Bokeh in Large Format

jimgalli said:

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".

.

Click to expand...

MAN! I love that narrow focus.

So some old lenses are tuly appreciated! Wonderful! I've a few that might serve me better to sell to pay medical bills. Maybe. First it would be helpful to know what lenses are prized lest I make a fool of myself to list my poor bunch... although I've done enough already to be known the fool.

So if you all don'y mind, what old lenses are so prized? Please.

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

Click to expand...

The Petzval has a cemented doublet in front and an airspaced doublet in the rear. I have attached two diagrams of popular Petzval-type designs, the first is that designed by Max Petzval in 1840, and the second is Dallmeyer's tweak of that design in 1866.

Your Verito--like the new Cooke lens and the Pinkham Smith Visual Quality--has cemented doublets in front and rear, and is essentially a Rapid Rectilinear, which is a modification of the Petzval.

Kerik, any recollection of the aperture you used? Then scan of the picture doesn't seem very soft, so I assume you stopped it down a bit?

jason

JG Motamedi said:

Your Verito--like the new Cooke lens and the Pinkham Smith Visual Quality--has cemented doublets in front and rear, and is essentially a Rapid Rectilinear, which is a modification of the Petzval.

Kerik, any recollection of the aperture you used? Then scan of the picture doesn't seem very soft, so I assume you stopped it down a bit?

Click to expand...

Jason, thanks for the info. So, if I was looking for a petzval that would cover full plate and/or 11x14, can you give me some examples to look for?

I probably shot that one at about f/6, slightly stopped down from wide open. I usually shoot the verito between f/6 and f/8 because wide open I find it just too soft overall. The scan is deceivingly sharp since it is squashed down from a huge negative to a small JPG. The original looks quite a bit softer in person.

-Kerik

I also usually like the Verito between f:6 and 8. I was guessing you had to be using it on a larger than intended format to get the "swirly" effect. I don't normally get that with the 14.5" on 8x10". It really works nicely in that portrait.

Kerik said:

Thanks for the comments, guys.
Jim, it's very complicated: I point the camera and press the shutter release...Kerik

Click to expand...

Aha, Monsieur K! Your technique gives you away! You are clearly using a Diana and just wish to guard your secret!! It is time to come clean my friend.

j

jon koss said:

Aha, Monsieur K! Your technique gives you away! You are clearly using a Diana and just wish to guard your secret!! It is time to come clean my friend.

j

Click to expand...

Bonjour Monsieur Jon Koss. You appear to be suspicious?

Kerik posted a very interesing image. But is the stuff going on in the background of his image really bokeh?

Sandy

jon koss said:

Aha, Monsieur K! Your technique gives you away! You are clearly using a Diana and just wish to guard your secret!! It is time to come clean my friend.

j

Click to expand...

JK dude, funny you should say that. I affectionately refer to my 14x17 camera/18" Verito as my Diana on steroids.

Kerik

Kerik said:

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

Click to expand...

Dear Master Kerik,
Your photo's are adorable, I would ask you for the permission to add a link to your site in my wibsite (stil under construction).
Philippe

I think the swirly effect is a combination of coma and curvature of field. I have an 11.5" Verito that I usually use for 4x5", but I'll have to try it on the 8x10" or 11x14" and see what it does.

Nice work Jim. I especially like the image of "Heather".

It is easy to forget that before the advent of photography the concepts of bokeh, depth of field and selective focus were not well understood and poorly represented in other mediums. As in so many ways photography presented a new way of seeing the world, backed up by the reality of the lens.

I personally feel that such images are one of the real beuaties of photography. In essence it is really much closer to the way we see the world as the human eye is all about selective focus.

For the regular person viewing photographs I think there is a real affinity towards such images.

Just for hoots and giggles, try unscrewing the rear element of a modern lens. I had a Rodenstock Sironar I helped a friend select and it turned out to have some haze in it, so out came the trusty S.K. Grimes spanner and the glass. Cleaned those puppies up and put the glass back in the cells. Several days later I get a call that the lens won't focus properly. So I go over check it out, and sure enough, it has a swirling Holgaesque appearance.

