post "in Galli style"

[eddie]

shot with my new toy! a cooke 15 inch SF baby. still learning how to make her sing!

one is f8 the other f 4.5. no diffusion. (maybe a bit of wind though. i shot it outside)

[Jim Galli]

Hmm I'm sort of tempted now.
Which lenses will give this "Jim Galli Style" effect on 4X5" and 13X18cm?
Kind regards
Søren

Projection petzvals in the 5 - 6 inch range are excellent. Also most of the very early landscape meniscus lenses. With these you will normally need to defeat the built in aperture that necks the glass down to f12 or so. Get them opened up to the usual f6 possible and you'll see some dreamy softness. Then of course if money and sanity is no object what-so-ever, go for a 9 inch Pinkham & Smith Series V Synthetic

[Jim Galli]

shot with my new toy! a cooke 15 inch SF baby. still learning how to make her sing!

one is f8 the other f 4.5. no diffusion. (maybe a bit of wind though. i shot it outside)

Off to a good start I see. I think I would have swung the back and tried to get a bit nearer focus on the right side of the picture. I love ALL of my Cooke's

[soeren]

Thanks guys. Ill see what I can find
Kind regards
Søren

[Ken Lee]

A question, oh venerable ones. Is this correct ?

There seem to be a few different kinds of blur effect we get with these vintage portrait and soft-focus lenses. Different lenses and designs give us some combination of these:

"Smooth" - An out of focus disc looks like a disc, with no aberrations. This is what most people call "nice bokeh" when discussing lenses for 35mm and larger format. We see this with Tessars, Heliars, Elmars, etc.

"Extra Smooth" - lots of smooth blur in the out of focus areas, more than a "normal" lens would render - like we see in Jim Galli's photo of the lamp and books. It can sometimes be controlled by choice of f-stop, as with the Cooke PS945 portrait lens.

"Swirly" - like what we see with Jim Fitzgerald's image of the trees, or Daniel Buck's photo of the truck.

"Halo" - an extra luminosity appears around the out-of-focus areas and in some cases, even around the in-focus areas. Jim Galli's White Roses shows this effect.

"Overall" - we see blur overall, even in the areas of best focus - like when we use a magnifying glass or other simple lens with little or no correction - like Blueberrydesk's photo of the barn with a Magic Lantern lens.

Is there another effect, which I have overlooked ?

I am a fan of the "Smooth" variety, and wonder which affordable lenses give an "Extra Smooth" result, other than the now-discontinued (and costly) Cooke Cooke PS945.

[mealers]

Heres my first picture taken with a non name 6" f/6 Petzval on my 4x5.
HP5+ / Rodinal
3s
neg scan

[nathanm]

It's not easy to go for the super soft look. My brain is usually saying, "Ahh, blur…you screwed up!" This is about all I have in that vein. Aren't most of those ancient brass lenses generally too long for 4x5 or am I crackers? This is with a decidedly non-antique Schneider 90mm.

[eddie]

It's not easy to go for the super soft look. My brain is usually saying, "Ahh, blur…you screwed up!" This is about all I have in that vein. Aren't most of those ancient brass lenses generally too long for 4x5 or am I crackers?

that is great! i love the subject

keep exercising that part of your brain...you are on to something! we know you have it in you!

many of those old brass lenses are just right for 4x5. keep an eye out for the 4-6 inch range if you want crazy swirls and all.....if you are not into swirl keep a look out for a rapid rectilinear up to 12 inches.....most are fairly small.

eddie

[jb7]

There seem to be a few different kinds of blur effect we get with these vintage portrait and soft-focus lenses.

Is there another effect, which I have overlooked ?

Seems to me that you've made a very comprehensive list-
I wonder if anyone has tried to combine any of these distinct indistinct effects with motion blur?

Panning?

j

[Jim Galli]

A question, oh venerable ones. Is this correct ?

There seem to be a few different kinds of blur effect we get with these vintage portrait and soft-focus lenses. Different lenses and designs give us some combination of these:

"Smooth" - An out of focus disc looks like a disc, with no aberrations. This is what most people call "nice bokeh" when discussing lenses for 35mm and larger format. We see this with Tessars, Heliars, Elmars, etc.

"Extra Smooth" - lots of smooth blur in the out of focus areas, more than a "normal" lens would render - like we see in Jim Galli's photo of the lamp and books. It can sometimes be controlled by choice of f-stop, as with the Cooke PS945 portrait lens.

"Swirly" - like what we see with Jim Fitzgerald's image of the trees, or Daniel Buck's photo of the truck.

"Halo" - an extra luminosity appears around the out-of-focus areas and in some cases, even around the in-focus areas. Jim Galli's White Roses shows this effect.

"Overall" - we see blur overall, even in the areas of best focus - like when we use a magnifying glass or other simple lens with little or no correction - like Blueberrydesk's photo of the barn with a Magic Lantern lens.

Is there another effect, which I have overlooked ?

I am a fan of the "Smooth" variety, and wonder which affordable lenses give an "Extra Smooth" result, other than the now-discontinued (and costly) Cooke Cooke PS945.

For the record, I'm not the Oh Venerable One but I'll try to answer.

I think you've pretty well nailed it. I seperate "the lenses" into three wide groups. 1) Petzval's with their distinct sharp center then lovely bokeh, with or without swirlies. 2) Smooooooth sharp. Your Heliars, Velostigmats, Cookes, et al. I hate to put Cooke in the same sentence with a Velostigmat. I may be stoned. 3) Purpose built soft focus lenses that by design are very soft everywhere wide open. Verito's, etc. 4) Perhaps a 4th group is emerging. Just plain weird stuff that is of the found variety like Mark Sawyer's Pinkham Bi Nocular lens or his 2F99 lenses. I've been playing with one of these.

overgrown window

This is done with a 13" f4 Achromatic (or is it?) no name meniscus that was part of a mis-matched Petzval I bought to have the shutter parts. Notice how the coma is directional (objectional). It bleeds left on the left side and right on the right side. Fun to play with but no match for a Pinkham & Smith.