More LF Bokeh, This time a 12" Wolly Velostigmat

[jimgalli]

Another page in my ongoing study of some of the famous and not so famous portrait lenses and how they look. About a 5 minute read offsite so the photos can be a bit larger. 12" Wollensak Velostigmat

Let me hear your thoughts.

 

[laz]

The picture of your niece Annie is spectacular!

 

[luvmydogs]

Jim,

I am no expert here, since I am still waiting for the arrival of my LF camera. But from a layperson's perspective, I will have to say that I am very impressed. I can't believe these photos were done with a $75 dollar lens. Makes me wonder why I'm spending $795 for mine.

 

[jimgalli]

Now don't get the wrong idea here. You guys need to keep buying multi-hundred $$$ lenses from me and leave the $75 stuff to me.

Actually there's a place for both. I also used a $1400 Gold Dot Dagor over Labor Day and there's really nothing else I would have wanted to use for that particular photo.

 

[laz]

leave the $75 stuff to me.

Okay, I'll give you $76 for the lens

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not bad at all. Velostigmats don't usually go for much money.

I'd bump up the contrast half a grade or so on the portrait, but maybe that's just my monitor at the office. I'm sure it will look perfect at home on my snappier laptop screen. I think the key with the soft lenses is to combine hard and soft, so I try to use them in hard light or to increase the contrast in another way (development, filtration, etc.) to isolate the effect of the lens.

 

[luvmydogs]

Now don't get the wrong idea here. You guys need to keep buying multi-hundred $$$ lenses from me and leave the $75 stuff to me.

Actually there's a place for both. I also used a $1400 Gold Dot Dagor over Labor Day and there's really nothing else I would have wanted to use for that particular photo.

I was actually thinking about buying that last lens you had up for sale, but someone else beat me to it (I believe it was laz127!)

 

[laz]

I was actually thinking about buying that last lens you had up for sale, but someone else beat me to it (I believe it was laz127!)

Yup that would have been me. Don't worry about the next one though; monthly college tuition/rent/food payments for my beloved son have begun and we're gonna start eating dog food!

-Bob

 

[highpeak]

The lens and pictures it produced are amazing. The DOF is really shallow, her forehead is out of focus but not her eye-lash. I like the bokeh here.

 

[BradS]

Thanks for sharing Jim....is that lens flare in the photo of the truck (in the rear half of the driver's window and on up across the roof)?

 

[MattCarey]

You gotta give Jim a lot of credit here. He takes the risks, that lens could have turned out to be a dog. If he gets some winners in this lottery, he's earned them.

He gives me hope--I have a Series II Velostigmat waiting for testing. Once that lensboard is here, bang!

Matt

 

[jimgalli]

....is that lens flare in the photo of the truck (in the rear half of the driver's window and on up across the roof)?

Was wondering who would notice the "ghost". No idea how it got there. Almost like a pinhole leak. I just figure that's part of the fun.

Thanks for all the nice comments.

David, I still struggle with contrast in portraits. More to learn. My normal approach with scenics is to go for the throat with gobs of contrast. But that doesn't carry over well with people pics. Open shade with more light out beyond can be nice. But you can't let the sunlight get into these flary old lenses so you have to be kind of carefull.

 

[Charles Webb]

Jim,
I am not at all surprised at the results of these lenses, I was playing with and getting similar results with the Velostigmats back in the fifties, they weren't so cheap then, but they always delivered excellent results.

The term "contrast" to me is a catch all thing that many folks cling to. To my way of seeing most images today are over contrasty or the contrast is exagerated in such a way that it detracts rather than enhances an image. I believe there is a very thin line that an excellent image exhibits when the contrast is spot on. What makes that excellence turn into a nice or good photo is too much or too little of that contrast thing. When I look at the image of the little girl, it is a pleasant
easy view, I don't have to sit back and try to figure what your intentsions in making it were. It is all there to see.

Most likely I am wrong in the way I see, but much more contrast in my opinion would begin to detract from what already is a fine image as it is.

Thank you for sharing,
Charlie

 

[Mongo]

Not bad at all. Velostigmats don't usually go for much money.

They will now that Jim's showing what they can do.

 

[John Kasaian]

Jim,

Great shots!

I've been a fan of Velostigmats ever since I came across one hitching a ride on an Anny Speed Graphic I bought many moons ago. The camera once belonged to a photography prof at Fresno State College and portraits were her passion---which explains her choosing the velostigmat.

I am curious about your 12"--I've seen two versions, one with a way to dial in the softness and another where you just use the f/stops. Which one is your lens? Its my understanding that these are tessars so do you think that has anything to do with the bokeh? How much wiggle room does the 12" have(though I can't imagine that being important in portrait work---just curious)

Cheers!

 

[jimgalli]

Jim,

Great shots!

I've been a fan of Velostigmats ever since I came across one hitching a ride on an Anny Speed Graphic I bought many moons ago. The camera once belonged to a photography prof at Fresno State College and portraits were her passion---which explains her choosing the velostigmat.

I am curious about your 12"--I've seen two versions, one with a way to dial in the softness and another where you just use the f/stops. Which one is your lens? Its my understanding that these are tessars so do you think that has anything to do with the bokeh? How much wiggle room does the 12" have(though I can't imagine that being important in portrait work---just curious)

Cheers!

