Lenses for collodion - sharpness vs beauty

[scratched&grainy]

Hi,
I have some 19th century brass doublet lenses, make unknown, that produce amazing images when i do wet plate collodion. Unfortunately, when i enlarge the plates (1:5) (glass negs) they are not particularly sharp. I have tried taking the same pictures with my 5x4 apo sironar lens and the sharpness is stunning (1:10) but the image is flat and not very pleasing in an aesthetic sense. Is there a lens that produces great collodion images but also stands up to the task of enlarging?
Thanks,
Mark

 

[ic-racer]

Zeiss solved this problem with the Softar. You might want to check into that.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I can't help with classic lenses other than to suggest trying an Imagon at two or three apertures. I'm sure examples of your images would help those who know more than I to give you advice.

 

[gone]

Heliar? They have that soft yet sharp look, w/ 3-D imaging at times too. Not cheap, however. If I had my way I would shoot nothing Heliars.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi,
I have some 19th century brass doublet lenses, make unknown, that produce amazing images when i do wet plate collodion. Unfortunately, when i enlarge the plates (1:5) (glass negs) they are not particularly sharp. I have tried taking the same pictures with my 5x4 apo sironar lens and the sharpness is stunning (1:10) but the image is flat and not very pleasing in an aesthetic sense. Is there a lens that produces great collodion images but also stands up to the task of enlarging?
Thanks,
Mark

You're asking a lot of your 19th century lenses. More than they could reasonably be expected to do - the vast majority of collodion images were contact printed. What size plates are you working from? The previously mentioned Heliars would be good options, as would Hermagis Eidoscopes, Seneca/B&L/Wollensak/whole-bunch-of-other-names Portrait lenses (I have a Seneca Whole Plate Portrait lens, essentially a 14" f5 Rapid Rectilinear, that was also sold as a Wollensak Vesta and a number of other brands - Wollensak was the maker and sold it to other house-labels), and for the most part, most Rapid Rectilinears. The famous RR portrait lenses get a lot of attention and command serious prices, and some of the lesser ones get mis-labeled as Petzvals for the sake of jacking up the prices.

I'm just curious as to why you're trying to get 21st century style images using 19th century equipment and techniques. I'm equally baffled by folks going through incredible gyrations to try and get the contrast range in a platinum print that they get from a silver-gelatin print.

 

[MDR]

Everyone seems to love the Heliar and you have to pay a premium for them the run of the mill early Tessars are often overlooked unless they are the 12in Commercial Ektar used by Karsh. Tessars were known for their superior sharpness and contrast compared to other Anastigmats at that time. Every lens mfg. made one and since they have less lens to air surfaces than other construction they also don't suffer that much from not being coated. The high volume production of Tessar types makes them cheap. Another less well known lens that suffered from the mfg GDR future was the Hugo Meyer Trioplan those made during the interwar years are probably the best uncoated Triplet lenses ever made they were fast, sharp and had chararacter.

One Problem I have learned when using modern lenses with old techniques dryplate, collodion, calotype is that they don't really match. Modern lenses are optimized for film and a certain contrast old lenses from the 19th and early 20th century were optimized for wetplate or dryplate and contact prints which have a very different contrast and look than modern film. If you want a more modern look use modern themes and poses as for big enlargements you have to look at them from a distance if you go to Close the old lenses will suffer greatly but from a distance they often work. Just look at Sally Mann's magnificient wetplate work she makes large prints from negs that were created using bad lenses.