Apparently when I put the glass back in the rear cell, I did it in the wrong order and the glass was displaced. I loosened the inner retainer on the rear cell. tightened the outer until it bottomed, then tightened the inner and problem solved. But the effect was interesting to say the least.

Steve

Kerik said:

... if I was looking for a petzval that would cover full plate and/or 11x14, can you give me some examples to look for?..

Click to expand...

Thanks for the details Kerik.

For full plate, I think a 14" Petzval lens, if you can find one, would be perfect. At portrait distances an 11" will cover, but exhibits lots of "swirly bokeh" and serious fall off. The 11" is normally rated for 1/2 plate, but I normally use it for 5x7, which provides just enough "bokeh" and fall off for my tastes. A 16" Petzval, which works well for 8x10, would be fine for full plate, but there wouldn't be very much "bokeh".

11x14 is a bit harder. I have seen very few good Petzvals which are large enough for ULF. Dallmeyer made a number of them. Seth Broder posted some useful scans of a 1931 Dallmeyer catalogue, which provide good (albeit a bit conservative) recommendations.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/dallmeyercat/seriesa.jpg
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/dallmeyercat/seriesd.jpg
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/dallmeyercat/seriesb.jpg

I have a 22" f/4 Dallmeyer 5A, a mountain of brass and glass, which is recommended for 12x15. It is occasionally too long for me, as my bellows will only (!) go out 42", not quite to 1:1. I have recently been thinking that a 19" would be a bit more realistic. I know that the 16" Vitax could be outfitted with a 20" extension element. This might be ideal. Dallmeyer also made the 5D, a 19" f/6 lens which might be "petit", but the only one I have seen of late is at Lens and Repro for $850 (anybody got one to sell?)

The reenactment crowd tends to push their lenses a bit too far for my tastes. Many use 11" lenses for full plate and 9" for 1/2 plate. They are able to do so because they put their photos in oval mats, which covers up much of the "bokeh".

David A. Goldfarb said:

I think the swirly effect is a combination of coma and curvature of field...

Click to expand...

Yes, I think this makes sense. Do let us know how your 11.5" looks on 8x10.

regards,

jason

Jim Chinn said:

...I personally feel that such images are one of the real beuaties of photography. In essence it is really much closer to the way we see the world as the human eye is all about selective focus...

Click to expand...

Agreed. Makes me wonder how the F/64 Group philosophy ever became the standard modus operandi.

Joe

smieglitz said:

Agreed. Makes me wonder how the F/64 Group philosophy ever became the standard modus operandi.

Joe

Click to expand...

This has really been fun. Jim Chinn's well thought out reply made me think about an obvious truth I hadn't thought of before. Photography ultimately allowed us to see either much more or much less than our eyes select to see. And learning a certain amount of control over those possibilities is exciting. Certainly the F64 group chose the easier of the many roads. It's much simpler to make fine perfect sharp pictures with infinite depth and maximum contrast than it is to make a believeable dreamy photo isn't it.

I'm still firmly in both camps. I'll continue to work towards f64 perfections. Last weekend I did some of both. I carried the 8X10 deep into the ancient Bristlecone forest with some of my finest lenses and proceeded to make 10 negatives that would do Ansel proud. Interestingly though, since the success with the more dreamy petzval in the exact same weekend, I haven't taken a second look at the perfect 810 negs. I'm more interested in exploring the dreamy looking stuff.

FILM photography still holds more possibilities for seeing than any other creative medium. I think it will be the future of photographic fine art.

jimgalli said:

second look at the perfect 810 negs. I'm more interested in exploring the dreamy looking stuff.

Click to expand...

Coooool! That's why I use my Holgas, Dianas, and Portragon. I'm tired of that sharp perfect shot. Well, I like them, but not all the time. When my 8x10 is ready this summer or fall (hint, hint, you know who you are ), I'll read up on some homemade or not-so-great lenses to use that will give me that sort of Holgaish, Dianish, Portragonish look to it. And besides, I probably can't afford a real lens so I'll be on the lookout for old barrel stuff that will cover 8x10.

David A. Goldfarb said:

I think the swirly effect is a combination of coma and curvature of field. I have an 11.5" Verito that I usually use for 4x5", but I'll have to try it on the 8x10" or 11x14" and see what it does.

