Printable View
Just curious,
do you wetplaters use a lot of movements? I've only done a workshop once, seen other people in action a few times and all of these occasions were portrait sessions. Given the "speed" and the specifics of the emulsion, f:64 with a bunch of movements is probably less common, I guess.
I don’t think you’re often going to find people shooting collodion at f64, with or without camera movements! The collodion isn’t just too slow for that unless you are working in blazing midday sun.
But it’s not uncommon to use some camera movements at large apertures (many people use their lenses wide open) to introduce out of focus areas intentionally. It’s far less common to use movements to correct perspective or increase depth of field when working on wet plate. But if lighting is good enough, I suppose you could do it if you wanted.
The bottom line is: you can’t introduce variables that will make your exposures longer than a couple of minutes at most, or the plate dries out.
I rarely stop down past f22. I don't use tilt as that's not original to the era. I do use front rise because I photo a lot of buildings. The image circle on the 19th C lenses i use generally isn't very big.
Kent in SD
I use both large and small apertures, from f/3.5-ish to f/32-ish, and often use movements. As a rule, the more open the lens, the more important it is to have movements to push that shallow depth of field around.
Kent is right that most movements weren't around in the early wet plate era (1850's), but were coming in towards the end, (early 1880's). It's up to the individual whether that's important to them. But if you're using a wide-open Petzval, you'll find the curved field makes the movements behave a bit differently.
I bet most LF users don't really use "a lot of movements". Some at times but seldom a lot of them and even less - extremes.
The images of the camera tied in a knot is interesting but few would ever use it that way - the prints come out all knotted up.
Thanks for your comments. Normally I don't use much movements either, but I see the point of moving what little depth of field one might have with a wide or near wide open lens around. The field curvature might get interesting to get to know when I get down to buying a petzval.
I promise to stay away from knotted prints - the only that gets to be that way are the ones going in the (large) waste basket. :)
Tilts don’t change depth of field. Only the lens aperture changes the depth of field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi
Tilts change the plane of sharp focus. The two work together.
In my experience, working with a Petzval lens requires a rather different approach to constructing a photograph. The unique curved focal plane is its own animal and doesn't respond in quite the same way as a "normal" lens when it comes to shifts and tilts. The Petzval optic has a very strong visual style that doesn't lend itself to further manipulation - in my opinion, anyway. Most practitioners working with a Petzval lens are using a lens designed for a smaller format than what its being applied to, and so there's is often ZERO image circle left to play with (for movements), as the lens is already working beyond its intended limits. But you will discover these things yourself, when you acquire a nice Petzval lens. They are a joy to work with. Be sure you get a "proper" Petzval and not just a Magic Lantern lens. A Petzval intended for use as a photographic lens is generally better crafted than a Magic Lantern lens. I have a couple of the latter, and they make for very soft images.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi
I don’t understand the automatic assumption that wet plate is synonymous with petzval use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its not. Don't confuse my enthusiasm for Petzval lenses with some kind of insistence that they're the ONLY lenses for wet plate work. That wasn't the message I wanted to convey. But the combination is a great match. I will happily choose my 12" Ektar for making a wet plate negative almost as often as I choose a Petzval. By no means would I suggest that a Petzval is the only way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by C. D. Keth
Not synonymous with, but certainly appropriate for.Quote:
Originally Posted by C. D. Keth
Not as a rule, but I've had mine do yoga poses before...Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie
Obviously, in this sort of game most anything is allowed in the way of lenses - we used an old, very battered Turner Reich 12" at the workshop and it all turned out fine. In my own specific case, I enjoy the look of Tessars but I would like to try a Petzval some time, just to see what it is like.
Thanks Paul for the explanation regarding field curvature - the only actual experience I have with that sort of thing is the not-very-LF Leica Summilux 35 - loved that lens. But as you have shown several times over - any old clunker lens can make magic in the right hands.
Jimi, i do believe your last sentence is the truth. I’ve seen people make brilliant photographs with a magnifying glass as a lens, so imagination and willpower are the only limitations, really (and thank you for your kind words).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi
I also have a Turner-Reich 12” convertible in my kit, and it’s made some very nice wet plate images for me. In fact, I need to get it out again to make some collodion negatives. It has optical properties that look very good when shot wide open (or close to it)!
Good luck in your search for a lens that makes you happy. I think there are many options for you to choose from, and I hope we see the results of your efforts here some day soon!