 

[removed account4]

i'm not sure how large your negatives are
( i'd also be careful enlarging collodion with a hot darkroom enlarger bulb, it is extremely flammable ...
the cleveland clinic fire was caused by xray film (non safety) in the 1930s, not only does it burn, and HOT
it gives off a toxic gas when it does ... safety film was created as a direct result of the cleveland clinic fire ... )

how about using a tesser ?
a tessar might give you enough umph ...
also, there are ways of turning sharp lenses into less-sharp ones during the enlargement stage.
people often use/d a verito or similar rapid rectilinear-esque / soft lenses
to "artify" an image ... i've enlarged with meniscus lenses .. they do the trick too ( as do other cheap box/junk folder lenses )!
you might look for a diffusion attachment ( oir make one with cellophane ) ..

good luck!
john

 

[gzinsel]

I was thinking of a triplet a.k.a Anastigmat, then I would try a tessar,

 

[scratched&grainy]

You're asking a lot of your 19th century lenses. More than they could reasonably be expected to do - the vast majority of collodion images were contact printed. What size plates are you working from? The previously mentioned Heliars would be good options, as would Hermagis Eidoscopes, Seneca/B&L/Wollensak/whole-bunch-of-other-names Portrait lenses (I have a Seneca Whole Plate Portrait lens, essentially a 14" f5 Rapid Rectilinear, that was also sold as a Wollensak Vesta and a number of other brands - Wollensak was the maker and sold it to other house-labels), and for the most part, most Rapid Rectilinears. The famous RR portrait lenses get a lot of attention and command serious prices, and some of the lesser ones get mis-labeled as Petzvals for the sake of jacking up the prices.

I'm just curious as to why you're trying to get 21st century style images using 19th century equipment and techniques. I'm equally baffled by folks going through incredible gyrations to try and get the contrast range in a platinum print that they get from a silver-gelatin print.

Im not trying to get 21st century images. Im just trying to enlarge prints instead of contact printing them.

 

[scratched&grainy]

Thanks for your suggestions. Plenty to work on there. I realize that different imaging technologies at different points in photographic history had their dedicated lenses. That is not to say you can't mix them, is it? Burt Munro used to urinate into the water that he used to cool down the pistons he used to forge in his shed when he was trying to break (he did) the motorcycle land speed record.how cool (and analogue) is that?☺

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Im not trying to get 21st century images. Im just trying to enlarge prints instead of contact printing them.

What I mean specifically by that comment is that you're being very concerned with sharpness, which is a 21st (and to a significant extent, 20th) century concern. Images made with the tools and techniques you are using were enlarged only in the rarest of circumstances. If you look at say, for example, Julia Margaret Cameron's images, which I have seen enlargements of, they're not very sharp. The CDVs in my collection appear sharp at their size because they are contact prints, but I doubt highly that they would look so good if blown up to 11x14. Doublets, especially 19th century doublets, are not highly corrected optical instruments that resolve 100 lp/mm. They're just not going to resolve enough detail to enlarge from. If you want the resolution, then you'll need modern optics, but you'll lose the 19th century character you got with your doublets.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Dont enlarge them , if you need larger prints , use larger glass. Small contact prints are beatiful.

 

[MDR]

Mustafa made a very good point a contact print is differs from an enlargement and has a certain quality that can't be matched by enlarged prints imo.

 

[removed account4]

while small are nice sometimes it is impossible to make big ones ...
( large cameras cost a fortune to purchase or make + extremely large wet plate images can sometimes be extremely costly)


YMMV

 

[scratched&grainy]

Hmmm...must be a way...

 

[MDR]

Do you hang/show enlargements from negs made with old lenses next to prints from negs shot with modern lenses if so let me say don't.
The prints from old lens negs will always appear less sharp and contrasty than those made with modern lenses. If you have nothing "better" (more contrast and thus more apparent sharpness and more Dmax) to compare to you will be astonished how good your prints made with old lens negs will look. Also a 5x enlargment from 4x5 isn't that small so don't make the mistake photographers often do of looking at prints from a very close distance instead of the intended or best viewing distance. Again look at Sally Mann's wetplate work it has a quality all of it's own and she makes large prints from "inferior" negs made with "inferior" lenses.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

John,

You had been reported at an old thread of mine , that wetplate was cheaper than film and cost was 5 dollars per large negative.

