Calling all history buffs...

[df cardwell]

The only problem is that the Dallmeyer's Rapid Rectilinear wasn't available until 1866 ( Brit. Patent 2,502/66 ). Steinheil's Aplanat' is identical, and appeared simultaneously (see Rudolph Kingslake, A History of the Photographic Lens. Academic Press, Boston, 1989.)

Howlett was long dead.

It still seems the best guess for Howlett's lens was a Voigtlander. I have no evidence that any other firm but Voigtlander made the Petzval design AT THIS TIME. ( Of course, my resources, as my scholarship, is limited. )

In a few years, everybody made a copy of the lens, and it remained a fixture in portrait studios until the 1920s.

According to Kingslake, the Petzval-Voigtlander breakup was after a 5 year partnership, the quarrel taking place in 1845. The Voigtlander Braunschweig factory was not established until 1849. The Vienna factory was not closed until 1866.

Petzval lost interest in optics after the failure of his second manufacturer in 1862. He continued as Professor of Higher Mathematics at the University of Vienna, and was appointed a member of the Hungarian Academy of Science in 1873.
( Kingslake attributes this information to J.M. Eder, History of Photography, trans. E. Epstean. Dover, New York, 1978)

Don
"This suspense is terrible. I hope it lasts !"

 

[David H. Bebbington]

The only problem is that the Dallmeyer's Rapid Rectilinear wasn't available until 1866 ( Brit. Patent 2,502/66 ). Steinheil's Aplanat' is identical, and appeared simultaneously (see Rudolph Kingslake, A History of the Photographic Lens. Academic Press, Boston, 1989.)

Howlett was long dead.

It still seems the best guess for Howlett's lens was a Voigtlander.

I quite agree! My suggestion is, however, that if you want to take a picture which LOOKS like the Howlett picture of Brunel, a rapid rectilinear is going to be much easier to find than a Voigtländer (although I surprised myself with my e-bay search at finding 2 or 3 Petzval-type lenses by various makers).

Regards,

David

 

[Ole]

I'm leaning more and more towards a landscape lens... A simple doublet behind the (brass ring) stop. Especially after considering the size of a Petzval lens to cover 12x10" with that good sharpness at any stop - what a 480mm RR could do would take an 800mm Petzval. At f:4 it would need a 20cm front lens - that is one serious piece of glass! Anything in that era shot with something approaching "normal" focal length would either show some very serious swirlyness in the corners, or be shot with a much simpler and smaller landscape lens.

Just my 2d (pennies, pre-decimal)

 

[JG Motamedi]

Don's comments are spot on.

I took a look at the picture again, as well as some better quality reproductions I had in books, and am pretty sure I see the tell-tale signs of Petzval coma in the corners. Chances are a stop (a front washer type, water house stops were probably invented in the late 1850s) was used, which would account for its apparent lack of "bokeh".

In the 1850s there were a number of lens manufacturers, notably Voigtländer, Ross, CC Harrison, Holmes Booth and Haydens, Lerebours, and Jamin.

 

[JG Motamedi]

.. after considering the size of a Petzval lens to cover 12x10" with that good sharpness at any stop - what a 480mm RR could do would take an 800mm Petzval. At f:4 it would need a 20cm front lens - that is one serious piece of glass! ...

Ole,

I have a Dallmeyer 5A (f4) from 1870 which was rated by Dallmeyer for 15"x15" plates. This lens has a 127mm front lens. Dallmeyer recommended 19" lenses for 10x12 plates, so we can assume that this lens would have a 120mm front lens. Still quite big...

When stopped down, the petzvals cover without too much coma. So Dallmeyer even sugggested in the 1870s that a 19" lens for 10x12 stopped down a could cover 12x15. I am not quite sure that I would agree with Dallmeyer here, as my experience suggests that Petzvals illuminate a field slightly less than their focal length.

Attached is a Anthony's catalogue from the early 1870s (provided by Sean MacKenna) which lists coverage for Dallmeyer 'D' type f/6 Petzval lenses.

