This is a good point. My limited SF experience with Veritos has revealed as much. I've gotten pretty lucky a couple of times. Yeah, like dumb luck!Originally Posted by Bernice Loui
I can't even dream of ever using, much less, owning, a Struss!
I would love to see an optical diagram of the design.
I read the word "meniscus" used here at least once. And I wonder how one might compare to a Wollaston in use...
Cheers!
Bernice Loui - I understand that part from shooting and editing fuzzy lens images and then prepping them on a computer for the web and print. I can see image qualities as long as it is a reasonable size and the ones in that thread were larger than most. But I agree, there is nothing like a print. The hard part is seeing a comparison of different lenses under IDENTICAL conditions. Or seeing the difference between panchromatic and orthochromatic film under identical conditions.
Another big part of these is how they are used, and the process...
Look up work done by Karl Struss, and you will see he probably severely underexposed the scenes, then printed the images dark and smokey on black rich papers of the period...
Most SF lenses of the past would benefit from this style of printing, as many lenses will produce flat contrast with inflated shadow areas that need to be printed down well for some semblance of contrast... Severe studio lighting helps, as it is difficult to find outdoor scenes with lighting ratios that make the image "pop"...
For enlarging, a wave of a diffuser such as Saran wrap plastic wrap on a small cardboard frame or a clear CD jewel box during a portion of enlarging exposure will soften the blacks and give them that pictorial dark "glow"...
Steve K
Have you see Tri Tran's lenses? https://www.tritranphotography.com/tt-signature-lens
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
http://www.searing.photography
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks