Bokeh in Large Format

jimgalli · Jun 2, 2005

Discussed to death? I hope not. I have about 15 old portrait lenses now. As I use them and test for likes or dislikes I will post results to a page on my web page. Here's the results from an ancient Bausch & Lomb Petzval type "Projection lens".

These are milestone portraits for me. The first I ever considered good. (Whether they are or not). Let me know your thoughts.

noseoil · Jun 2, 2005

Jim, nice shots. Which shutter did you use? Packard? tim

Dave Wooten · Jun 2, 2005

nice.....it seems on the head shots the plane is 2-4 inches at most!?

Ole · Jun 2, 2005

jimgalli said:
I have about 15 old portrait lenses now.

So it's you! You've been driving up the price of old portrait lenses to the point where even I can't afford one!!!

Oh - the pictures are great, lovely bokeh

removed account4 · Jun 2, 2005

really nice portraits jim. i love the look you are getting with your new(olde) lens and your film + printing technique. the portraits really have a soul to them that newer lenses ( even though crisp, sharp and contrasty to distraction ) tend to miss.

i'm not quite to 15, but a little more than 1/2 way

jimgalli · Jun 2, 2005

noseoil said:
Jim, nice shots. Which shutter did you use? Packard? tim

Yes, a Packard which I tested at 1/8 sec. The 15" is f6.6 and at 22" bellows it becomes f8 1/2 which is what I used. Film was mostly Ilford FP4+ with a sheet or 2 of Bergger 200 for good measure.

"So it's you! You've been driving up the price of old portrait lenses to the point where even I can't afford one!!!"

Guilty as charged but the old Petzval market can now return to normal as I'm DONE buying old lenses.

Thanks for the kind words.

Charles Webb · Jun 2, 2005

I am by no means an authority, but I like what you have done. I have been searching for the same effects that interest you, but have been totally at a loss as to capturing it. Years ago I owned one of the Pinkham Smith lens that
was made for the Masters and Craftsman of the PPofA. I did not need to think about it, it just did it. In a fit of madness and a time when I was tired of the daily rat race of photography and was considering other means of making a living I sold it to another member of PPofA. I have been sorry ever since, I have not (read do not own) another lens that comes close. At that time many of us were interested in what has become known as Bokeh, but that word/description did not exist at that time.

I personally hope you keep updating us with the results of your testing. Oh one other coment or question, "are you satisfied with contrast" are you planning to test with perhaps a K2 or G filter behind the lens. I personally hate filters as I feel they degrade an image a bit when used at wider aperatures. any thought on this?

JG Motamedi · Jun 2, 2005

Jim,

They look great, and the Bokeh is perfect! It is really amazing that a lens designed over 150 years ago is able to produce such amazing results. At fifteen portrait lenses you are way past me. However, like you I found that the most unexpected of lenses produced the most pleasing portraits. I bought a 1850s Holmes, Booth, and Hayden's Petzval for way too much money, only to find that a lens I had purchased many years ago for five dollars at a yard sale was a Dallmeyer Petzval and produced a much nicer image...

Although coma and the swirly bokeh are normally identified as the favored aspects (flaws? aberrations?) of the Petzval, I have found that I love the fall off in the corners most of all. If you are interested in more of the lenses "personality", try using this lens with 8x10!

Great work!

smieglitz · Jun 2, 2005

If it ain't bokeh, don't fix it.

Eric Rose · Jun 2, 2005

you can't have beautiful bokeh in LF cuz they don't make Leica LF lenses.

jimgalli · Jun 2, 2005

For the sake of general argument, I think LF is the fatherland of bokeh. An everyday Rodenstock f5.6 plasmat wide open exhibits better bokeh than the most expensive 35mm "must have" bokeh lenses. It's just inherent in the simple designs. Argueably the older 19 blade apertures probably help a little, and the older portrait lenses like I'm fiddling with are actually special cases. Some LF lenses I don't particularly like: Tessar's. Kodak WF Ektar's. That ought to get some folks fired up.

Kerik · Jun 2, 2005

Eric Rose said:
you can't have beautiful bokeh in LF cuz they don't make Leica LF lenses.

I beg to differ:

Kerik · Jun 2, 2005

p.s. 14"x17" gum over platinum print shot with 18" Verito.

MenacingTourist · Jun 2, 2005

Kerik,

That shot takes my breath away. Really fantastic.

Ole · Jun 2, 2005

Kerik, that's the finest use of "swirly bokeh" I've ever seen. Thanks!

jimgalli · Jun 2, 2005

Kerik! That's awesome. Can you explain to some of us that are just sticking our toes in the water how the "swirly bokeh" happens?

