Ron Wisner on ULF portrait lenses

[TracyStorer]

The perspective (not parallax) is determined by the position of the lens relative to the subject. The DoF is determined by the magnification ratio.

Ole's right, it is the perspective that is responsible for that "big nose" effect.

 

[Dave Wooten]

1. Tracey do you have any info on number of Wisner 14 x 17 in existence?

2. How many 14 x 17 shooters are out there? The first international 14 x 17 convention is in the planning stage.

Dave in Vegas


we could I guess invite the 11 x 14 point and shoot guys

 

[TracyStorer]

1. Tracey do you have any info on number of Wisner 14 x 17 in existence?

Ron has made at least 5, and I know he made at least one 1620>1417 reducing back. He has probably made a couple more cameras and reducers that I don't know about. I started talking to him about 14x17 in '98 at Photo West. (talking about, not ordering)

2. How many 14 x 17 shooters are out there? The first international 14 x 17 convention is in the planning stage.

I've seen a Phillips 14x17, Lotus makes one, and of course there are vintage ones out there as well. I got interested in the format back when I was doing pinhole and could get 14x17 XRay film cheap, and found a couple antique 1417 plate holders I planned to convert.(shot some of the film in cardboard box cameras, never converted the plate holders)

Kerik shoots 14x17, Patrick Alt does too. (I'll ask John at Bergger how many different 14x17 people he ships to)

Tracy

 

[Kerik]

2. How many 14 x 17 shooters are out there? The first international 14 x 17 convention is in the planning stage.

Dave,

Let's just say you won't have to book a very large venue!

Kerik

ps Hey Tracy! Good to see you here.

 

[Dave Wooten]

good point Kerik,

maybe we can all fit in the Jeep

 

[Dave Wooten]

I wonder if 14 x 17 x ray film is still used?

 

[Dave Wooten]

JG and Stacey and Clay, BTW I first met Adrian several years ago at one or Ron Wisner's Death Valley workshops....we have been in friends every since....

 

[BarrieB]

Thread Bookmarked , I trust that discussions continue, very interesting, Cheers BarrieB

 

[David]

Good question

David

I'm curious to know how many 11x14 and larger shooters there are in Oz?

Over here in NZ there are very very few.


Clayton

Hi Clayton,
There is a man named Bob Kersey in the Sydney area who shoots 12x20 but beyond that I don't know of anyone else doing the formats of 11x14 or larger. I guess they just don't know what they're missing. I'd like to get over to NZ sometime and spend a couple weeks or more wandering around the south island.
Cheers,David

 

[phfitz]

Hi there,

Oh My God!!!

Ole, you just quoted the anti-Christ, the devil incarnate, the heretic William Mortensen;-)

"David, with a 450mm lens and 800mm extension the face-lens distance will be about 1030mm - far enough to avoid the "bignose effect". One meter is a reasonable distance to see other people from - it's when you get closer than that, that it looks "wrong"."

How can that be???

All joking aside, the idea of this thread, using shorter lenses for portraits, has me confused. If you use a shorter lens, you have to move in closer to get the same composition. If you do that, the focus spread is greater and you have to use an even smaller aperture to get the needed depth, then longer exposure and/or brighter lighting, both uncomfortable for the sitter.

300mm lens eyes=100%, nose=90%, ears=120%=30%
600mm lens eyes=100%, nose=95%, ears=110%=15%

The longer lens uses a wider aperture, lower lighting, more comfortable for the sitter. I think the antiques knew what they were doing when they made and used the extremely large 'brass cannons'. Slightly longer than normal still makes more sense to me.

Just a thought.

 

[Ole]

Oh My God!!!

Ole, you just quoted the anti-Christ, the devil incarnate, the heretic William Mortensen;-)
...

I guess that William Mortensen knew a thing or two about portraits

It is interesting that I came to the same conclusion from geometry that he reached - I don't know how, I have only ever seen him alluded to, and never read anything he's written...


But the point I was trying to make is that when you use a big film and are approaching 1:1 reproduction ratio, the distance from lens to subject is what determines the perspective. It is always that way, but under these circumstances it becomes more important than when you use a 35mm camera from a distance that is far longer than the lens extension...

And that the depth of field is dependent on the reproduction ratio, not the focal length of the lens.

One of the reasons for the "brass cannons" is the inherent limitations in the Petzval design. The sharp field is only about 20 degrees, so to get a whole face reasonably sharp you need a long focal length. Since they also needed wide apertures (a typical Petzval was f:3.5) with the slow materials of the day, the lenses were necessarily huge!