Hi John. This doesn't have the de-focus. You can accomplish the same thing by unscrewing the front group and increasing the distance between the 2 glasses with the rear thread. I had one of the defocus ring ones and foolishly traded it before I got interested in all this good stuff. They're around. Yes it's a tessar and covers the 8X10 easily at infinity. After seeing my own results I'm anxious to go and use it some more.

 

[Charles Webb]

For what it is worth, I have both Velostigmats, one with the 1to 5 adjustment, and the same focal length with out the adjustment. Jim is absolutely correct about backing off the front elements. Actually I have three with the adjustment, one is in a shorter focal length (9" f4.5). They made the model with the adjustment I believe at least 3 focal lengths according to some Wolly info I read awhile back. Even though I am seldom
able to use them, they will remain in my humble lens drawer.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Oh I am going to have to read more carefully,

thought is was for sale for 75....and if the truck photo was shot in Nevada, it's not lens flare at all....it is a ghost. Quite the norm in these desert parts.

 

[MattCarey]

For what it is worth, I have both Velostigmats, one with the 1to 5 adjustment, and the same focal length with out the adjustment. Jim is absolutely correct about backing off the front elements. Actually I have three with the adjustment, one is in a shorter focal length (9" f4.5).

Cameraccentric has the old Wolly manuals on his webpage. They list the variable diffusion option starting at above 8" (or thereabouts). I purchased one thinking it had the adjustment only to find it was the longest focal length without it. It did come with one of the elements slightly unscrewed. I foolishly tightened it. Immediately afterwards I regretted it--it would have been interesting to see where the previous owner thought it worked well.

Matt

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Wollensack

Dear,

I once saw a cover story on a phtographer using an American made lens for the L.F. 8"x10" cam.
He used it for photographing etnic artwork and sculptures on Ektachrome.
It was 'tag' sharp en the colours were correct. The lens was rather big and all chrome but I can not recall the type nor the brand, anny guesses?

I happen tu use an Imagon 250 mm with the smallest screen disc all closed, fantastic bokeh and surprisingly sharp, but the lens got stolen, verry sad indeed!

Thanks

 

[Dan Fromm]

You gotta give Jim a lot of credit here. He takes the risks, that lens could have turned out to be a dog. If he gets some winners in this lottery, he's earned them.

He gives me hope--I have a Series II Velostigmat waiting for testing. Once that lensboard is here, bang!

Matt

What risks? There really aren't that many doggy lenses. There are, though, lenses that are usable but not great.

We also have to remember that reductions -- that's what the digital representations of LF prints or negatives we see here are -- don't demand the ultimate in image quality in the original. And this is in no way a criticism of Jim's work.

About Series II Velostigmats. Basically they're tessar clones. I have a 3"/4.5 Ser. II. Not doggy, but not particularly good. So I don't use it. But its sorta usable if I really need it. But since its not particularly good it stays in the drawer. And I'm starting to sound like the dread Frank Granovski. Sorry.

More seriously, we tend to get caught up in pursuit of the best lenses, whatever that means, without considering that "the best" isn't often vastly better than "the good enough." We're not that much snobs about lens manufacturers, but we tend to be a bit snobbish about lens designs. My reaction to this nonsense was to start shooting with an f/7.7 Aldis Uno. Look it up.

Regards,

Dan

 

[MattCarey]

What risks? There really aren't that many doggy lenses. There are, though, lenses that are usable but not great.

I think Jim pushes the limits sometimes--

From Jim's website:
"When it arrived, it was indeed a hoary mess. You couldn't have aimed a photon through the disaster if life depended on it. Dirt, and fungus amongus. "

He had no guarantee that the lens would be of any use. You gotta think that if you do that enough times, you have to find a lens that can't be saved.

Besides, even if it works, Jim's time has to be worth enough that the final cost of the lens is more than it is worth. This, of course, neglects the whole "hobby" part of the task.


Matt

 

[Dan Fromm]

I think Jim pushes the limits sometimes--

From Jim's website:
"When it arrived, it was indeed a hoary mess. You couldn't have aimed a photon through the disaster if life depended on it. Dirt, and fungus amongus. "

He had no guarantee that the lens would be of any use. You gotta think that if you do that enough times, you have to find a lens that can't be saved.

Besides, even if it works, Jim's time has to be worth enough that the final cost of the lens is more than it is worth. This, of course, neglects the whole "hobby" part of the task.


Matt

Matt, lenses in poor condition are one thing. Lenses that are inherently bad are another. Like you, I suspect that Jim is apt to gamble on cruddy, as in covered with it, lenses. Like him, I know that scratches etc. don't always affect how well a lens shoots.

I've never asked him, but there have been times when I've thought he was deliberately being outrageous. I tried that once, bought a 6"/1.9 Super Six with the intention of using it on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. THAT would have been outrageous. But the lens' weight and the cost of putting it on a board persuaded me that it would be better off with someone who valued it for itself.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[jimgalli]

Living in a state where gambling is legal, I know at least one thing about gamblers They'll brag like crazy about their winnings.......but you never hear about the losses. Come on over to my place and we'll get out the junk boxes. And there are some! Quite a few actually. Like the 2D I bought last month that was so ugly I just folded it up and put it where I can't see it. I did get a nice old Wolly RR from it though.