Your favorite type of lens for wet plate collodion photography?

[Jay Decker]

Started pouring wet plate collodion recently. Tried different lenses along the way, and to my surprise, some of my favorite lenses with film don't translate well to wet plate.

Has anyone else found this? What are your favorite lenses types with wet plate collodion?

[Petzval Paul]

Petzval!Petzval!Petzval!

[Mark Sawyer]

It depends, I switch back and forth, Petzvals, RR's, Triplets, and Tessars mostly, but sometimes a multi-coated Plasmat. Lately I really like the look of an old uncoated Tessar shooting out through a dirty window. As I noted elsewhere, I don't like soft lenses on collodion, (although I love them for conventional silver prints). The soft lenses and collodion process both have strong signatures, and they seem incompatible to my eyes. The Petzvals often have strong signatures, but get along fine with collodion. Go figure...

[Jay Decker]

Petzval!Petzval!Petzval!


Yeah, Yeah... the Petzval's are great, particularly like the 3A, 3B, 4D, and the old Voigtander. But, the Eidoscope, one of my favorites on film, doesn't seem to like collodion - neither does the Verito...

[Jay Decker]

... Petzvals, RR's, Triplets, and Tessars mostly, but sometimes a multi-coated Plasmat.

Thus far, the most pleasing are the Petzvals, Portrait Euryscop (RR), Heliar, and Xenar (a Tessar formula). Haven't tried a Triplet yet... thanks for the suggestion!

[Craig Tuffin]

I like to use a selection of lenses from old petzvals to modern plasmats but really change them according to the 'feeling' I'm trying to create in the shot.

My favourite lens by far is my 18" Cooke Knuckler but it's far too large to use anywhere else but in my studio.

I used to agree with you in regards to SF lenses and ambrotypes/tintypes (I think wet plate negatives look terrific with SF lenses when salt or albumen printed) but recently put my Eidoscope to the test and was happy with the result as an ambro.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39934699@N06/6017123177/in/photostream

[Petzval Paul]

Although Petzvals, RR's and the like seem to be well-suited to wet plate, I have had some success with SF lenses when making negatives. Collodion positives and SF lenses don't seem to get along well, although I recall a View Camera cover by Jody Ake (IIRC) that was an ambro shot in soft focus that was just terrific. I guess you have to really be very careful not to blow out the highlights, which is all too easy to do anyway. Jody's portrait proved that it is possible to make a great image with an SF lens, but in the hands of someone with enough experience and patience. My experiments with SF ambros were not so successful.

[goamules]

I shoot medium fast petzvals mostly with wetplate. The really fast ones with the very narrow depth of field are harder to get the focus right, especially when exposures are several seconds. I'd rather use an F4 or F5 petzval and get it right, it with just a little more exposure time. Sometimes I really like Tessars and the contrast of a Dagor works well when the collodion is fresh.

[eddie]

Most of the aperture controlled sf lenses do not easily yield pleasing positive Images on wet plate......but they do if u make a negative and then print the neg.

[Jay Decker]

Most of the aperture controlled sf lenses do not easily yield pleasing positive Images on wet plate......but they do if u make a negative and then print the neg.

Does anyone know why images taken with aperture controlled Soft Focus lenses do not look good as wet plate positives (with a few exceptions such as Craig's example)?

[Craig Tuffin]

Does anyone know why images taken with aperture controlled Soft Focus lenses do not look good as wet plate positives (with a few exceptions such as Craig's example)?

I personally think it's because you lack control of the highlights. If they are blown out, they're blown out and it's really easy to do (mine is a bit blown out on the skirt). At least when you print from a neg you have a measure of control of the exposure to paper.

I also think that, if anything, the surface of an ambrotype or tintype accentuates the highest deposits of silver. It seems to be more acceptable (even if the image is partially solarised) when sharp and in focus.

With SF images it can tend to look like the photographer hasn't taken the time to focus correctly. It doesn't seem to be as big an issue on paper...particularly with a soft printing process such as salt prints.

[John Kasaian]

My favorite? The one thats on my camera at the time :D

[AlexGard]

Apart from the sometimes extra stop/half stop of speed, is there any real particular reason to get a vintage lens for WPC (not including "swirly bokeh")? I have a Darlot 13" f3.5, was just curious to see if there were any other big draws to a lens of vintage design. I see some WPC people like to keep as "authentic" as possible and like to use "vintage" equipment for whatever aesthetic reason (like old tripods/century stands, pre-1900 era wooden cameras, horse & cart, magnesium flash, living in tents etc)... if someone like me was to say that I was really only interested in the resulting image of the WPC process as opposed to the whole "scene" of vintage equipment, would a Petzval lens still serve an excellent purpose over a more modern lens? What are the pro's & cons of vintage lenses versus a modern lens for WPC?

Sorry to dig up an old thread, also don't mean to insult people who are interested in all the historical aspects of the process...

[Monty McCutchen]

I use vintage and modern lens for my wet plate work. As you say, it is open to the photographers desire but in regards to the image itself there is not issue with using any lens whatsoever for your wet plate look, excepting using the lens for the look you are trying to achieve and all the characteristics + vision combinations that entails. I've used petzvals that are 140 years old and a modern G-Claron that was coated and beautiful for film. Of course the G-Claron at f 9 took six days for the exposure…….

Use what you wish and live with results you love!

