What lens will work for a 35x35 inch ULF mammoth wet plate camera?

[bob carnie]

Angus...Will be doing this in Canada, most of you guys are in the States I believe, not sure I will be going down there. Might be hard to explain the darkroom truck filled with semi toxic chemistry to the very suspicious border guards. I do like the idea of visiting Canadian Large Format people. Can take the camera around for them to test out

Hi Gerry

I can put you in touch with the Gallery 44 people who would be extremely interested to meet you and see what you are up too, and of course your welcome to set it up here at my gallery for a day to show people. Yes I would not recommend hitting the border with that truck these days...

sounds exciting project... talking about exciting projects I have not heard one word about the young guy walking in silence any one know how he is doing?

Bob

[gerry yaum]

My suggested outline of procedure was based on the information you had given in this thread about getting the camera made. When you get the lens flange made at Grimes, it would be a idea to it made oversize (that is, a square plate), so the retaining screws are quite some distance away from the hole in the lens board/Front standard panel so you can use alternative lenses on the same wooden panel.

I still feel the extreme difficulties of transporting, preparing and using 35x35" glass plates is a good way to end up with very little surplus energy for the "artistic" side of photography.

No doubt but that you have purchased an excellent tessar and at F14 you can get a viewable image. In spite of the mentioned problems of coverage at landscape. distances, it may be OK at small apertures.

Thanks Steven, no offence taken, your advice is appreciated.
Gerry

[gerry yaum]

Hi Gerry

I can put you in touch with the Gallery 44 people who would be extremely interested to meet you and see what you are up too, and of course your welcome to set it up here at my gallery for a day to show people. Yes I would not recommend hitting the border with that truck these days...

sounds exciting project... talking about exciting projects I have not heard one word about the young guy walking in silence any one know how he is doing?

Bob

BOB...thanks for that. I would love to meet them (Gallery 44 folks)! They have rejected previous work of mine on numerous submissions (sex worker, families of the dump). I am sure they are good folk thou. When I am in Toronto (GALLERY 44 is in Toronto right?), I would be glad to meet some of them, speak about the 35x35 ambro project, show the camera/lens and of course would like to view the photos on display at the gallery.

Thanks also for the invitation to your gallery Bob. I love talking and showing everything photography. A real highlight for me is telling stories, sharing memories, encouraging creativity, love all of that. I did a series of photographs called "My Fathers Last Days" in 2014-15 and am doing an artist talk for that at a local gallery on August 31, REALLY LOOKING FOWARD TO IT! It will be like bringing my dad back to life, reliving all our times together that last year.

For you out there interested here is the latest look at the camera I will be using for the "Oh! Canada!!" project, the HF3535, it is being built for me in the Czech Republic. Love how tiny the 35mm and or DSLR camera looks in the one photo.

http://gerryyaum.blogspot.ca/2017/06...update_15.html

[gerry yaum]

Re: Process lenses' coverage...

Those are different. Celor type ones do not improve in their edge sharpness when stopped down. Tessar type lenses are much better as "poor man's wideangles". The more sophisticated 6-elements lenses are often sharp up to the edges of their illuminated field, regardless of the tight field restrictions stated in the manufacturer's publications (which are relevant for high-end process work such as mapping).

My own first-hand experience with Rodenstock Apo-Ronar CL 1200mm f/16, 6/6 version, and CZJ Apo-Germinar 1000mm f/12 showed both covered exactly the same field of about 126 cm (~50") at infinity with no vignetting at f/32. At wider stops, edge sharpness was also OK but there was a lot of light fall-off.

(The Germinar was smaller and lighter in weight though and more manageable in the field giving me more spare angle coverage for tilts.)

Gosh this lens stuff is complicated, I will have to read this over 2 or 3 times..or 5 or 6! Hopefully the one lens I bought will work for me, I am more interested in just telling stories with my pictures and trying to elicit emotions from the viewers of the photos....Thanks for your help Gerry

[gerry yaum]

Exciting. Can't wait to see the results. Why don't you drive around the country to LFPF members? You'll probably get many willing assistants to help you with your picture taking. I might even bring out my mini-camera for comparison sake (only 14x17").