Click to expand...

Well, that image by Kerik rather takes your breath away with that extraordinary background.

But now I am wondering, what the hell is bokeh? And the reason is because what I see in Kerik's image is very different from what I have in the past considered as bokeh. But if it is indeed bokeh it is by far the nicest example of it I have ever seen.

Sandy

sanking said:

Well, that image by Kerik rather takes your breath away with that extraordinary background.

But now I am wondering, what the hell is bokeh? And the reason is because what I see in Kerik's image is very different from what I have in the past considered as bokeh. But if it is indeed bokeh it is by far the nicest example of it I have ever seen.

Sandy

Click to expand...

Browsing Dan Colucci's page on bokeh, I found this BOKEH page which is rather useful - it provides some nice illustrations/photos.

But, I'd side with Sandy and say that Kerik's images are not all about bokeh - they include various aberrations and lens "defects".

Recently, I've also become interested in those old lenses and the results they produce.
Since I don't have the money to burn, I stayed away from various Dallmeyers, but was able to get several oldish lenses for a song - mostly from old (and cheap) MF folders.
Some results can be seen here.
In the meantime, I got hold of a couple of more cheap ones, and (hopefully) will be able to play some more. I also got a nice one from our own Ole - yet to be tested....
BTW, Kerik's photos are absolutely lovely - and just what I'm trying to achieve - but with "modern" film (e.g. Efke)... I know I can't achieve the exact "look", but some of the lenses (and "lenses") I tried are relatively close. Of course, I'm restricted with my camera format (2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic) and "modern" film...

It seems that many of us here are interested in that kind of result. Personally, I got hooked upon seeing Robb Kendrick's photos (actually tintypes) in one of the last year's issues of National Geographic. His wonderful portrait (tintype) of a girl is also on the cover of "In Focus" - a book of Nat. Geographic portraits...
There's just one word that comes to mind when looking at such photos/tintypes - haunting.

In short, those old lenses can produce some very interesting results - and I've since learned that I like this type of images. Another example that comes to mind are Sam Liu's photos taken with his French Kinaflex TLR - see here and here on photo.net.

I guess it boils down to "esthetics of seeing", or to whatever is "pleasing to the eye". It's not always about ultimate sharpness and/or contrast, or whatever. Sometimes even very cheap/plastic/lowly cameras and lenses can produce breathtaking photos... But it's useful to know beforehand what one can expect from a particular lens.

As an aside, I recently purchased a modern CV Nokton (50/1.5) for my Leica - I wanted a faster 50mm lens, but couldn't justify shelling out a small fortune for a Summilux (or a Noctilux )... After the first roll, I was rather disappointed, seeing that it has severe light falloff in the corners (see thread here. However, after a while, I realized it's a "feature" of most such lenses (apparently Nikkor 50/1.4 does the same, and even the famous Noctilux!)...
Looking at some of the shots later, I realized I like its "signature", vignetting and all

Denis

Denis P. said:

Browsing Dan Colucci's page on bokeh, I found this BOKEH page which is rather useful - it provides some nice illustrations/photos.

Click to expand...

Hi Denis.

that was a nice link to the BOKEH page. I do wish a Japanese collegue would chime in in this discussion, since bokeh is an essentially Japanese concept/notion, I assume one linked to their sense of aesthetics, which seems very different from the western views. We're very much fans of Japanese (amateur) photography and spend lots of webtime on Japanese photography sites, but unfortunately, most sites don't translate w/ the Babelfish tool. I suspect bokeh to the Japanese has a lot to do with things as 'atmosphere' and 'presence' in photographs, whereas here the discussion seems to be more technially oriented.

Regards,
norm

Bokeh is simply the aesthetic quality of the out-of-focus area of the image. That quality is in fact often the product of lens aberrations and "defects."

The F64 aesthetic as photographic modernism became known in America was a combination of taking advantage of new technologies in lenses, film and paper and following the logical course of art as a reaction to previous ideas and movements. In my opinion the aesthetic of pictorialism had as much to do with avaliable lenses and materials as the desire to emulate painting.

