Introductions in order..

[Nodda Duma]

Hello folks,

I registered a while back but haven't posted yet. Figured I might as well introduce myself.

I joined to keep abreast of changes and trends in film photography.

I am a lens designer by trade, working mainly in the defense industry with visible and also infrared imaging systems. I've been doing that for quite some time. I'm also trying to get a startup company going..the economy being what it is makes that a struggle. I use ZEMAX and of course know and understand the design forms used in camera lenses.

Film photography provides me a break from the digital imaging world, while satisfying my interest and appreciation of optics. It actually spun out of my astronomy and astrophotography hobby...which I pursued as digital imaging really took off a decade or so ago.

I own several cameras which cover the span of the twentieth century...from the Kodak Brownie to the OM-1 and (still looking for) a Nikon FM-2 or similar. I develop B&W but send out for color. I use Blue Moon Camera out of Portland OR. I have a nice scanner and printer at home.

I used to own a Jobo CPP-2 but unfortunately lost that with almost everything else when I moved my family from California to New Hampshire almost 4 years ago. We don't make as much as we used to, and with money being tight I haven't been able to replace the equipment I used to own. (My wife went back to school to earn a Physician's Assistant degree...she used to be an engineer). A handful of cameras and my scanner and printer survived. Still have enough to take pictures with tho.

Lately I've been shooting with a Contaflex Super which I rebuilt and just got the meter adjusted properly. Also using a Canonet QL-17 (not the GIII) which I just love. Like I said I'm currently looking for a Nikon FM-2 but my very tight hobby budget means I haven't had luck finding something I can actually afford.

Anyways, feel free to check out the pictures at my Flickr site. They're not anything special really but I like them. Still trying to figure out what makes for an interesting picture. I'm sure I'm cursed by the fact I'm an engineer and so I see the world differently than an artist lol. I also get personal humor out of things like taking fall color pictures with B&W or other such subtleties. I think that makes it fun for me and I'm going to explore that in the future. Like the picture of the kids figuring out a digital camera...the picture having been taken with a Kodak No. 1 Autographic....the original EXIF. That is just pure entertainment to me.

The feather pic on there was taken by my 6 yr old daughter. I'm teaching my kids all about shooting film and sometimes even manage to gain their interest long enough for magic to happen.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/noddaduma/

 

[gone]

Being an engineer is no hindrance at all. Henri Matisse was a court administrator and studying to be a lawyer before he decided to pursue a life of art. It doesn't seem to have held him back very much :} And we all know the wonderful story of the great painter Grandma Moses, who began painting at the age of 78. There are many, many stories like this. When I worked as a mechanic, I was a mechanic. When I was the marketing director of the oldest professional ballet company in America, I was a marketing director. And when I picked tomatoes (for $1 an hour), I was a tomato picker. So much for titles.

In the final analysis, if you're happy w/ your work (and even better, if you're UNHAPPY w/ it), then you have what it takes. Don't ever let anyone else tell you have to be a certain way, think a certain way, or study a certain way to be an artist. Anyone that produces art is an "artist". Best not to get hung up on titles, as they mean nothing in this field. Or, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, by gum, it's a duck!

You have several pics on your site that I like quite a bit, especially the blurry portrait and the feather. The only advice I would give (nothing like unsolicited advice, right?) is to try and avoid too much sentimentality w/ family stuff. To you, those people are the greatest people on earth, and that's how it should be. But for your art purposes, reserve those shots for the family, unless we're talking about the blurry portrait shot, the shot w/ the fallen scooter or bike (lots and lots of associations there for everyone), and the B&W shot of the girl at the miniature light house. Those are good. But, that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Many years ago, when I had my own separate art studio, a fellow painter and I stumbled onto an old art book that had some questionable advice, but one thing we really liked was this: "A mistake in art is simply success on a level that we don't yet fully understand". I still like that. Artists, writers, and photographers are usually the last people who should be judging their own work. If you like it, that's it, and on to the next story/drawing/painting/photo, etc. The main thing is to stay focused, keep working, keep moving.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Good advice. I suppose I could pull most of the personal kid pics since my flickr account was serving double duty sharing photos with distant relatives. Or not.... I kinda get humor out of the thought of viewers being annoyed by the kid pics interspersed in the photo stream.

In any case, thanks for the comments. Like anybody else I love getting feedback. A wise engineer once said "Constructive criticism isn't personal, it's a professional courtesy."