 

[Ole]

I'm amazed at how much infomation I can get by simply having a slightly off-mainstream opinion!

 

[David White]

Thanks everyone so much for the info, fantastic.
I am ammending my plan so that I will use a 10x8 camera and ancient lens. To this end I need a knackered 10x8 camera, doesn't need a lens. I am happy to make my own but figured if I could get a cheap enough old thing I wouldn't need to.
saw this:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7532525052&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1
seems a bit steep, right idea though.
have bid on this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7533054024&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1
because it's cheap Is it any good? I want an ultra low contrast non coated, simple optic.

Thanks again all, has anyone got an old 10x8 box they don't need? To a good home, for a good cause..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think Ole has a Eurynar. I think it would be in the spirit.

These old lenses aren't always low contrast. They made be uncoated, but they have fewer glass-air surfaces than modern lenses, so contrast might not be so bad. It's often the case that the print processes were low contrast, so the negatives were processed to very high contrast. If you aren't planning to coat your own albumen (there are some good instructions on the web for this), you might consider printing to Chicago Albumen Works POP--a printing out paper that needs to be toned for final color and for permanence.

 

[jimgalli]

There's plenty about, David! What about this one?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30076&item=7531879718&rd=1

This lens would work with 4x5", the ideal would of course be a lens for a big negative, but a lot of the big Petzval lenses seem to have disappeared.

Regards,

David

Or (there was a url link here which no longer exists) if you want to use a full plate or 8X10.

 

[David White]

That is a very impressive lens jim, about 10times as much as I want to spend at the mo, though. When I have succesfully experimented I may well buy it as I could do with bigger than 10x8 coverage really.
I'm trying to think what I could swap. Even if I could think of something, to post that beast from your shores would cost an arm and a leg.
is this the type of lens that gives the delicious edge swirl bokeh, or is that due to using certain lenses 'beyond' their recommended max aperture?

best,
David White
www.nospin.co.uk

 

[jimgalli]

That is a very impressive lens jim, about 10times as much as I want to spend at the mo, though. When I have succesfully experimented I may well buy it as I could do with bigger than 10x8 coverage really.
I'm trying to think what I could swap. Even if I could think of something, to post that beast from your shores would cost an arm and a leg.
is this the type of lens that gives the delicious edge swirl bokeh, or is that due to using certain lenses 'beyond' their recommended max aperture?

best,
David White
www.nospin.co.uk

I'd be out on a limb if I said that the so-called "swirly bokeh" could be made by this type or that. That phenomenon seems to have more to do with the scenic components. This lens certainly has a very shallow field of sharp focus wide open and a lovely bokeh beyond that. I think your idea of a single meniscus lens is probably sound and in the price range you desire. Best of luck on a great project.

 

[Ole]

...
have bid on this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7533054024&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1
because it's cheap Is it any good? I want an ultra low contrast non coated, simple optic...

The Eurynar might disappoint you - it's sharp! The construction is four elements in four groups, so you'll get the low contrast. But "swirly bokeh"? Forget it. The Eurynar was relatively cheap in it's heyday, since it gave a lot lower contrast than the multiply cemented lenses like the Protars. But take away the fog, and it's sharper than any Protar could ever be...

By the way - I don't have an Eurynar: I have two. One coated, one uncoated, both 135mm f:4.5. They are both utterly sharp, but the heavy flare from eight uncoated surfaces tends to camouflage that fact.

I have another Rodenstock too - a "Hemi-Anastigmat" 300mm f:7.2. It's an upmarket Aplanat, and no anastigmat at all. But it's good, and less "flary" than an uncoated Eurynar. And the corners get a little swirly once in a while.

 

[David White]

Hello again,

It seems that I have to now get very serious about this, as it looks like I have been commissioned to take a series of pictures of Brunel's achievements on a camera and lens combination as similar as possible to Howlett's.
This means, I think, that I need a Tailboard bellows camera, 12x10 or 250x300mm ish,and most importantly of all, the right lens. I am not sure that I am any clearer now than when I started! Do I need to look for a portrait or outdoor lens? Petzval or Voigtlander? Rapid rectilinear etc etc..Somewhere near 450mm I think..?

