Lens Philosophy or Do you really need to resolve 68lppm on an 810 1114 sheet?

[Steve Hamley]

How about everyone sitting on their hands for a while before replying so Sean doen't pull the thread or stop it - it has some interesting stuff I'd like to not see disappear, and some interesting discussions.

Thanks!

Steve

 

[Kerik]

Charlie, where have I made any denigrating comments about people here?

Hmmm... how about this:

First not everyone who reads these threads have the vast experience that you have, 55 years is a long time, and I'm sure that after 55 years of doing photography you must be an acclaimed master at it. (Where are you showing I'd love to see your prints?)

I feel the best way to get a sense if someone knows what they're talking about is to merely view their work. Talk is cheap after all. People are free to view my web site and your personal gallery and decide how much credibility they are going to give us.

Cloaked though it may be in sarcasm, your message is pretty clear.

All your chest-thumping and success aside, to me, what I've seen of your work has commercial undertones to it. The idea that you can take a "perfect" picture with high-end lens and then somehow fiddle with it to make it look like something else, or that you don't 'get' the Diana/Holga aesthetic doesn't suprprise me, but to me it comes from the commercial photographer's mindset. I don't know much about your background (other than what I've read in this thread), but I've seen your work on the web. TO ME, it has the look of being made by someone coming from a commercial photography background. To me it has an over-produced look to it. Not that it's not beautiful, because clearly it is and apparently sells very well, but TO ME it lacks the organic look of work done with simple tools and techniques by someone doing it purely for the love of the medium and the desire to express themselves. Again, I'm not talking good vs. bad here, just my very subjective impression of the difference between what I consider Art and illustration. Luckily, there are no absolutes in art. We can each follow our own paths and my opinion is no more valuable than anyone else's. I wish you continued success on your path and I wish the same for Charlie and everyone else dedicated to their work. Keep on keeping on... Now if you'll excuse me, there's a beautiful brass lens on eBay I'm thinking of bidding on... and I need to order some more collodion.

 

[removed account4]

i am a bit confused -
i thought the purpose of this thread was to suggest that
with an olde-beater of a lens you can get a nice image.
and that you don't need to spend $4000.00 on a lens. i don't have
any lenses that cost $4000, and i don't think i would spend that much $$ on a lens anyways ...

i have always been under the impression that it really doesn't matter what kind of lenses or equipment one uses, as long as he is happy with the results.

 

[Early Riser]

Kerik, my "sarcastic" comment came AFTER Charlie crossed the line into personal comments. Now you, who I have never mentioned in this thread, have chosen to wade in with personal remarks. I don't see you criticizing Charlie's "chest thumping" about how much money he made as a photographer.

I don't mind when you write about my work:

"...it has the look of being made by someone coming from a commercial photography background. To me it has an over-produced look to it." ( btw Ansel Adams was a commercial photographer)

However when you write,"..it lacks the organic look of work done with simple tools and techniques by someone doing it purely for the love of the medium and the desire to express themselves." you are way presumptuous. How dare you say that anyone, who you don't know personally and therefore lack real firsthand knowledge of, doesn't do their photography for the love of photography and their desire to express themselves. Just because people buy my work and I don't use simple tools, and simple techniques doesn't mean I don't love doing photography and am any less commited than someone using simple tools and simple techniques. Sorry if my training and background has given me some skill. According to your comments only the unskilled and inexperienced must care about their work.

 

[Kerik]

According to your comments only the unskilled and inexperienced must care about their work.

LOL!!! Wow, that statement is so rediculous all I can do is laugh...guess you missed this part:

I wish you continued success on your path and I wish the same for Charlie and everyone else dedicated to their work.

Rock on, man.

 

[Early Riser]

Kerik, read what you wrote. From what i can get from it, you consider having a commercial, or professional background, and producing work to professional standards to be a sign of not doing the work for the love of it. So by that definition, only amateurs or amateurish work qualifies as work that was done for the love of it.

Ansel Adams was a commercial photographer, I guess then just like me than he didn't love doing photography or used it as a means of self expression either.

Anyway, I regret that this has gone so way off topic. Do what you want, think what you want. Time has a way of sorting things out. I'm outta here.

 

[Kerik]

Do what you want, think what you want. Time has a way of sorting things out.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[smieglitz]

...Now if you'll excuse me, there's a beautiful brass lens on eBay I'm thinking of bidding on... and I need to order some more collodion.

Ditto. You looking at that H... lens? Let the games begin!

Joe

 

[sanderx1]

I suspect that Jim Galli's Heliar (I forget which focal lengths he has) are wonderful performers from wide open on down through f/22. I suspect that the Russian lenses the Ole talks about are indeed pinsharp. I suspect that Rolleiflex Schneider and Zeiss lenses starting in the 1950's are critically sharp (approaching diffraction limits) from wide open down through f/22, which makes them such fun instruments for creating negatives to be used for enlarged images. [/rant]

Schneider and Zeiss lenses are nowhere near diffraction limits wide open. The diffraction limit at f/22 is somewhere between 85-75 lpmm (depending on wavelngth). There really are no lens that are diffraction limited (not the same as distortion limited) at f/4, never mind f/2.8 or f/2. Lens on Rolleiflexes can resolve (assuming a brand new or recently well-serviced TLR) somewhere around 120-130lmm on film. Criticaly sharp is not the same as "approching diffraction limits" - not even close.

 

[cperez]

OK. I had one beer too many (is there ever such a thing as too many microbrew? )

Diffraction limits at f/22 are ~60l/mm. At f/16, ~90 l/mm. At these apertures, yes, LF lenses are typically diffraction limited.

I agree with your comments about Rollei TLR optics. Mine have tested at around 100 l/mm all the way thru f/11. My Mamiya 7 80mm did 120l/mm from wide open on down to around f/8-f/11.

So let me back off a little and say: I just took a look at some "real world" results from LF lenses that span time from now and back through the 1950's. There was very little variation in apparent resolution wide open. I found some shockingly good lenses too from all era's and make.

Anyways, I'll be preparing (and having someone edit it for me) my results and posting them later this week (if "work" doesn't get in the way ).

I think Jim's original premise stands. And upon closer inspection, many of our older LF lenses are better than some of us think.

Schneider and Zeiss lenses are nowhere near diffraction limits wide open. The diffraction limit at f/22 is somewhere between 85-75 lpmm (depending on wavelngth). There really are no lens that are diffraction limited (not the same as distortion limited) at f/4, never mind f/2.8 or f/2. Lens on Rolleiflexes can resolve (assuming a brand new or recently well-serviced TLR) somewhere around 120-130lmm on film. Criticaly sharp is not the same as "approching diffraction limits" - not even close.

 

[cperez]

I just put the finishing touches on the draft version of my 210mm lens test wherein I "tested" 6 optics of varying ages. While not directly related to contact print work, it might show why things are the way the are with regards to Jim's 'ol brass lens collection.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

 

[jimgalli]

WOW Chris! Haven't had time to read it all yet, but I cerainly am glad we have some folks like you in this hobby that are willing to do the work and then share it.