understand) of Dagor and most Leica lenses seems to be "sharp but soft."
Negatives can be enlarged bigger and bigger to giant sizes, and even though fine details may not be visible the images themselves never seem to become "fuzzy." The bigger prints just seem to be larger versions of the small prints. As I say, I don't understand this phenomena.
Many Dagor users complain of a focus shift when the lens is stopped down to working aperture.
The rear element may be used by itself at 1.7X the combined focal length.
Incidentally, the one image by St. Ansel which is often identified as being made with a Dagor is a very early one of trees across a stream in Yosemite, which is so incredibly soft that I wonder if it was made with a single element of the lens at full aperture? It is certainly not characteristic of Dagor quality.

Ken Lee
20-May-2008, 12:08
Wow - The images are really close to one another in appearance.

Are these images taken from analog enlargements, or are they scans from negatives ? Which scanner/resolution ?

Thanks for the comparison !

If you want to load a large image, you need to place it on a server somewhere. Then your post contains a reference to the image, rather than the image itself.

Kevin Crisp
20-May-2008, 12:13
"Wow - The images are really close to one another in appearance."

Yes, there is a lesson in there.

Jim Galli
20-May-2008, 12:19
Ken, after the first 3 images on this page (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Lodge/Lodge60.html), all of the rest were done with a Kern Gold Dot 14" Dagor. I've had lots of Dagor's over the years. What they do well is how they divvy up the contrast. A contrasty lens doesn't have to be as brutally sharp as say an Artar. Well placed contrast, especially in landscapes, gives the illusion of great sharpness.

fuegocito
20-May-2008, 12:51
The negatives were scanned with an Epson 4990 scanner at 2400. I must say the test dispelled a certain myth or hype around any one lens. To further this notion, I also made negative with a salvaged Wollensak 162mm Enlarging lens and an el cheapo 450mm Apo Tessar with a healthy ring a haze on the inside element. I used the center portion for this initial cut and paste. I then adjusted the curve a bit to make the images on par with each other for the one I posted earlier. The light was shifting while I was making exposures. I really should have waited for consistent lightings, but then if this to be done properly, I should have used lens resolution target charts and images done with aperture ranging from maximum and smallest...

Ken Lee
20-May-2008, 13:17
Robert - It's possible that a high-end scanner would see some differences, just as we might if we made large prints with a good enlarging lens. On the other hand, the Epson is said to give us 2100 spi, so a 4-6x enlargement is possible. Since I would never make prints larger than that (16x20), this suggests that all of these lenses would be good enough for most purposes.

Next time you're in the mood, it might be interesting to compare the blur look of this same set of lenses.;)

Jim Galli
20-May-2008, 13:26
The negatives were scanned with an Epson 4990 scanner at 2400. I must say the test dispelled a certain myth or hype around any one lens. To further this notion, I also made negative with a salvaged Wollensak 162mm Enlarging lens and an el cheapo 450mm Apo Tessar with a healthy ring a haze on the inside element. I used the center portion for this initial cut and paste. I then adjusted the curve a bit to make the images on par with each other for the one I posted earlier. The light was shifting while I was making exposures. I really should have waited for consistent lightings, but then if this to be done properly, I should have used lens resolution target charts and images done with aperture ranging from maximum and smallest...

Were these all done at f45?

fuegocito
20-May-2008, 15:09
These were done on 8x10 and yes, all at f/45.

A high end scanner will certainly make a difference in between the two scanners and in theory should discern more differences between each lens, but I think for a quick comparison, it really can be anything as long as every sheet film is scan on the same scanner and setting.

As for average use, these lenses does not make a big enough difference to me to pick one over the other...but I am sure there are people who will disagree:-)

Isn't out of focus-ness is more of a subjective preference:-) and no, I doubt I will ever be in the mood to do another test, this is the first and last...for now:-) It's just too much work, besides, I doubt I will ever have all these lenses in the same proximity again.

