Question using Goerz 19" Artar lens

[RustBeltEcologies]

I'm having a difficult time using this lens on 8x10 and am wondering if anyone can give me any advice? I've only used this lens a handful of times and cannot managed to make a sharp picture with it. This is the first lens of this focal length I've owned or used--using wider lenses, I have never had an issue focusing; using movements to get near and far in focus; etc. With my 240mm lens, I can get a wide foreground, background photo in focus in a matter of seconds. With this 19" Artar, I always seem to have a small section out of focus. Below I've attached a couple of poor quality pictures of negatives as an example. Could the issue be that the longer focal length is more difficult to get every thing in sharp focus? Could there be an issue with my lens? I've double checked that the cells are in the correct order.
And just to add a bit more info... my lens is one made right before the red dot series. It is coated and factory mounted on an ilex shutter, but no red dot.
Thanks for any help!

[Mark Sampson]

If nothing else, a 19" lens has little inherent depth-of-field. So you'll likely need a smaller aperture than with a shorter f.l. lens.
Camera movements for d-o-f, well, you're just going to have to check that big groundglass carefully.
There's nothing in the design of the Artar that will give you d-o-f any different than any other 19" lens at similar f/stops and focus distance.
I occasionally used one of those on the job, long ago, and it was a very sharp lens... that was in the studio, though, under controlled conditions. The landscape was rarely an assignment!

[Vaughn]

Mark probably hit the spot -- 19" (480mm) is a rather long lens -- and careful placement of the plane of focus and closing down to the smallest apertures is needed (contact printing rarely requires worrying about diffraction losses at small apertures).

I use a RD Artars of 19" and 24" on 8x10 and 11x14. Both are barrel lenses. I also use a 250mm on 8x10...and one can get away with a lot more, DoF-wise, with the 250mm! I can not tell from your images if this is the issue. I've managed to get blurry areas in several ways in the past.

[Alan9940]

I use a 19" Artar of Schneider design on my 8x10 Deardorff. Probably the most important thing to keep in mind is that this is a 480mm lens with its inherent shallower DOF, as mentioned above, and will typically require quite small apertures for any semblance of reasonable focus throughout the image area. If you photograph mostly at infinity with this lens (which your examples show you don't), then DOF really wouldn't be an issue. Another point to keep in mind...the extension required to focus this lens at infinity, let alone anything closer, is quite long and camera movement/vibration (from wind, etc) becomes more of an issue vs shooting shorter focal lengths. My Deardoff weighs in at about 12lbs sitting on top of a Ries A100 tripod (think sturdy base) and I still try to shield the camera from wind when using the 19" lens.

If you have any concern about the sharpness and/or general quality of your lens, shoot some bare tree branches at infinity focus and process the film as you normally would. Examine the negative. If the branches look sharp and are clearly separated from the sky, then your lens is good 'nuff.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that shading the lens during exposure is a good idea, too.

[RustBeltEcologies]

Thanks so much, everyone! I had a feeling that my issue was probably a shallower depth of field, I guess I'm just shocked at how shallow it is. For what it's worth, I've attached better photos of the negatives taken on a light table. The photo that I made in the field of ferns, I could not get the branch in the foreground and the background in focus using movements while I was focusing on the gg, so I focused around the middle of the field and stopped down to f64 and crossed my fingers--but the branch in the foreground still wasn't in focus. I think I just need to take the lens out into the field again with some sheets of film and stop being nervous that I'll waste film. I appreciate everyones feedback!

[Alan9940]

No idea of the distances involved in that shot from camera position, but with that lens and an aperture of f/64 you're looking at about 20 - 58 feet from near limit to far limit. In other words, ya got about 37 1/2 feet, basically, in focus. FWIW, if I were taking that shot, I would have tilted the lens plane such that the plane of focus ran from near the base of that branch to the top of the tree in the background. Then, I would tweak the focus knob looking for about equal out-of-focus areas on both sides of the plane of focus just laid down. Once satisfied, start stopping down until everything looks reasonably sharp. After that, I usually stop down 1 extra stop for good measure. But, even with camera movements sometimes the only tool ya got is stopping down (especially with vertically oriented subjects.)