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Hello and a warm welcome to APUG.

Jeff

 

[Chazzy]

Welcome to APUG.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Welcome to APUG!

 

[AgX]

Welcome!

There are quite a few lens buffs here among us. I guess they love to know a lens designer now participating.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I'll answer questions as best I can, and hopefully even be able to translate from lens designer speak to end-user jargon. Which sub forum should I poke my head in to contribute?

A really good book which ties the design world to photography is "The History of the Photographic Lens" by Rudolph Kingslake. Kingslake was a well-known designer who can tell a good story. This book should be of interest to non-designers interested in the development history of the lenses you use.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[papagene]

Hello and welcome to APUG from western Mass!

 

[andrew.roos]

Hi ND

Welcome to APUG, from South Africa. I also work in the Defense industry (in communications systems engineering, not optics) and also have a daughter whose interest in photography I am trying to cultivate (mine is 9 yrs old). I was interested to read your thoughts on spherical vs. aspherical design, and look forward to hearing your opinions on various topics!

Andrew

 

[Nodda Duma]

Thanks Andrew.

My thoughts on aspheres is that they are primarily used to reduce size (length) and weight as well as increase lens speed, but not necessarily reduce element count and they certainly increase manufacturing cost (you can't block and polish out many at one time...you have to pay for the molds as well). Also for assembly the centering and tilt tolerances become much tighter.....increasing either labor cost, or decreasing performance of a typical production lens (not likely for respected manufacturers), or reducing yield.

Recently there have been improvements for a designer to loosen tolerances for mounting aspheres but I'm not sure if that's trickled down into the commercial sector yet. If you see a general trend of reduced price of new aspheric lens then it has...which is good.

In summary, they reduce weight and size and increase lens speed for higher sticker price, but not necessarily improve performance for a given f/# over an all-spherical lens. That has been my experience. I always try for all-spherical to meet performance for given size and weight because it's cheaper, and 90% of the time succeed.


One more comment is that ED glasses really do help boost performance... Providing a bigger leg up in my opinion than aspheres. All you pay for is higher material cost of the blanks.

Edit: well, and marketing of those little "ED" letters on the barrel

 

[baachitraka]

Interesting to know about aspheres....

 

[Nodda Duma]

Here is a classical chart showing design families for field of view vs f/#. Note that camera lenses like Tessars, Fish eyes, etc are a subset of a wider optical design "universe". Aspheres and ED glasses have shifted the families up and to the right.

For reference, Summicron lenses are the classical double gauss. Most modern normal field of view lenses are double gauss. The Kodak Brownie used a landscape lens (meniscus and an aperture). Also, all of the modern designs were established pretty much right around the turn of the (20th) century.

This is out of Warren Smith's "Modern Lens Design". A good reference for students but when you gain design experience you realize it's mostly empty of useful information.

 

[AgX]

I did not know that chart.


What is a "unobstracted 3-mirror" lens?

(A Schmitt-Cassegrain lens would be a "obstructed 2-mirror" one, I guess.)

 

[andrew.roos]

Very interesting - I can see we are in for some interesting times ahead! And I like the chart of lens types, it's an excellent summary.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Unobstructed 3 lens is a Schiefspiegler (google it ). The f/# for those as presented in the chart is pretty generous. Usually f/12 or so to control coma. / astigmatism.

 

[AgX]

http://www.astronomie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/technik/teleskopsysteme/multi_schiefspiegler_teleskop.gif


(a bit too schematic with its flat mirrors, but the best I could find on 3 mirror Schiefspiegler)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That, sir, is a very well-designed visual aid. It's often very difficult to create a clear, concise and easy-to-understand visual reference that convey's the relationship of mixed data. Bravo!!

Here is a classical chart showing design families for field of view vs f/#. Note that camera lenses like Tessars, Fish eyes, etc are a subset of a wider optical design "universe". Aspheres and ED glasses have shifted the families up and to the right.

For reference, Summicron lenses are the classical double gauss. Most modern normal field of view lenses are double gauss. The Kodak Brownie used a landscape lens (meniscus and an aperture). Also, all of the modern designs were established pretty much right around the turn of the (20th) century.

This is out of Warren Smith's "Modern Lens Design". A good reference for students but when you gain design experience you realize it's mostly empty of useful information.

 

[fotch]

Welcome to APUG.