denishr
アナログ侘・&#
A few days ago I purchased a nice book: "In Focus" ("National Geographic Greatest Portraits")...
Nice book, but what finally made me buy it it the fabulous portrait on the front cover page, by Robb Kendrick, done as a tintype. The portrait (see HERE) is so haunting that I finally had to buy the book
BTW, you can also check other Robb Kendirck's tintypes on his Web site HERE.
I have the Nat. Geo. issue (Oct. 2004) where the original photos by Robb Kendrick appeared (ZIP Code USA - Elko, Nevada), and all of those photos are... I don't know, just ... haunting. I just can't get them out of my mind. I even checked out the short movies on Nat. Geo. site, which show how those photos were taken, and how the process goes... Tintype is a very old type of photographic process, rather interesting.
I even checked some Civil War photography sites (M. Brady et. al.), and also some other photographers who use such "ancient" processes and equipment, mostly in historic re-enactments.
But, what got me thinking is the unique characteristic of those vintage lenses, like "Dallmeyer Portrait", "Holmes, Booth and Hayden", and others - basically lenses from the second part of 19th century.
I got so worked up about those photos and their "character" that I decided I'd try to achieve similar effect myself. I have a Pacemaker Speed Graphic 2x3 (6 x 9 cm negative size), with focal plane shutter, so basically I can put whatever I want on the lens panel and shoot. I've already adapted a process lens (Repromaster 210mm, f9) as a "tele" lens of a kind. Shot some interesting photos with it... But nothing special.
Now I'm looking at getting my hands on VERY vintage lenses, which could produce similar effects - already checked ebay, and such vintage "brass" stuff can be found - not really cheap, though
So, I'm trying to come up with possible lens which would cover 6x9 cm format in relatively "portrait" focal length (6" to 8"), which would be very "ancient" and grossly undercorrected for aberations and astigmatism, with relatively shallow DOF and that crazy "swirly" bokeh...
Most of the barrel and process lenses which go cheap on ebay are overcorrected for my purposes, just like my "Repromaster" lens (see photo attached)...
I've also seen some stunning shots by people who use collodion photographic process, like William Dunniway - see also here.
Now, I'm not trying to get into coolodion photography and all that - I'm just trying to get a similar effect using my Speed Graphic.... and wanted to ask if any of you tinkerers ever achieved anything similar (Brian comes to mind immediately)...
Any advice appreciated.
I'm also attaching a result shot with the Repromaster 210mm process lens - the photo is/looks quite modern
Denis
Nice book, but what finally made me buy it it the fabulous portrait on the front cover page, by Robb Kendrick, done as a tintype. The portrait (see HERE) is so haunting that I finally had to buy the book
BTW, you can also check other Robb Kendirck's tintypes on his Web site HERE.
I have the Nat. Geo. issue (Oct. 2004) where the original photos by Robb Kendrick appeared (ZIP Code USA - Elko, Nevada), and all of those photos are... I don't know, just ... haunting. I just can't get them out of my mind. I even checked out the short movies on Nat. Geo. site, which show how those photos were taken, and how the process goes... Tintype is a very old type of photographic process, rather interesting.
I even checked some Civil War photography sites (M. Brady et. al.), and also some other photographers who use such "ancient" processes and equipment, mostly in historic re-enactments.
But, what got me thinking is the unique characteristic of those vintage lenses, like "Dallmeyer Portrait", "Holmes, Booth and Hayden", and others - basically lenses from the second part of 19th century.
I got so worked up about those photos and their "character" that I decided I'd try to achieve similar effect myself. I have a Pacemaker Speed Graphic 2x3 (6 x 9 cm negative size), with focal plane shutter, so basically I can put whatever I want on the lens panel and shoot. I've already adapted a process lens (Repromaster 210mm, f9) as a "tele" lens of a kind. Shot some interesting photos with it... But nothing special.
Now I'm looking at getting my hands on VERY vintage lenses, which could produce similar effects - already checked ebay, and such vintage "brass" stuff can be found - not really cheap, though
So, I'm trying to come up with possible lens which would cover 6x9 cm format in relatively "portrait" focal length (6" to 8"), which would be very "ancient" and grossly undercorrected for aberations and astigmatism, with relatively shallow DOF and that crazy "swirly" bokeh...