 

[smieglitz]

Also, if you consider the normal focal length of a lens for 11x14 is about 480mm or 18", doubling the focal length (as is typically done with smaller format portrait lenses) would require a lens of 960mm or 36". That would be a real beastie and require a huge bellows extension (just to get anything in focus, nevermind close portraits) with all the related engineering and practical problems.

 

[JG Motamedi]

I took a look at some of my "brass cannon" literature, and noticed that the recommended ratio between the normal FL and the recommended portrait length decreases as the size of the negative goes up. For instance, Dallmeyer recommends a 10" Petzval lens for 4x5 (1.6x normal FL), while a 22" lens is recommended for 12x15 (1.15x normal FL).

 

[Dave Wooten]

Not to change the subject of this interesting thread but while there are knowledgeable souls on line at the moment,,,,,question, "does any one have access to, expeerience with or info on lens invented in 1925 by Nocola Perscheid--supposedly a lens adapted to the pictorialist style?"

thanks again

 

[JG Motamedi]

Busch's Nicola Perscheid lens, like the Verito and the Cooke PS945, is a modified Rapid Rectilinear; two cemented doublets using spherical aberration to create a soft focus effect. They are pretty uncommon, and usually sell for large sums of money. I compared one with the much cheaper Verito at Lens and Repro many years back, and thought that they were remarkably similar. I suppose they should be, since they really are the same lens...

 

[JG Motamedi]

...the much cheaper Verito...

I should have written; the once-upon-a-time much cheaper Verito.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks, I wonder what the patent differences actually are, interesting it was invented at the near end of the pictorialist "era" maybe that explains the rarity?

JG,

Thanks for the chart also, so I guess for around 14 x 17 the recommended portrait lens would be around 700-760 (according to the chart displayed)?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My theory about the cost of the Perscheid lens is that it may have to do with the fact that Perscheid photographed a famous Japanese actor, and perhaps had other notable Japanese subjects, because it seems to be that the Japanese collector market is what supports the price of his signature lens (which may not have been the lens he actually used to make the famous portraits).

 

[Dave Wooten]

now that is an interesting connection--many pictorialist were influenced by Japanese composition etc...ex Stieglitz flatiron-1903 or earlier his Spring Showers 1900 (also shot in NY)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The couple of Perscheid portraits I've seen in reproduction seem to have a lot of hand work on the negative, producing the look of a very fine engraving or maybe a photogravure (it's possible that the reproductions I've seen are of photogravures, so that could explain it as well). I would say the pencil work is probably a lot more important than the particular soft-focus lens that he used.

Here's his self-portrait from this page on the lens--http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/nicola_e.htm

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/nicola.jpg

Here's another portrait in this style (Clara Viebig, 1890)--

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/frauenarchiv/viebig/viebig1890.jpg

This one's particularly interesting (Ernst Matray), another film actor postcard--

 

[Ole]

All right!

Now own up - who of you outbid me on the Rodenstock Serie I No.3 Portrait lens yesterday?

 

[Kerik]

All right!

Now own up - who of you outbid me on the Rodenstock Serie I No.3 Portrait lens yesterday?

I don't know, Ole. The glass looks pretty bad on that one.

Kerik

 

[df cardwell]

Today, breezing through View Camera I read an article by Ron Wisner on ultra-large format lenses. He made a very interesting point, which I will try to recount.

Doing portraits with a 4x5, then an 8x10 Deardorff, I got into habit of using the lens standard's knobs to compose the shot and rough focus, then fine focus with the film standard.

First time I tried shooting a "head and shoulder" bride's portrait with my 11x14 and 24" lens, I couldn't reach the front knobs because my arms were too short. My face smooshed into the ground glass and my fingers wiggled desperately.

The bride was a photographer. Everybody at the wedding was a photographer. Everybody but me took a picture of the moron with the huge camera waving insanely at the bride from inside a dark cloth.

Since then, I've believed with all my heart that large format portraiture, not to mention ULTRA large format portraiture has a lot of room for personal preference.


don

"This suspense is terrible. I hope it will last."

 

[JG Motamedi]

...with my 11x14 and 24" lens, I couldn't reach the front knobs because my arms were too short. My face smooshed into the ground glass and my fingers wiggled desperately...

Yes indeed, I have often wished for orangutan arms.

I wonder how others deal with this?

 

[jjstafford]

Yes indeed, I have often wished for orangutan arms.

I wonder how others deal with this?

Focus using the rear standard.