I will not be using plates though, wet or otherwise. How will I achieve correct registration?

And what is going on with the shape of his plate? see hereat bottom)
http://tinyurl.com/a33tp

Either way..I need to buy this set up. I will put an ad in wanted soon, but thought I'd ask here first.

Thanks for all your anticipated help,
best to all,

David White
www.nospin.co.uk

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but what on earth is the point of using an antique camera? I mean, you can get the same results with a modern one. This is not a question about choice of lens or film, it is about about choice of camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, let's see -- in my case, I can spend $200 to $300 for a working Speed or Crown Graphic and another $100 on film holders to shoot 4x5, or (as I've done) I can spend $12.50 on a Zeiss-Ikon Ideal plate camera, $50 on another for parts, and $70 for film holders, and make negatives about 90% the size of 4x5 for less than 1/3 the money. My Kawee Camera is even better -- $16.50 for the camera and three film holders, plus a few dollars for some film sheaths ($10 for a dozen, as I recall) a few months later. Not only does it take the same 9x12 cm film as the Ideal, it's about the same size, folded, as a 4x5 film holder.

Yes, I can get the same results with a modern camera -- for five to fifty times the money.

 

[smieglitz]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but what on earth is the point of using an antique camera? I mean, you can get the same results with a modern one. This is not a question about choice of lens or film, it is about about choice of camera.

Dan,

Depending on the lens you may not be able to mount it on a modern field camera. The Petzvals are really huge for the focal length and require a robust camera with large lensboard.

Plus there is the whole Living History/ Reenactment thing to consider. Lenses made pre-Civil War are in great demand and those from 1867 much less so.

Joe

 

[k_jupiter]

Well, let's see -- in my case, I can spend $200 to $300 for a working Speed or Crown Graphic and another $100 on film holders to shoot 4x5, or (as I've done) I can spend $12.50 on a Zeiss-Ikon Ideal plate camera, $50 on another for parts, and $70 for film holders, and make negatives about 90% the size of 4x5 for less than 1/3 the money. My Kawee Camera is even better -- $16.50 for the camera and three film holders, plus a few dollars for some film sheaths ($10 for a dozen, as I recall) a few months later. Not only does it take the same 9x12 cm film as the Ideal, it's about the same size, folded, as a 4x5 film holder.

Yes, I can get the same results with a modern camera -- for five to fifty times the money.

Donald,

There hasn't been a Speed or Crown produced in any shape or form in 35 years. That's not a modern camera.

While yes, you can buy a speed for 2-3 hundred bucks, you can buy one for 50 to 60 bucks just as easy and it might be just as nice a camera.


That said, I am not in disagreement with you in principle. I am just as thilled with the photos from my 1926 Trona as I am with my 1955 Speed with a Fujinon lens on it. I have much more fun hauling around my 3x4 Graphex RB SLR as anything else. I love the photo qualities I get from my 1949 Kalart Press more than anything I have ever shot with my Nikon FM2 from the mid 80s.


I have been amazed at what you do with so little. I am still going to send you a Nettar for you to compare with your other MF stuff. Send me a snail mail address.

tim in san jose

 

[Ole]

Hello again,

It seems that I have to now get very serious about this, as it looks like I have been commissioned to take a series of pictures of Brunel's achievements on a camera and lens combination as similar as possible to Howlett's.
This means, I think, that I need a Tailboard bellows camera, 12x10 or 250x300mm ish,and most importantly of all, the right lens. I am not sure that I am any clearer now than when I started! Do I need to look for a portrait or outdoor lens? Petzval or Voigtlander? Rapid rectilinear etc etc..Somewhere near 450mm I think..?

I will not be using plates though, wet or otherwise. How will I achieve correct registration?

And what is going on with the shape of his plate? see hereat bottom)
http://tinyurl.com/a33tp

Either way..I need to buy this set up. I will put an ad in wanted soon, but thought I'd ask here first. ..

There's an Ebay seller in India, lexim2k, who has a very nice 12x10" Gandolfi camera for sale. At least it didn't sell last time he put it up, it's not exactly cheap. There's a Dallmeyer Serrac lens on it, if you want something more "contemporary" contact me: I have a J. Lancaster 12x10" Patent Rectilinear lens I don't need. Focal length is about 46cm - 18".

Or you could use a Russian 30x40cm camera, perhaps (12x16" appx)? 24x30cm cameras are unfortunately as rare as 12x10"...

 

[David White]

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but what on earth is the point of using an antique camera? I mean, you can get the same results with a modern one. This is not a question about choice of lens or film, it is about about choice of camera.

I don't understand your point above, Dan.
The whole point of the entire project IS to use a camera as close to Howlett used as is possible. This is the essence of the project that I have a grant for. Bristol, where I live, is celebrating 200 years since Brunel's birth. My project will be part of those celebrations, as I have been commissioned to take 20 images of Brunel's achievements in the manner described above.
And, pray tell, how do I get the same results with a modern camera as I would with an 1850 12x10 with a wonderfully primitive lens? Even if I could that would be no good, as Bristol want to display the camera I use along with the images.

Ole...what sort of age is your RR?

I just missed a great camera last week, 12x10, seemed perfect if a little newer than ideal. Didn't go for it because the commission hadn't come in.
Does anyone have a clue as to the reason for the arch along the top of Howlett's plates?

best,

 

[David White]

Hello,

How much did the man in India want for his Gandolfi Ole?
Sounds a bit new though..

 

[Ole]

Hello,

How much did the man in India want for his Gandolfi Ole?
Sounds a bit new though..

David, run a search for "lexim2k" and "ended auctions". I think it was about $650. It's certainly newer than 1860, though - Gandolfi started in 1885.

My Lancaster lens is also newer, I'd guess about 1900.
I have a "Steinheil Patent no.6" too, which is probably one of the first Aplanats (=RR) made. 1868? But it's not exactly the most "primitive" lens, being the a representative of the first "modern" lenses instead. Besides you want a British lens, certainly not a German one for that project!

 

[Ole]

Oh yes - the "arch".

It's quite common on pictures of about that age, and albums from the same time often have "pockets" of the same shape. Maybe it was common to mask it off for some reason - could be to get rid of some of the (very) bright sky areas, or emulsion faults on the bottom on the wet plate (when in the camera), or maybe just a fad?

No - I don't quite believe in the "fad theory": It's the same in UK and Germany - and things rarely are unless there's a reason!

 

[Dan Fromm]

David. Thanks for the explanation. I'm still confused.

An LF camera is a light tight box that supports a lens at one end and a film holder at the other. I appreciate that using an aged lens and an old-style but fresh emulsion will let you simulate Howlett's work. But what does the light tight box contribute to anything that matters EXCEPT, as you pointed out, a display?

Cheers,

 

[reellis67]

Oh yes - the "arch".

It's quite common on pictures of about that age, and albums from the same time often have "pockets" of the same shape. Maybe it was common to mask it off for some reason - could be to get rid of some of the (very) bright sky areas, or emulsion faults on the bottom on the wet plate (when in the camera), or maybe just a fad?

No - I don't quite believe in the "fad theory": It's the same in UK and Germany - and things rarely are unless there's a reason!

It could also be one half of a stereo pair. Many stereo images had that arch on the top part of the image, and many stereo pairs were printed singly later on.

- Randy

 

[Ole]

Randy, I think many stereo pairs had the arches for the same reasons that this one has the arch! As to this being part of a stereo pair - no. With a 12x10" plate size there is no way it could be half a stereo pair: The plate size for stereo is limited by the average interocular (sp?) distance, AKA the distance between your eyes.

Since there were no enlargers or enlarging papers when the exposure was made, there is every reason to believe a 12x10" print would have been made by contact printing a 12x10" negative.