Guys , If you keep your posts reliable , it would be better for beginners.

What is the cost of fortune to make a laser cut plywood , plastic or aluminum camera , todays its nothing costs more than 100 dollars maximum.

You dont need 100 years old instrument making wood.

Its a box and holder and lens.

If OP have enough money to invest 19th century lens , he could invest a free cad software , sending to distant laser cut service and tape and glue everything.

Americans are interesting animals , if i say wet plate expensive , john says its too cheap , if i say wet plate is cheap , john says its too expensive , if i say camera is cheap , they say reverse .... etc.

c'mon people..

 

[removed account4]

scratched&grain

sorry for the tangent ...

====

John,

You had been reported at an old thread of mine , that wetplate was cheaper than film and cost was 5 dollars per large negative.

here enough materials and chemistry to make 65 plates ( 8x10) [ 270 4x5 plates ] is $350 which is about $5USD [ 1.25$ / 4x5] each.

the price went up for the bostick and sullivan 65 8x10 plate kit
now its--- $365
5.61 per 8x10
1.40 per 4x5 plate

inexpensive ?
seems inexpensive to me ...
a sheet of 4x5 film is about 1.40, unprocessed ...

What is the cost of fortune to make a laser cut plywood , plastic or aluminum camera , todays its nothing costs more than 100 dollars maximum.

$100 maximum ?
you need custom made film holders and a lens.
obviously you have never priced or made these things.

sure, $100 maximum, obviously cheap !

Americans are interesting animals , if i say wet plate expensive , john says its too cheap , if i say wet plate is cheap , john says its too expensive , if i say camera is cheap , they say reverse .... etc.

i quoted you off the supplier's website

there is a difference between 4x5 / 8x10 and extra large.
4x5 & 8x10 are inexpensive are about the cost of unprocessed FILM, yes " too cheap".

you suggested instead of enlarging to 20x24 or 40x50 the OP just shoot larger plates

( @ 7:32 ) ... ( $500 per image ) they seem about 40x50 ... ( cheap ? i guess cheap for you ! and costly for others )

https://vimeo.com/39578584

===
unfortunately umut, you are ... a kind of off.

 

[removed account4]

hi scratched&grainy

i know you don't like the modern quality of your modern lens but it enlarges well ...
have you tried unscrewing the front element a tiny bit (quarter turn ) of your modern lens might add enough abberation that it solves your problem ...
you might also take a sheet of plastic ( or a clear glass filter ) and cover it with collodion ( maybe not poured well, thick and rippled - use flexible collodion purchased at pharma for that
you probably don't want to waste your salted brew ... i used to get mine at the neighborhood pharmacy ) or urethane and use it when you expose with your modern lens.
the obscure "beach" lens used rippled glass to break up the sharpness of its lens design ... the collodion will peel off the glass when you want it to, urethane won't )
the imageon lens uses a sink-strainer type fstop system, some vertitos had "star" apertures instead of round holes ..
if you have enough light, and time to goof around you might also think about changing what your aperture looks like, it will change
what your final image looks like whether on a plate or piece of film ... you can also make your own aperture by using that piece of collodion covered plastic
and making dots or shapes with india ink or sharpie ( they write on collodion ) and use that in front of your lens

i've done pretty much all stuff i have suggested you might want to try, but not made massive enlargements, 16x20s from
35mm - & 4x4 - dry plates was as big as i went, ... made with sharp/modern taking cameras ... i've never
made scans of the images, made them before current "modern" technology existed ( and i don't know how far out of the box you want to go )
i never stuck collodion coatd glass in my enlarger for fear of a movie house blaze ( i have burned scraps of collodion and been to factories where it was made for munitions &c so i think about that stuff)
if i was to enlarge them, i'd probably make an internegative and keep the wet plate glass safe but that's just my own paranoia ..

have fun with your project !

YMMV

john