Sounds great Angus!!

[gerry yaum]

You might want to contact Kurt Moser. He does a lot of ULF wetplate work in the Dolomites and has just completed building a camera of a similar size to the one you describe. He has the Apo-Nikkor 1780mm f14 to do the job.
http://www.lightcatcher.it/en/

For a different look, I certainly would not sneeze at the Wollaston Meniscus lenses that Reinhold Schable is making. Currently his largest ULF lens is 790mm f5.6 and has lots of coverage -- he might be induced to work with you to produce a larger lens to meet your needs. http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/ULF%20Lens.html

I tried contacting Kurt, Thanks again Matt.

[gerry yaum]

[QUOTE=goamules;1394680]It looks like you are a serious photographer, and do some intensive work. I commend you on not being dissuaded by anything anyone has said here. I was not trying to stop your goal, I was just recommending you buy the lens first, and then decide what size it will cover and what plate size you can use. Which looks like what you are about to do, if Dan is right, the lens you jumped on for $7,300 won't cover the 35X35" you wanted.

I think why we were responding so cautiously is that someone asks about making "the BIGGEST" wetplates every year. Many have great intentions, though some just want to make "the biggest" and win some unstated competition. Almost all of them want to make Mammoth plates, but have no money. So they usually are asking how they can do this, cheap. Often wanting to spend less on a lens than they will for the silver nitrate to make the bath.

If you had said money is no object, that you were willing to spend anything to get it done, then most of us would have said "of course you can do this." Not many people will buy a $7,000 lens without knowing if it will A) cover, B) be fast enough, C) fit on a lensboard, or D) have a camera with enough bellows. But money can fix all kinds of bothersome problems.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goamules...Thanks for your thoughts. Not really about making the biggest, not a size thing, but the idea of creating across Canada, doing a big work (2nd biggest country in the world) appeals to me, especially in lanscape (also getting a 26x35 back for the caamera). That somehow seems right. As to the biggest wet plates, that belongs to the truck camera people, Ian Ruhter or Kurt Moser (when he gets his completed). Not Gerry Yaum, I am just a security guard from Edmonton who tries his best. Only make photos becuase I have to, it brings complete personal joy to me.

From what I was told by many and from what the auction site says, the Lens will easily do the job I want it for. If it does not cover in all situations so what, that is part of the appeal of using vintage glass with vintage processes like wet plate (Kenro Izu's work half the time has vignetted corners). I try not to get to hooked on the technical crap and instead try to concentrate on the emotional impact of the work created. It is all about the photos after all, that is all that matters, nothing else does. How does the work make you FEEL!!??

As to money, I do not drink, do not smoke, do not do drugs, do not gamble, have no children etc. My money all goes into my photography. I have some assets that I can sell to pay for this project if it goes 10 years. No use having money if I am dead, but creating some important art work before I die, now that is an exciting possiblity. Like I said before, this will be hard, but compared to learning another language, dealing with sex tourist drunks (SEX WORKER) or making photos 1/2 way cross the world in garbage dump while standing in filth covered in flies (FAMILIES OF THE DUMP), or of your dying father (MY FATHERS LAST DAYS) etc, this should be relatively easy. Mastering a process (wet plate), working very hard to make the pics, being devoted to it etc. It should go well. As long as I continue to love the work created then things will work out. If I lose my desire for the photos made then everything will collapse. I think this is going to be great fun! Even thou I am going to Thai for 6 months soon, I am thinking about his project far off in the future more.