Most of the barrel and process lenses which go cheap on ebay are overcorrected for my purposes, just like my "Repromaster" lens (see photo attached)...
I've also seen some stunning shots by people who use collodion photographic process, like William Dunniway - see also here.
Now, I'm not trying to get into coolodion photography and all that - I'm just trying to get a similar effect using my Speed Graphic.... and wanted to ask if any of you tinkerers ever achieved anything similar (Brian comes to mind immediately
)...Any advice appreciated.
I'm also attaching a result shot with the Repromaster 210mm process lens - the photo is/looks quite modern
Denis
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Denis,
I've been thinking along the same lines lately, how weird! I was reading through one of my old camera magazines (1950's) and discovered a fellow who was doing the SAME THING back then! Yes, the lenses you describe are of a design known as Rapid Rectilinear, invented simultaneously by Dallmeyer and Steinheil. One was called "Rapid Rectilinear" and the other "Aplanet" but they are the same basic design:
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/jloomis/eop601/notes/history/rapid/rapid.html
Apparently, this design produces a unique 'look' that combined with the very old optics and hence, the very old manufacturing techniques for glass back then, should give a very unique 'look' to photographs taken with lenses like these.
As you mentioned, they don't typically come in-shutter, but rather in-barrel, so you need a camera such as yours that has a focal-plane shutter built in to use such a lens.
I'm going to be giving it a try myself - but it may be awhile - othe projects beckon!
Fascinating concept, though!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I've been thinking along the same lines lately, how weird! I was reading through one of my old camera magazines (1950's) and discovered a fellow who was doing the SAME THING back then! Yes, the lenses you describe are of a design known as Rapid Rectilinear, invented simultaneously by Dallmeyer and Steinheil. One was called "Rapid Rectilinear" and the other "Aplanet" but they are the same basic design:
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/jloomis/eop601/notes/history/rapid/rapid.html
Apparently, this design produces a unique 'look' that combined with the very old optics and hence, the very old manufacturing techniques for glass back then, should give a very unique 'look' to photographs taken with lenses like these.
As you mentioned, they don't typically come in-shutter, but rather in-barrel, so you need a camera such as yours that has a focal-plane shutter built in to use such a lens.
I'm going to be giving it a try myself - but it may be awhile - othe projects beckon!
Fascinating concept, though!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
Stephan
Guest
Interesting, Rob Kendrik's photos do have a fascinating bokeh... I'd like to see how this project turns out
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Heh, great minds do think alike
I'm not sure I'll be able to reproduce the effect with readily available items... Looks like I'll have to buy some vintage lenses - which won't be cheap. I'll try to play around with various attachments first (close-up lenses, etc.) in order to "degrade" the image.... But, the shallow DOF might be a problem, since my Repromaster has the maximum aperture of f9
As for Kendrick's and other traditional photographers' tintypes and collodion plates - the images are really fascinating, aren't they?
They are just so different from anything else - watching those is like being transported back in time.
Denis
I'm not sure I'll be able to reproduce the effect with readily available items... Looks like I'll have to buy some vintage lenses - which won't be cheap. I'll try to play around with various attachments first (close-up lenses, etc.) in order to "degrade" the image.... But, the shallow DOF might be a problem, since my Repromaster has the maximum aperture of f9
As for Kendrick's and other traditional photographers' tintypes and collodion plates - the images are really fascinating, aren't they?
They are just so different from anything else - watching those is like being transported back in time.
Denis
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Trying to get that pre WW I look with your Graphic are you? Why not start with a 6x9 box camera?
Most post 1929 folders have an anastigmat lens design. So they may be better than the doublets, which were common at the turn of the last century. 6x9 box cameras like the Tengor and Clack have a nice vintage look in my book. Again, they may be better performers than what you are after.
Most post 1929 folders have an anastigmat lens design. So they may be better than the doublets, which were common at the turn of the last century. 6x9 box cameras like the Tengor and Clack have a nice vintage look in my book. Again, they may be better performers than what you are after.
I have not played with very old lenses, and do not have anything quite that old. Some uncoated lenses from the '20s. I just bought the rollfilm back for my Speed Graphic, so can start playing with them a bit more. I have been thinking along those lines.