Photographers in Europe and the East coast were pursuing modern or realism in photography many years before Adams and the F64 crowd. Just as the cubists and dadists explored radical new ways of expression apart from figurative realism, razor sharp photographs with great depth of field were no less radical in there day. Such images prsented the world in a new way. Not to take anything away from Watkins and Jackson, but the modernists worked with subjects and ideas to exploit the new abilities of the medium.


The interesting thing is that with all art, new ideas and concepts can be presented, but the many movements never really dissapear completely. They usually re-surface with a new generation of artists. Currently there seems to be a major re-exploration of abstraction and field painting by new artists.

The highest priced vintage photographs currently almost always are of a romantic, pictoralist style. Works and styles that were lambasted in the past as overly sentimental are now seen as a unique, dreamy and beuatiful style of expression.

of course on can always wait for the that swirling, bokeh plug in to be included with the next version of photoshop.

Jim Chinn said:

The F64 aesthetic as photographic modernism became known in America was a combination of taking advantage of new technologies in lenses, film and paper and following the logical course of art as a reaction to previous ideas and movements. In my opinion the aesthetic of pictorialism had as much to do with avaliable lenses and materials as the desire to emulate painting.

Photographers in Europe and the East coast were pursuing modern or realism in photography many years before Adams and the F64 crowd. Just as the cubists and dadists explored radical new ways of expression apart from figurative realism, razor sharp photographs with great depth of field were no less radical in there day. Such images prsented the world in a new way. Not to take anything away from Watkins and Jackson, but the modernists worked with subjects and ideas to exploit the new abilities of the medium.


The interesting thing is that with all art, new ideas and concepts can be presented, but the many movements never really dissapear completely. They usually re-surface with a new generation of artists. Currently there seems to be a major re-exploration of abstraction and field painting by new artists.

The highest priced vintage photographs currently almost always are of a romantic, pictoralist style. Works and styles that were lambasted in the past as overly sentimental are now seen as a unique, dreamy and beuatiful style of expression.

of course on can always wait for the that swirling, bokeh plug in to be included with the next version of photoshop.

Click to expand...

Jim, how much do we owe you for this short lecture in the history of photograhy? It seems you have it all worked out.

medform-norm said:

Jim, how much do we owe you for this short lecture in the history of photograhy? It seems you have it all worked out.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you are poking fun at me or not, but I have become very interested over the last few years about the connections between modern art and photography and how film and lens had a tremendous impact on how painters and sculptors began to see the world. Their experimentation further fueled explorations by photographers to use the camera as a communications tool with its own unique characteristics.

Illustration and commercial work in the 20s influenced a new realisim in painting, and the ability of a lens to render an object larger then life with total clarity across the image obviously had a huge impact on the work of individuals such as O'Keefe.

Abstraction existed in photography long before it did in painting in Russia and Europe. Cubism may have been derived void of photographic influence, but the ability to combine photographic images from a variety of view points or various elements on the same print probably had a huge impact on collage, jsut as collage probably planted the seeds for constructed photographs by Nagy and experimentation in the Bauhaus school.

Anyway, my point is that even though it is hard for photography to get the respect it deserves, I firmly believe that 20th century modern painting and sculpture in many ways can find its genesis in photography.

Jim Chinn said:

I don't know if you are poking fun at me or not, but I have become very interested over the last few years about the connections between modern art and photography and how film and lens had a tremendous impact on how painters and sculptors began to see the world. [...]

Click to expand...

I found medform-norm's comment to be sincere, and speaking for myself your comments are appreciated. Look for example to M. Duchamp and his open appreciation for contemporary physics' breaking paradigm, and photography. One has to dig a bit, but it is in the literature. BTW - an excellent brief view of Marcel Duchamp at: http://www.understandingduchamp.com/ and this: http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~entim/Professional/Courses/EN3524/Modernism/Duchamp_Staircase.jpg

There is not doubt (in my mind) that technological advances have an effect upon art. It is my belief that much of the impetus for the modern era of art has to do with the advent of the camera (as well as the growth of the middle class, industrialization and the quickened evolution of politics).

I hope Med-norm was serious; it would be a shame to have people feel reticent about posting their views for fear of being ridiculed.