Eric Rose · Jun 2, 2005

geez you guys I was just kidding!! I have a 300mm Geronar that I love for portraits. Sold my 210 Geronar which I loved as well.

Kerik · Jun 2, 2005

jimgalli said:
Kerik! That's awesome. Can you explain to some of us that are just sticking our toes in the water how the "swirly bokeh" happens?

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Jim, it's very complicated: I point the camera and press the shutter release. Seriously, I don't know. I presume it's just a function of the lens. I have too many soft focus lenses, but this 18" Verito seems to be the swirliest I've tried.

Kerik
www.kerik.com

Dan Fromm · Jun 2, 2005

Three thoughts, Jim. It goes without saying that I'm an idiot and insensitive to the finer points.

What I see in the shots you kindly showed us is that you print very light and that the shots have very shallow depth of field. As best as can be discerned from the scans, which is, practically, hardly at all, they're a little soft too. That's all nice, I guess, if its what you wanted to accomplish, and kinda anti-gang of f64, although the pictorialists did sometimes print pretty dark.

Thanks for showing us what it will do, but I'm not sold on ancient glass yet.

Regards,

Dan

medform-norm · Jun 2, 2005

Ole said:
Kerik, that's the finest use of "swirly bokeh" I've ever seen. Thanks!

Somehow, we can relate very well to people who like to take pictures of fog and benches and who like to work with monochrome images and old lenses and...

but Kerik knows that already.

(Kerik, I'm still thinking of a way of getting you over here to give a workshop to some photog students..).

smieglitz · Jun 2, 2005

Kerik,

Now you've got the gears meshing again. You state you used the 18" Verito on the 14x17. I understand it is convertible. Did you use the entire lens or just the rear element to cover 14x17? Until I saw this image I assumed the 18" Verito was designed for the 11x14 format or as a H&S portrait focal length for 8x10. I'll have to try using a shorter Verito on the formats I have and see if they behave in a similar fashion. I have them in 7", 8.75", 11.5", 14.5", two @18", and the 22.25" extension. So maybe the 7" on full-plate or 5x7, 14.5" on 11x14 ... I've been looking for a petzval lens to get this effect, but maybe I already have what I need on hand.

BTW, I seem to recall a similar swirling 14x17 of two standing young girls you had posted somewhere. Both images are super. Thanks for posting them.

Joe

JG Motamedi · Jun 2, 2005

I never associated "swirly bokeh" with the Verito; I had always assumed it was only the Petzval... Nice to know it can be found elsewhere.

jimgalli · Jun 2, 2005

Jason, I haven't seen it before with a Verito and it seems perhaps it occurs in the outer limits of the Verito's normal field. ie. an 18" is normally considered an 8X10 lens, and if you cropped Kerik's 14X17 into 8X10 most of it would dis-appear. The 18" is such a longish barrel I'm surprised it would be able to reach around 1417. Hoping Kerik will shed a bit more light.

Kerik · Jun 2, 2005

medform-norm said:
(Kerik, I'm still thinking of a way of getting you over here to give a workshop to some photog students..).

Norm, just let me know where and when!

smieglitz said:
Did you use the entire lens or just the rear element to cover 14x17?...
BTW, I seem to recall a similar swirling 14x17 of two standing young girls you had posted somewhere. Both images are super. Thanks for posting them.
Joe

Joe, I used the entire lens. I haven't tried just the rear element yet. I'm fairly close to the subject here, so there's more coverage than there is at infinity, of course. There is more fall off as I move farther from the subject (which I like). All of the soft focus images on Dead Link Removed were made with this lens. The other image you're talking about is probably Dead Link Removed made with a 20 inch Vitax and are not as swirly.

Jason, can you tell me exactly what defines a Petzval lens??

Jim, you may have hit it on the head. This lens isn't really intended for 14x17.

Thanks for all the comments.

Kerik

eric · Jun 2, 2005

JG Motamedi said:
I never associated "swirly bokeh" with the Verito; I had always assumed it was only the Petzval... Nice to know it can be found elsewhere.

My Lubitel 166 did the same thing wide open. I thought it was sort of weird.

Bokeh in Large Format

jimgalli

noseoil

Dave Wooten

Ole

Moderator

removed account4

jimgalli

Charles Webb

JG Motamedi

smieglitz

Eric Rose

jimgalli

Kerik

Attachments

Kerik

MenacingTourist

Ole

Moderator

jimgalli

Eric Rose

Kerik

Dan Fromm

medform-norm

smieglitz

JG Motamedi

jimgalli

Kerik

eric

Bokeh in Large Format

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency