• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Evaluating Meniscus Lenses using Paper Negatives.

Shadow play

A
Shadow play

  • 11
  • 1
  • 75

Forum statistics

Threads
201,232
Messages
2,820,918
Members
100,605
Latest member
Fishzzz
Recent bookmarks
1

Reinhold

Advertiser
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
913
Location
Washougal, Washington
Format
Multi Format
First time users of meniscus lenses are often challenged by the learning curve required to use these lenses effectively.
Interpreting the image on a ground glass and quickly seeing the results in a final print is important in the learning process.
Paper negatives can reduce the "feedback" time between composing on the ground glass and evaluating the lens.

This is only a "quick & dirty" (and cheap) method.
It's not intended to be a treatise on making a "perfect" paper negative.
A series of test exposures takes only a few hours:
-- Use RC paper (any kind).
-- Trim paper to fit the film holder.
-- Pre-flash.
-- Expose in camera. (Use ISO ±3~6)
-- Develop. (1+10 stock Dektol, ± 6~8 min)
-- Evaluate.
--15~20 min dry.
-- Scan & invert.
--- or ---
-- Contact print a positive
-- Repeat as necessary.

The photos:
: Tape a strip of thick paper to your trimmer as a gauge.
(Makes trimming paper to fit a cut film holder easy).
: Pre-flash;
Set lens @ f:32, expose to give a barely visible outline of a coin placed on paper.
: Negatives; Use diluted and/or old print developer, 5~8 minutes.
Aim for a "strong" negative image.
: Examples of evaluating my new 335mm Wollaston lens

Reinhold

www.Re-inventedPhotoEquip.com
 

Attachments

  • Trimmer.JPG
    Trimmer.JPG
    323.6 KB · Views: 359
  • Flashing.JPG
    Flashing.JPG
    384.5 KB · Views: 363
  • Paper Negs.JPG
    Paper Negs.JPG
    426.3 KB · Views: 385
  • 335@5.6x650.jpg
    335@5.6x650.jpg
    155.7 KB · Views: 370
  • 335@f11.645.jpg
    335@f11.645.jpg
    205 KB · Views: 384
Last edited by a moderator:

htmlguru4242

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,012
Location
Eastern NC, USA
Format
Multi Format
Forgive my ignorance, but what about these lenses makes them so tough to use?

I love the results that they give.
 

michaelbsc

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,103
Location
South Caroli
Format
Multi Format
Forgive my ignorance, but what about these lenses makes them so tough to use?

I love the results that they give.

For starters they're very low contrast. And not terribly sharp, especially away from the center.

So they're difficult to focus, or at least i find them so. But they give you a great "old-timey" look because that's what they used way back then.
 

markbarendt

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
I agree about both reduced contrast and focussing being the issues.

I've been flirting with trying Harman's direct positive paper along this line, maybe with my next order from Adorama.
 

htmlguru4242

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,012
Location
Eastern NC, USA
Format
Multi Format
I cannot help but wonder what Infrared film without an AH backing might look like through one of these lenses! Maybe too soft?
 
OP
OP
Reinhold

Reinhold

Advertiser
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
913
Location
Washougal, Washington
Format
Multi Format
Another tactic is to use X-ray film for making low cost film negatives.
Working under a red safelight makes developing by inspection a breeze~

Contrast variables when using meniscus lenses opens another way of seeing...
Low cost X-ray film makes shooting many aperture and contrast variables a snap.

Reinhold
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom