denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Heath, thanks for the info - I've seen those, but I'm afraid both are too long for my purpose. I have to mount the lens on my Speed Graphic (2x3 format, i.e. 6 x 9 cm), with limited bellows draw. It means the longest lens I can mount without DIY extension tubes is about 7 to 7.5", i.e. about 180-190 mm.
Both of those seem too long.
However, I'm fiddling with something I already have, so we'll see in a couple of days...
Denis
Both of those seem too long.
However, I'm fiddling with something I already have, so we'll see in a couple of days...
Denis
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
BTW, anybody have any busted lens they are willing to let go? I'm looking for larger diameter (35-50 mm and bigger) lens elements in various configurations... Trying to go DIY 
Denis
Denis
farmersteve
Member
Sorry I'm late to this thread... I think what you want is a lens off an old Kodak folder (1a, 3a) from about 100 years ago. Some even have coupled rangefinders. The lens you want is Rapid Rectilinear or Anastigmat Kodak Ball Bearing . I think you can take the lens off the front of the camera and mount it on something else with little trouble. You can pick these cameras up on eBay for less than $20...
farmersteve
Member
I just did a quick web search and found someone that had mounted a Kodak 3a lens to a Speed Graphic. You can see the picture he took here: http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/kodakno3_e.htm
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
I'm aware of the Cosmonet web site - I've seen those before...
I'm doing something in that direction...
Denis
I'm doing something in that direction...
Denis
2maneekameras
home on the rangefinder
Have you considered salvaging lenses out of a photocopier machine? I have found some interesting large optics in these machines. Also front surface mirrors, gears and focus assemblies. Some lenses have irises in them . I would image these lenses to be a flatfield process type. They are barrel mount.
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
2maneekameras said:
My "Repromaster" 210mm lens is one of those. Comes from "Agfa Repromaster" repro camera. I mounted it onto a lens board, with added "extension tube", and now it focuses OK. Takes nice photos, too
Too nice for my current purpose
Last night I partially disassembled an old Helios-44 (Zenit 39mm mount) lens, removing the rear element. Now it seems to do what I want - just about covers 6x9 negative, and has sharp center with nice fuzzy edges. Will try some shots today, hopefully...
BTW, I just learned a stupid trick yesterday - how to determine approximate focal length of a lens, without having to mount it on a camera. Put it next to a white wall opposite a lit window, and move it back and forth until it projects a sharp image of the window on the wall....
Stupid, I know, but I never thought of that - I always tried to mount lenses onto DIY cardboard lensboards to determine approx. focal length, while checking the projected image on the ground glass... This is much quicker, although not very precise.
At least it gives me some idea of coverage and approximate length - I can see if it exceeds 180mm or if it's below 80mm - which are usable lengths on my Speed graphic
Denis
Attached is a photo taken with the Repromaster 210mm lens and my 2x3 Speed Graphic - quick scan of a photo, dust included at no extra charge... Print was rather dirty, but it will show possible results.
Hmm, sorry-that was the photo I already posted at the beginning of tish thread. Here's another... also scanned print....
Last edited:
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
Sorry for coming in late.
As I have been a keen user of large format cameras (nowadays mainly a MPP Micro Technical Mark VII), I have been guilty of using every lens from my collection which I have built up over more than two decades. including an original Voigtlander Petzval (and a Ross version of the same), through the ages to a current model Grandagon-N, with emphasis in the early anastigmat period (Protar, Dagor, Tessar etc).
To replicate the "look" of photographs from the early days, optics and materials are two considerations. Even with a n original early lens, the use of modern material would result in a photograph very different from a contemporary one, due to difference in spectral sensitivity: being only blue-sensitive, the period material would not have picked up the green and red images like a modern panchromatic material, thus making the image somewhat sharper. The same spectral sensitivity can be replicated by using Kodak Commercial Film which is also blue-sensitive, or with a modern panchromatic material, using a sharp-cutting blue filter (Wratten 38A).
However, if it is not needed to replicate the effect completely, it is just as valid to use panchromatic or even colour materials.
But I feel that trying to replicate the "look" of early lenses using modern lenses can be an exercise in futility. Like all other products, lenses were designed to satisfy the required performance parameters at any one time, within the technology available at the time, and I fear it would be a bit like trying to bolt something on a modern car to make it handle like a vintage car. By all means try diffusion devices as experiments, but the results would be like modern lenses with diffusion devices, rather than those taken with an older lens.