The portrait linked to is captivating. The picture is very sharp at the center; the "Bokeh" is unusual. I think it displays "astigmatism", the out-of-focus appear to swirl.
h
Or you could just by a Summarit and use it wide-open...!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1356/sort/1/cat/536/page/1
The portrait linked to is captivating. The picture is very sharp at the center; the "Bokeh" is unusual. I think it displays "astigmatism", the out-of-focus appear to swirl.
h
Or you could just by a Summarit and use it wide-open...!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1356/sort/1/cat/536/page/1
bmattock
Veteran
Anastigmats, as found on pre-WWI folders, are actually far superior to rapid rectilinear designs - the latter were only popular until around 1900, and were rapidly eclipsed by the newer anastigmat designs. The 'rapid' in Rapid Rectilinear is a bit of a misnomer by today's standards - max open was around f8.
It should not be that hard to get OOF in a RR lens for portraiture, however - consider most of the RR lenses are quite 'long' and you use them fairly close - so good OOF effects should appear. In fact, you may end up having to stop down to get enough DOF. Waterhouse stops, of course - no aperture leaves in these brass dreadnaughts.
As to prices - well, when they are advertised as RR lenses, the sellers seem to have dreams of glory - but I notice that only the very famous name-brands seem to command those high prices. "Brass lenses" on eBoy seem to go unclaimed at $5 often enough - just see if you can figure out if they are of the RR design. Usually writing on the side of the lens (often in script, very lovely) advertised this fact - they were very proud of it back then.
In any case, I would not chop up a classic or seriously collectible lens anyway - so a little problem with dirt, scratches, etc - as long as it was minor - would not fash me unduly - probably would add to the effect.
I am also playing with 'repro' and similar lenses like you Denis, but I doubt I'll get that RR look to my images, except by accident. The RR had a distinct 'feel' to it - like the Tessars do. It was not so much about sharpness or OOF effects - just a certain quality of softness, contrast, etc. Just IMHO.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
It should not be that hard to get OOF in a RR lens for portraiture, however - consider most of the RR lenses are quite 'long' and you use them fairly close - so good OOF effects should appear. In fact, you may end up having to stop down to get enough DOF. Waterhouse stops, of course - no aperture leaves in these brass dreadnaughts.
As to prices - well, when they are advertised as RR lenses, the sellers seem to have dreams of glory - but I notice that only the very famous name-brands seem to command those high prices. "Brass lenses" on eBoy seem to go unclaimed at $5 often enough - just see if you can figure out if they are of the RR design. Usually writing on the side of the lens (often in script, very lovely) advertised this fact - they were very proud of it back then.
In any case, I would not chop up a classic or seriously collectible lens anyway - so a little problem with dirt, scratches, etc - as long as it was minor - would not fash me unduly - probably would add to the effect.
I am also playing with 'repro' and similar lenses like you Denis, but I doubt I'll get that RR look to my images, except by accident. The RR had a distinct 'feel' to it - like the Tessars do. It was not so much about sharpness or OOF effects - just a certain quality of softness, contrast, etc. Just IMHO.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Thanks for comments, guys...
Like Bill said, anastigmats and newer lenses are much "better" than what I'm looking for - they are corrected for astigmatism, which (I think) produces that "swirly" OOF effect. I'll have to look a bit more into it, read up on ancient lenses design, and then off to ebay, I guess
Denis
Like Bill said, anastigmats and newer lenses are much "better" than what I'm looking for - they are corrected for astigmatism, which (I think) produces that "swirly" OOF effect. I'll have to look a bit more into it, read up on ancient lenses design, and then off to ebay, I guess
Denis
This diagram illustrates astigmatism. The "wagon wheel" diagram. The Summarit is well corrected for astigmatism under most situations, but when used wide-open and close up, the OOF "swirls" around the center. Lens designers have enough of a problem correcting for the plane of focus, and the OOF area becomes a by-product of the trade-offs of the design. In the case of the Summarit, my money would be on the two rear elements that were "split" from the Xenon that it was derived from.
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Thanks for the diagram, Brian....
And yes, the wide-open Summarit is close to what I am looking for - but it's still "too corrected" for my purpose.