Monty

[Mark Sawyer]

Apart from the sometimes extra stop/half stop of speed, is there any real particular reason to get a vintage lens for WPC (not including "swirly bokeh")?

Coated lenses have a little more contrast. But there aren't many choices for fast modern coated lenses, while there are quite a few in the older lenses. Avoid Aero-Ektars and other lenses with radioactive glass that yellows, because that filters out much of the UV that wet plate needs.

Beyond that, whatever floats your boat!

[AlexGard]

Thanks for the replies. Maybe I should ask a different question; is there a way in which a vintage lens specifically designed for WPC (being made in that era, I guess) would render a scene more favourably than a more modern lens? Like will the sharpness or contrast from a vintage lens be better suited to WPC?

Beyond saying "I like the swirly bokeh and speed of a vintage petzval lens", are there any prominent characteristics an old lens like this would have on your images? As opposed to just sentimentality of people saying "I really like my "X" lens" ?

Again, only asking out of curiosity. And I know not all vintage lenses have "speed and swirly bokeh" going for them, but that seems to be the biggest selling point for a lot of people...


I should point out I'm not "dissing" on vintage lenses, I think they are fantastic and some of you guys and other artists I've seen around the place make aincredible images with them (also being a great photographer helps), I'm just asking out of genuine curiosity.

[goamules]

What I like is that vintage uncoated lenses let the entire spectrum through. Wetplate is inherently contrasty, if done right, and I don't need a coating to make any more contrast for me. Collodion works on just a small band of the light spectrum, I want water clear glass. I also like that a Petzval is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest design. You can get very, very good results with vintage lenses. Some of my petzvals are sharper than any lens made since WWII. Also, I just like using what the original artists did. I know there are reasons I like vintage better (speed, quality, history, sharpness), but it's not that easy to compare. I only shoot vintage for my film and wetplate, my newest lens is about 1965. My oldest is about 1848. I prefer the older.

Most wetplates you see today are a poor facsimile of the quality of those done in the 1800s. I don't know why, but many of the plates today are dark, low contrast, with tons of flaws. Yes, even including the swirl, which until 10 years, was considered a flaw and always avoided by the photographer. Today's rebellion against digital perfection causes many to never learn proper wetplate technique, and they are very happy with quite poor plates. I've been trying for 8 years to get perfect, flawless plates like the old masters, and rarely attain it. But I want to use the same lenses they did. To to answer your question, my favorite type of lens for wetplate is early American Petzval portrait lenses.

1863 wetpate by Gardner, click for larger:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7530/16252518282_b3e3ab893c_b.jpg (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7530/16252518282_eabac6b0cf_k.jpg)

2014 wetplate by myself, 1870 American radial drive:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3757/12577023914_2f52e05a4c_b.jpg

[goamules]

This CC Harrison globe lens is what most landscape photographs in Garner and Brady's time used. I don't use one of them, because I don't have one! But I do use vintage wide angles too.

http://www.samackenna.co.uk/samcooleydetail.png

This camera was used by Brady, and may have been used for his portraits of Lincoln. That's another thing I love to do, think about who else my 1850s lenses may have taken.

http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/i/partypictures/04_05_13/IMG_2820.jpg
http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/guest-diary/2013/jill-krementz-covers-photography-and-the-civil-war

[anachromatic]

I always find your points of view appropriate and relevants, and with a significant dose of common sense.
Thank you very much for sharing!

[AlexGard]

Most wetplates you see today are a poor facsimile of the quality of those done in the 1800s. I don't know why, but many of the plates today are dark, low contrast, with tons of flaws. Yes, even including the swirl, which until 10 years, was considered a flaw and always avoided by the photographer. Today's rebellion against digital perfection causes many to never learn proper wetplate technique, and they are very happy with quite poor plates.

I like this point.

[brandon13]

My favorite lens for 8x10 is a 16 inch f4 Dallmeyer 3a because I like to get close. Second favorite is a 14 inch Heliar for 3/4 portraits. On 11x14 I shoot a 5d. It's a bit slower but I like the 19 inch FL.
127972

[Jay Decker]

Most wetplates you see today are a poor facsimile of the quality of those done in the 1800s. I don't know why, but many of the plates today are dark, low contrast, with tons of flaws. Yes, even including the swirl, which until 10 years, was considered a flaw and always avoided by the photographer. Today's rebellion against digital perfection causes many to never learn proper wetplate technique, and they are very happy with quite poor plates. I've been trying for 8 years to get perfect, flawless plates like the old masters, and rarely attain it. But I want to use the same lenses they did. To to answer your question, my favorite type of lens for wetplate is early American Petzval portrait lenses.

I like this point.

Glad to hear someone thinks wet plates with pour imperfections, incorrect exposure, and poor development are not cool and an aesthetic!

When learning to pour plates I kept thinking that if Carleton Watkins could pour perfect mamouth plates in a tent while photographing in the Columbia River Gorge, then I should be able to learn how to pour a decent whole plate on a piece of enameled aluminum that I justed pealed the protective plastic off of in my darkroom.

Just because a wet plate photograph is a handmade artifact does not mean that it has to have imperfections to provide evidence that it was made by hand. There is enough evidence left in the actual artifact from the process for someone to determine it is handmade.

What makes the photograph have emotional impact is it content of which wetplate aesthetic can be a component. I do not think that a few oysters would add anything to Alex's plates...


Henk
11x11" tintype
Dallmeyer 3A wide open at f4

http://upload.pbase.com/image/158723569/original.jpg