[Vaughn]

Find one of the threads that Doremus describes his way of placing the plane of focus.

In your second image, front tilt would make it more difficult to get that front branch in focus as it would be off that plane quite a bit.

[RustBeltEcologies]

Thanks again for this advice and explanation. The distance between the tree branch and the trees in the background was definitely a lot further than 38ft. Probably around 150 ft if not even more than that.
And I'm trying to get my head around why front tilt would make it more difficult to get both foreground and background in focus, as that's what I used. Basically, I used the same way I use camera movements on a wider lens--some rear tilt and front tilt--but because I couldn't get everything in focus on the gg, I placed focus somewhere in between the two subjects and stopped down to f64. I found a great thread on techniques for increasing depth of field where Doremus states:
"Often, especially if lots of tilt/swing have been applied, it's not so intuitive what is "in front of" and "behind" the plane of sharp focus. It the plane of sharp focus is closer to horizontal than vertical in the scene, then "in front of" becomes "above," and "behind" becomes "below" the plane of sharp focus."
I'm trying to understand that and I wonder if that has something to do with why front tilt wouldn't have worked on the scene that I photographed--maybe I even made matters worse by applying front tilt?
Anyway, I think I need to open up Stroebels View camera techniques again and go through a link that Doremus posted on that thread (and get out and practice more with that lens instead of leaving the Artar at home every time I go out!).

[Alan9940]

I found a great thread on techniques for increasing depth of field where Doremus states:
"Often, especially if lots of tilt/swing have been applied, it's not so intuitive what is "in front of" and "behind" the plane of sharp focus. It the plane of sharp focus is closer to horizontal than vertical in the scene, then "in front of" becomes "above," and "behind" becomes "below" the plane of sharp focus."
I'm trying to understand that and I wonder if that has something to do with why front tilt wouldn't have worked on the scene that I photographed--maybe I even made matters worse by applying front tilt?

I would say that Doremus has stated things pretty succinctly. The plane of sharp focus is easy to see when its parallel to the film plane, but when you start applying camera movements the plane of focus moves off the perpendicular axis and can be hard to see, depending on the subject matter. For example, if I were to tilt my camera down at the ground, then use front tilt to lay the plane of focus right along the ground, it would be easy to see. But, as in your photo above when you applied front tilt the plane of focus becomes much harder to see because there is or could be nothing on either side to really see clearly. Does this make sense? And, if you have any significant verticals in the scene, front tilt won't help and you're left with whatever DOF is available at any given aperture.

FWIW, the rule I was taught is to focus for the far and tilt for the near. The way I do this in the field is I'll focus on the far, keep my hand on the focus knob and while slowly applying tilt I'll tweak focus to keep the far sharp. At some point, and its a LOT less movement than you might think, both near and far will be in sharp focus. Then, comes the harder part of deciding what aperture will render the entire scene in focus. What I do many times, is grab the focus knob, focus on the far, and make a mental note of my thumb position. Then, without taking my hand off the focus knob I'll focus on the near and, again, note the position of my thumb, and then move the focus knob back to where my thumb is halfway between the two positions. Wow, that was harder to write than it is to do so I hope it makes sense. This doesn't always work, but it's a place to start. We all have our own way of working, of course.

Yes, a good book on view camera technique will help a lot. Do a search on YouTube, there must be videos covering view camera movements.

[CreationBear]

Very much like where you're pointing the lens, at any rate--hopefully you'll get to reshoot.

Otherwise, unfortunately everything tends to look blurry on photos directly downloaded to LFPF (vs. linked to a hosting site.) Are there zones in both photos that have acceptable sharpness to you when you look at the negatives through a loupe? If not, I think that you might be looking at the support/vibration issue that Allen mentions above. I also didn't catch what camera you're using, and whether it has scales, which might help you better decide on aperture (as well as "splitting the difference" between near/far focus.)

At any rate, I'll look forward to seeing how you adapt to using the 8x10 here in the Eastern Woodlands--I'm just starting to take my Sinar afield and no doubt will have a lot of the same issues on my hands.