Denis
And yes, the wide-open Summarit is close to what I am looking for - but it's still "too corrected" for my purpose.
Denis
jdos2
Well-known
Don't forget that along with the lenses, the film of the day had no anti-halation layer, so highlight routinely blew "sky high," as it were. Also, the films were at best only sensitive to blue and perhaps down to green light...
There was much to the look of the 19th century that we'd have a hard time creating because so much correction ("perfection") has been modeled into our photography for so long.
For myself, I wanted to do Daguerreotypes. Even they came out wonderfully sharp, as they did when they first came around. Virtually Polaroid in their handling, lenses that wen't terribly well corrected STILL gave sharp images because their resolution was above the eye's critical ability to detect. Even the Petzval, though "soft" in the zones, was still considered a wonderful portrait lens for it's 100lp/mm possibiltities in the center, and the lens itself was rather long, giving a large-ish center to any photograph.
I've shot with uncoated lenses, simple lenses, even pinholes. All (exept the latter) will demonstrate "sharpness," and a lack of flare when used correctly. Vintage shots, on the other hand, are another matter entirely.
There was much to the look of the 19th century that we'd have a hard time creating because so much correction ("perfection") has been modeled into our photography for so long.
For myself, I wanted to do Daguerreotypes. Even they came out wonderfully sharp, as they did when they first came around. Virtually Polaroid in their handling, lenses that wen't terribly well corrected STILL gave sharp images because their resolution was above the eye's critical ability to detect. Even the Petzval, though "soft" in the zones, was still considered a wonderful portrait lens for it's 100lp/mm possibiltities in the center, and the lens itself was rather long, giving a large-ish center to any photograph.
I've shot with uncoated lenses, simple lenses, even pinholes. All (exept the latter) will demonstrate "sharpness," and a lack of flare when used correctly. Vintage shots, on the other hand, are another matter entirely.
phototone
Well-known
I think there are several factors to achieve the "look" of vintage 19th century photography. One, has been discussed, but to recap....the choice of lens needs to be one that is uncoated, and undercorrected (by modern standards). Actually, the lens design type used my photogaphers during the wet plate and tin type era was the Petsval design, which was just about the fastest lens available. A manufacturer of Petsval type lenses that you can find for sale on auction sites is Darlot, or Darlot-Paris. This was one of the most popular brands. A true camera lens of the mid 19th century will have a slot for waterhouse stops...(usually missing), and if the lens does not have this slot, then it was intended for use as a projection lens for lantern slides, rather than photography. Other notable "brass" lenses of the period which you might look out for are Voigtlander, and Dallmeyer. There were also literally hundreds of private label brass lenses. It seems that almost every photo supply house had their own brand of "camera tubes"..as they were sometimes called. They would all be suitable if old enough.
Another BIG thing, is that these lenses were used wide open, or almost wide open, because of the slowness of the wet-collodion process for negatives, ambrotypes and tin-types. Therefore all the improvements from stopping down were not there. For modern films, you would have to use a rather hefty Neutral Density filter, and good luck finding one economically for these large lenses.
Another BIG THING is the tonal rendition of the negative emulsion. Even modern tintypes and wet plate negatives using the collodion process have a sensitivity only to blue light. Therefore the tones (grey renditions) of all the objects in the photo are distorted from what we see. Reds reproduce very dark, as the emulsion is not sensitive to red.
I think this "look" could be reproduced with a filter on the lens, perhaps a dark blue filter? Which would also have the benefit of several stops of Neutral Density effect.
Good Luck with your quest, you may find that your Speed Graphic does not have enough bellows extension to handle some of the lenses you may find, and you may want to get a wooden view camera instead.
Another BIG thing, is that these lenses were used wide open, or almost wide open, because of the slowness of the wet-collodion process for negatives, ambrotypes and tin-types. Therefore all the improvements from stopping down were not there. For modern films, you would have to use a rather hefty Neutral Density filter, and good luck finding one economically for these large lenses.
Another BIG THING is the tonal rendition of the negative emulsion. Even modern tintypes and wet plate negatives using the collodion process have a sensitivity only to blue light. Therefore the tones (grey renditions) of all the objects in the photo are distorted from what we see. Reds reproduce very dark, as the emulsion is not sensitive to red.