I would venture as far as to say that the "look" of an earlier lens has a lot to do with its bokeh characteristics; pictures taken with the Petzval has that curious bokeh transition which cannnot be replicated even with Photoshop manupulations. But then, I use my other early lenses within their technical performance limits and the results can be said as "normal" as compared to modern lenses.
Another factor to consider is the tonal rendition. In the early days, prints were made on print-out paper (POP) rather than develop-out paper (DOP) as is the norm nowadays, and since the POP process is self-masking, negatives were developed to an extremely high gamma which cannot be easily printed on modern papers, but matched with POP , you can get a very rich range of tones, and good separation hold out at both highlight and shadow areas; something worth exploring as well.
As I have been a keen user of large format cameras (nowadays mainly a MPP Micro Technical Mark VII), I have been guilty of using every lens from my collection which I have built up over more than two decades. including an original Voigtlander Petzval (and a Ross version of the same), through the ages to a current model Grandagon-N, with emphasis in the early anastigmat period (Protar, Dagor, Tessar etc).
To replicate the "look" of photographs from the early days, optics and materials are two considerations. Even with a n original early lens, the use of modern material would result in a photograph very different from a contemporary one, due to difference in spectral sensitivity: being only blue-sensitive, the period material would not have picked up the green and red images like a modern panchromatic material, thus making the image somewhat sharper. The same spectral sensitivity can be replicated by using Kodak Commercial Film which is also blue-sensitive, or with a modern panchromatic material, using a sharp-cutting blue filter (Wratten 38A).
However, if it is not needed to replicate the effect completely, it is just as valid to use panchromatic or even colour materials.
But I feel that trying to replicate the "look" of early lenses using modern lenses can be an exercise in futility. Like all other products, lenses were designed to satisfy the required performance parameters at any one time, within the technology available at the time, and I fear it would be a bit like trying to bolt something on a modern car to make it handle like a vintage car. By all means try diffusion devices as experiments, but the results would be like modern lenses with diffusion devices, rather than those taken with an older lens.
I would venture as far as to say that the "look" of an earlier lens has a lot to do with its bokeh characteristics; pictures taken with the Petzval has that curious bokeh transition which cannnot be replicated even with Photoshop manupulations. But then, I use my other early lenses within their technical performance limits and the results can be said as "normal" as compared to modern lenses.
Another factor to consider is the tonal rendition. In the early days, prints were made on print-out paper (POP) rather than develop-out paper (DOP) as is the norm nowadays, and since the POP process is self-masking, negatives were developed to an extremely high gamma which cannot be easily printed on modern papers, but matched with POP , you can get a very rich range of tones, and good separation hold out at both highlight and shadow areas; something worth exploring as well.
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
First results!!!
First results!!!
Well, I finally finished a roll of Efke R25 today, using various hacked and "normal" lenses.
I must say I like some of the results...
I have several lenses - mostly removed from old folder cameras... On this roll I used an old 135/4.5 Goerz Tenaxiar (probably removed from old Tengor or Tenax folder plate camera), A Rodenstock Trinar 105/3.5 (also from some folder, I guess), a hacked Russian Helios-44 (58/2) in 39mm screw mount, and a 135/4.5 Steinhell Culminar (a nice non-hacked lens).
I like some of the results - these are only the beginnings, but I already can see what needs "improving"....
The shot that comes the closest to that I had in mind comes from the hacked Helios
Sharp center, nice and fuzzy towards the edges.
There it is, in all its glory. I must put up another Web page with the other shots...
First results!!!
Well, I finally finished a roll of Efke R25 today, using various hacked and "normal" lenses.
I must say I like some of the results...
I have several lenses - mostly removed from old folder cameras... On this roll I used an old 135/4.5 Goerz Tenaxiar (probably removed from old Tengor or Tenax folder plate camera), A Rodenstock Trinar 105/3.5 (also from some folder, I guess), a hacked Russian Helios-44 (58/2) in 39mm screw mount, and a 135/4.5 Steinhell Culminar (a nice non-hacked lens).
I like some of the results - these are only the beginnings, but I already can see what needs "improving"....
The shot that comes the closest to that I had in mind comes from the hacked Helios
Sharp center, nice and fuzzy towards the edges.
There it is, in all its glory. I must put up another Web page with the other shots...
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
A few more...
A few more...
Here are a few more...
First is a portrait of my wife (the only person around I can cajole into standing/sitting still for more than 2 minutes) done with the funky Rodenstock Trinar. I say "funky" because I finally realized that it behaves this way because it has its rear element turned backwards
I like what it does....
Second is one done with the Goerz Tenaxiar - a normal, "non-hacked" lens. Cleaned up a bit, it could be quite nice.