Jim Galli
20-May-2008, 15:18
These were done on 8x10 and yes, all at f/45.

A high end scanner will certainly make a difference in between the two scanners and in theory should discern more differences between each lens, but I think for a quick comparison, it really can be anything as long as every sheet film is scan on the same scanner and setting.

As for average use, these lenses does not make a big enough difference to me to pick one over the other...but I am sure there are people who will disagree:-)

Isn't out of focus-ness is more of a subjective preference:-) and no, I doubt I will ever be in the mood to do another test, this is the first and last...for now:-) It's just too much work, besides, I doubt I will ever have all these lenses in the same proximity again.

At f45 diffraction has equalized all of the lenses. You can't get more than about 30 lppm at that aperture because diffraction has limited and equalized the resolution. f22 is about max for a meaningful test of sharpness. At f45 the diffraction has made the bad lenses good and the good lenses bad to some extent.

Tri Tran
20-May-2008, 15:29
Ken, after the first 3 images on this page (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Lodge/Lodge60.html), all of the rest were done with a Kern Gold Dot 14" Dagor. I've had lots of Dagor's over the years. What they do well is how they divvy up the contrast. A contrasty lens doesn't have to be as brutally sharp as say an Artar. Well placed contrast, especially in landscapes, gives the illusion of great sharpness.

Hi Jim,
Any sharpen or unsharp mask in these pictures? If not the the 24 Gold dot is an amazing lens. Any idea between Kern 14 Gold dot vs 14Trigor Blue dot? Thanks.

Jim Galli
20-May-2008, 15:34
Hi Jim,
Any sharpen or unsharp mask in these pictures? If not the the 24 Gold dot is an amazing lens. Any idea between Kern 14 Gold dot vs 14Trigor Blue dot? Thanks.

Hi Tri. Those were done pretty early in my scanning learning curve and I honestly don't know. The web page images do represent the prints very well though. As to Trigor vss Dagor, I have them both and never bothered to try to sort that out. The Trigor obviously covers more. I sent it to Steve Hamley one time and he did some seat of the pants testing with it and decided it was no better no worse than the GD Dagor. You want it? I haven't used it in about 3 years. The Trigor that is. I'll be keeping the Dagor as shutters are definitely your friend in the woods. Jim

Ken Lee
20-May-2008, 16:27
At f45 diffraction has equalized all of the lenses. You can't get more than about 30 lppm at that aperture because diffraction has limited and equalized the resolution. f22 is about max for a meaningful test of sharpness. At f45 the diffraction has made the bad lenses good and the good lenses bad to some extent.

What Jim says.

With that in mind, the test demonstrates, as it were, the idea that all these lenses can be relied upon, to produce the same results at... f/45.

Yes, blur rendering is a subjective thing. Thanks to inspiration from this forum, I have been exploring it a lot lately, and doing my part to stimulate the economy - with the purchase of vintage lenses. Sparkqs photos show off the Dagor nicely, to my taste, while IanG's sample is razor-sharp.

I can certainly see why these lenses were well-liked.

IanG
20-May-2008, 22:21
A characteristic (which I don't understand) of Dagor and most Leica lenses seems to be "sharp but soft."
There's been plenty written about this over the years but you use the wrong word "soft".

In fact the better description is sharp and tonal, while Japanese lenses are sharp and wirey. It's purely lens design criteria, Japanese lenses give more apparent sharpness.

Ian

fuegocito
21-May-2008, 07:37
The test was not meant to be a "proper" test, it was suppose to be more or less a everyday sort of shoot... Ok I admit I was rather lazy about it... Like I said before, to do it properly, one need to have absolute control environment with lens resolution test target properly place across the field of view and exposure made at maximum, mid and close down aperture. Then repeat it all over from various distance...

If some one to pay me for a week's time, I might consider doing it...as is, f45 is where I shoot at most of the time so f/45 it is:-)

Ken Lee
21-May-2008, 08:14
It's still a valid test within those parameters - and it saved me some money - so I'm grateful !