I think this "look" could be reproduced with a filter on the lens, perhaps a dark blue filter? Which would also have the benefit of several stops of Neutral Density effect.
Good Luck with your quest, you may find that your Speed Graphic does not have enough bellows extension to handle some of the lenses you may find, and you may want to get a wooden view camera instead.
phototone
Well-known
also.....
If I were to want to try to replicate this "look" with a RFDR camera, I would choose a pre-war uncoated Summar f2 50mm lens, using it wide open, and the slowest 35mm b/w film stock I could find, and a blue filter.
Some of the "look" from the portraits linked in your post is due to the old lenses having a curved plane of focus. Not as corrected to flatness as more modern lenses are.
If I were to want to try to replicate this "look" with a RFDR camera, I would choose a pre-war uncoated Summar f2 50mm lens, using it wide open, and the slowest 35mm b/w film stock I could find, and a blue filter.
Some of the "look" from the portraits linked in your post is due to the old lenses having a curved plane of focus. Not as corrected to flatness as more modern lenses are.
doubs43
Well-known
denishr said:A few days ago I purchased a nice book: "In Focus" ("National Geographic Greatest Portraits")...
Nice book, but what finally made me buy it it the fabulous portrait on the front cover page, by Robb Kendrick, done as a tintype. The portrait (see HERE) is so haunting that I finally had to buy the book
You too? I've owned the book for about six weeks or so (bought for $15 at Dalton Book Store on sale) and that portrait is exactly as you describe it: haunting. I think it's the eyes of the young woman who has a natural beauty even with the heavy freckles.
There's another portrait that I find fascinating and that's the Polish woman on page 154. It was taken in 1926 and has that wonderful softness to it.
Walker
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
doubs43 said:
Walker, have you seen Kendrick's tintypes on his site (see my fist post)?
Some of those are unforgettable!
Denis
VictorM.
Well-known
Several years ago, when I made a living shooting products and beverages, I taped a cheap plastic magnifying lens to a view camera shutter. This allowed me to control the exposure with shutter speeds and f-stops as well as strobe power. Wide open, the one element plastic lens gave a look similar to the tintype portraits; stopped down it was TOO sharp! To get the "swirly" effect in the background, I had to melt the edges of the lens over a hot stove. I did it just to be different. The dark vignetting in the "Ashley" tintype is probably caused by raising the lens "too far" relative to the film. The coverage ends and the bellows cuts off the rest of the light. A "mistake" that helps the look of the portrait.
Last edited:
doubs43
Well-known
denishr said:
Yes, I've just been to his site. Beautiful work but I wish there was more information such as date taken, equipment used etc.
I've long been fascinated by the quality of the work of photographers of the 19th Century. We have equipment that is technologically beyond the wildest dreams of those men and women and yet they managed to make superb images with relatively primitive gear. The shots that Jackson took of what became Yellowstone and the images of the Southwest by Vroman (Sp?) are impressive by any standard.
Walker
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
Similar to VictorM., I removed the lens from a magnifying glass and fastened it on the front of a set of bellows, for focusing. I had no aperture control but the effect was similar to this early look. This is an interesting project you are embarking on, Denis. Good luck with it and please keep us posted -- the devil will be in the details!
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
P. S. Elko, NV is not far from where I live -- I run down there often (great Basque food and the Capriola Saddle Company). When your technique has been perfected a visit will be in order -- as a final step in replicating the Western look. Good luck with your project!
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Well, after some more searching and an unsuccessful bidding war on ebay (God, I hate ebay!), I realized I'll have to resort to my DIY skills.
Guys, I'm moving on to lens design! I'll make my own, if I can't get one relatively cheap!
All you need is some resourcefulness... being stubborn helps, too
Something in the vein of VicorM's post - or something like a plungercam or lensbaby.
Hell, I might even get rich and famous - inventing a new fad in photography.... NOT!
Denis
Guys, I'm moving on to lens design! I'll make my own, if I can't get one relatively cheap!
All you need is some resourcefulness... being stubborn helps, too
Something in the vein of VicorM's post - or something like a plungercam or lensbaby.
Hell, I might even get rich and famous - inventing a new fad in photography.... NOT!
Denis