Third is another shot with the hacked Helios - bird feeder in a cherry tree in full blossom Nice and dreamy...
What can I say? I like some of the results. And I really like my Speed Graphic.
BTW, most of the shots were heavily overexposed - I forgot to check the shutter speeds
I salvaged what I could in scanning...
Denis
A few more...
Here are a few more...
First is a portrait of my wife (the only person around I can cajole into standing/sitting still for more than 2 minutes
) done with the funky Rodenstock Trinar. I say "funky" because I finally realized that it behaves this way because it has its rear element turned backwards I like what it does....
Second is one done with the Goerz Tenaxiar - a normal, "non-hacked" lens. Cleaned up a bit, it could be quite nice.
Third is another shot with the hacked Helios - bird feeder in a cherry tree in full blossom
Nice and dreamy... What can I say? I like some of the results. And I really like my Speed Graphic.
BTW, most of the shots were heavily overexposed - I forgot to check the shutter speeds
I salvaged what I could in scanning...
Denis
farmersteve
Member
Two things to add... These photos sure have the look and feel of toy cameras. Have you tried a Holga or Diana?
Also, have you looked at David Burnett's work: http://www.davidburnett.com. He's a Pulitzer prize winning photojournalist and much of his latest work is done with Holgas, but lately he's been using an old Speed Graphic with an Aero Ektar lens. You can read more at :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/040226.htm
Also, have you looked at David Burnett's work: http://www.davidburnett.com. He's a Pulitzer prize winning photojournalist and much of his latest work is done with Holgas, but lately he's been using an old Speed Graphic with an Aero Ektar lens. You can read more at :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/040226.htm
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Yes, I know Burnett's work - saw his campaign photos. Nice stuff, and it was nice to see that someone still uses a Speed Graphic for professional work.
My photos have no aspirations to greatness - those are just experiments... Folling around, trying to achieve a certain look I find interesting. Holgas? Perhaps... but I like more control over the image
My photos have no aspirations to greatness
- those are just experiments... Folling around, trying to achieve a certain look I find interesting. Holgas? Perhaps... but I like more control over the image taffer
void
That sure looks interesting Denis ! Keep us posted, I think that with these kind of images, each element needs still more care and attention than on a 'normal' picture. By getting to know the effect well you may find you'll know how to compose your shots with the necessary elements to get the results you want.
It's all about imagination
It's all about imagination
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Some cool results Denis Congrats!
As to how-to-check the focal length:
With very simple lenses it works to project a very far image on a white wall and measure the lens-image distance.
With more complicated lenses however you can have no idea where to measure the distance from. I mean, the second main plane of the lens can be inside, in front and behind the physical lens itself. Especially tricky with tele or retrofocus designs.
And then you have the porblem that your object must be really at infinite or very very far.
What always works is: Project the image of an object which size you can measure; measure the projected size too. The ratio imagesize/objectsize equals the ratio imagedistance/objectdistance. This way you can have an idea of the whereabouts of the two main planes, from which you have to measure the focal length.
If you only need the approx. focal length to see if it fits within the reach of the bellows, your method is practical and good enough.
Congrats!As to how-to-check the focal length:
With very simple lenses it works to project a very far image on a white wall and measure the lens-image distance.
With more complicated lenses however you can have no idea where to measure the distance from. I mean, the second main plane of the lens can be inside, in front and behind the physical lens itself. Especially tricky with tele or retrofocus designs.
And then you have the porblem that your object must be really at infinite or very very far.
What always works is: Project the image of an object which size you can measure; measure the projected size too. The ratio imagesize/objectsize equals the ratio imagedistance/objectdistance. This way you can have an idea of the whereabouts of the two main planes, from which you have to measure the focal length.
If you only need the approx. focal length to see if it fits within the reach of the bellows, your method is practical and good enough.
bmattock
Veteran
Denis,
Awesome work! I brought an old Agfa Flashmaster to work today - try to get a few shots after hours. The Brownie Hawkeye I was using has a lens that is too good! This one looks pretty crappy.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Awesome work! I brought an old Agfa Flashmaster to work today - try to get a few shots after hours. The Brownie Hawkeye I was using has a lens that is too good! This one looks pretty crappy.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
denishr
アナログ侘・&#
Bill, post some shots when you're done...
As I said, I like the results I got... That "boy on a swing" shot (the first one I attached above) is really very close to what I was trying to do...
Denis
As I said, I like the results I got... That "boy on a swing" shot (the first one I attached above) is really very close to what I was trying to do...
Denis