[B]Not many people will buy a $7,000 lens without knowing if it will A) cover, B) be fast enough, C) fit on a lensboard, or D) have a camera with enough bellows. But money can fix all kinds of bothersome problems. [/B

A) it will cover I believe, as many sources tell me so, 4 or 5 sources.
B) it is fast enough for landscapes (I have a 16x20 Chamonix with 3 lens to do portrait work with also, might buy a Petzval lens for that camera also) or I might figure a way to do portraits with the HF3535. I now own 3 lens that cover the 16x20 camera, including this beauty.

http://gerryyaum.blogspot.ca/2016/07...f115-lens.html

C) it will fit the lens, the camera maker says so. We designed a camera with a larger lensboard area for this very purpose.
D) the camera should have enough bellows for my needs. I am also consulting with the camera maker about building a secondary bellows that I can attach in certain shooting situations (wonder what that bellows factor will be!).

But money can fix all kinds of bothersome problems.

I have limited funds but I throw what I have into what I think is important. I try to use the money wisely. I also try to help those in my photographs. The $500 in gallery money (artist and shipping fee) I earned for a recent show I will donate back to the faimlies in the garbage dump where I am making pics. Also got donations from several people who saw the exhibition (total donation now is $1370, hoping for $1500 before I leave Canada) Money is great for those kind or problems, I totally agree! I try not to waste money.

I must remind you that you seem to again be looking at, a glass 1/2 full. That will not lead to successful projects or dreams..you will find excuses of why NOT to do it, the bellows, the lens coverage, the clouds in the sky, your age, your health, your money, the colour of the cat that crossed your path, WHATEVER!!...all of that to me is useless crap.

The way I operate, or at least try to, is:

Think, find a dream, learn-study your project (for example I am now studying about Canadian history and aborginal culture for "Oh! Canada!!"), do your best to get what works technically then adapt and create!! Create until you drop!...

Best to stop the negative Nelly thinking and make pictures instead. I photographed this child in the garbage dump in Thailand in 2015, she has a bleak future, her life opportunities are so limited.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-89p5nSCyQ4.../SAM_2383a.jpg

What are my problems compared to what she will face in her future? What do I have to worry about? Whether my lens has enough coverage? Who freaking cares, it will work, if it does not I will figure a way round that!

Thanks for your thoughts again.

Gerry
www.gerryyaum.blogspot.com

[gerry yaum]

Attachment 165517Attachment 165518Attachment 165519Attachment 165521Well 35 x 35 is out of my league to be sure so I'll defer to those who have already chimed in as Dan and others have consistently been excellent sources of information on the technical aspects and capabilities of various lenses. I don't think we are appreciative enough of their expertise and what valuable resources they have become for our community here. I tend to have far fewer post as I usually only contribute to my immediate level of experience. I shoot 20 x 24 Ambrotypes and film negatives for Pt/Pd and have various lenses that fit those needs. The suggestion I have since this is a five year out/retirement project is to start to envision the project through the available syntax of the gear instead of trying to find the gear for the syntax of your vision. So for example for life size portrait headshot you could be using a 355 G-Claron on my 20 x 24 and even get bigger than life size head shots, which of course also reduces your bellows extension necessary for such portraiture. For my portraiture on the 20 x 24 I use a 22 inch 550 Schneider Fine Art Lens, which allows for beautiful portraits all the way from full body to bigger than life size shoulder/head shots. It is also a fantastically sharp semi-wide landscape lens in that format. For a tighter look in landscapes I use 1000 mm Germinar (sp?) that is very sharp. For my wet plate work in that format I use a 30 inch Dallmeyer RR, and a 37 inch Dallmeyer 8D which took me 5 years to find. Since you are having the camera made have inserts made for your wet plate holders that will take smaller plates that fit the various lens capabilities and then fit it to our vision as you traverse the Canadian countryside. If you are shooting film too then have a reducing back made for 20 x 24 then buy Ilford film in their annual run and you can shoot film too. I had both a 20 x 24 back and 16 x 20 back made for my Ebony and I don't regret it all as both get used frequently. You have an incredible vision in front of you don't have it limited by gear. Let the gear be there in all its mulititude to give you choices at each stop.

Here are a few shots with the above mentioned lenses as well as a picture of my daughter holding the 8D

What a truly beautiful image, thanks so much. NOW THAT IS INSPIRING!!

[gerry yaum]

My suggested outline of procedure was based on the information you had given in this thread about getting the camera made. When you get the lens flange made at Grimes, it would be a idea to it made oversize (that is, a square plate), so the retaining screws are quite some distance away from the hole in the lens board/Front standard panel so you can use alternative lenses on the same wooden panel.

I still feel the extreme difficulties of transporting, preparing and using 35x35" glass plates is a good way to end up with very little surplus energy for the "artistic" side of photography.

No doubt but that you have purchased an excellent tessar and at F14 you can get a viewable image. In spite of the mentioned problems of coverage at landscape. distances, it may be OK at small apertures.

Thanks Steven...Just read the last part of your messange. Not all my shots are going to be at 35x35, plan on getting a reducing back, possibly 26x35 or maybe even smaller at lets say 22x32 something like that. Lots of options. I could also get a second or 3rd lens with varying coverage. Remember this is all 4+ years in my future, lots of time to work out the bugs. No worries here!

As to not having enough artistic energy, try carrying a 5x7 and holders, 2 lens etc around a garbage dump for 7 or 8 hours in the blazing hot sun. Then try making pictures. If I can do that, I think I can manage coating a 35x35 glass plate with collodion etc and carrying that back and forth from my camera.

It is all a matter of desire. If the pics are turning out, if the pics excite, then I will work my ass off to get it done, no problems. The problems start if things are going badly, then some laziness might ensue!

[gerry yaum]

Well 35 x 35 is out of my league to be sure so I'll defer to those who have already chimed in as Dan and others have consistently been excellent sources of information on the technical aspects and capabilities of various lenses. I don't think we are appreciative enough of their expertise and what valuable resources they have become for our community here. I tend to have far fewer post as I usually only contribute to my immediate level of experience. I shoot 20 x 24 Ambrotypes and film negatives for Pt/Pd and have various lenses that fit those needs. The suggestion I have since this is a five year out/retirement project is to start to envision the project through the available syntax of the gear instead of trying to find the gear for the syntax of your vision. So for example for life size portrait headshot you could be using a 355 G-Claron on my 20 x 24 and even get bigger than life size head shots, which of course also reduces your bellows extension necessary for such portraiture. For my portraiture on the 20 x 24 I use a 22 inch 550 Schneider Fine Art Lens, which allows for beautiful portraits all the way from full body to bigger than life size shoulder/head shots. It is also a fantastically sharp semi-wide landscape lens in that format. For a tighter look in landscapes I use 1000 mm Germinar (sp?) that is very sharp. For my wet plate work in that format I use a 30 inch Dallmeyer RR, and a 37 inch Dallmeyer 8D which took me 5 years to find. Since you are having the camera made have inserts made for your wet plate holders that will take smaller plates that fit the various lens capabilities and then fit it to our vision as you traverse the Canadian countryside. If you are shooting film too then have a reducing back made for 20 x 24 then buy Ilford film in their annual run and you can shoot film too. I had both a 20 x 24 back and 16 x 20 back made for my Ebony and I don't regret it all as both get used frequently. You have an incredible vision in front of you don't have it limited by gear. Let the gear be there in all its mulititude to give you choices at each stop.

Here are a few shots with the above mentioned lenses as well as a picture of my daughter holding the 8D

Thanks for all the suggestions MONTY....I think thou people invest too much time in the tech part of things (especially in the forum world) and not enough time creating and trying to find a unique artistic vision. The power of the final work is all that should really matter. How you achieve that work, what tools you use is of minor importance in the end. As long as the gear basically works, the rest is up to the artist. It is a bit like asking what typewriter Hemmingway used to write "The Old Man And the Sea". Does sit really matter? The final work matters, the tools, not so much. Hemmingway also did not need to know how to build a typewriter, that was of no importance to his creative efforts.

I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions of course, you have much more experience at this than I do. Thanks for helping. I do the annual run HP5 for my 16x20, doing it this new camera and a 20x24 reducing back might be an option. I am thinking thou of doing large glass plate negs instead 35x35, 26x35, and smaller, then contact printing them as I would with traditional film.