The Petzval Madness Continues...

[bobfowler]

<big snip>
It is much more than a lens formula, it is what it does to us that we are at a loss to explain...it evokes emotion...

it is here to stay

That sums it up quite nicely...

 

[Kerik]

Very beautiful images.

Whiteymorange mentions digital clarity as one of the factors leading to this revival, but I don't find digtal images clear at all.

Thank you Robert (and Mr. Wooten, of course!) I think there is a sterility and "perfection" to (high-end) digital images that is the antithesis of the pictorialist aesthetic. While they can't rival the resolution or detail of a LF chrome exposed with modern high-quality glass, they come across as artificially, synthetically perfect. And so far, I haven't seen digital images that rival the beautiful soft-focus look of old lenses on film. I've tried a Lensbaby on a Canon 10D and the results are interesting, but still not quite right for my taste.

 

[Gordon Coale]

OK, OK. I've had quite enough! What are some preferred Petzval lenses to look for?

 

[roteague]

One of the advantages of APUG. If I had read about this in a magazine, I would have just blown it off. Hearing others discuss, and show their fascination for this process, gives it a life that you can't get from a magazine.

 

[bobfowler]

I've tried a Lensbaby on a Canon 10D and the results are interesting, but still not quite right for my taste.

I find the whole Lensbaby thing kinda amusing. At the PhotoExpo in NYC this past Fall, the Lensbaby booth was packed. It's nothing you can't make yourself for a couple of dollars, yet those things sell for $150.00!

OK, OK. I've had quite enough! What are some preferred Petzval lenses to look for?

I think at this point, it's more like find one in the focal length you want more than from a particular maker. They were made by a bunch of different companies...

 

[JG Motamedi]

I hate to break it to you guys, but Petzvals are sharp lenses. Assuming that they are in good working order and focused properly they will not produce a soft or diffused look. Even the Dallmeyer Patents and Wolly Vitaxes which had a "defocusing" adjustment in the rear element would never produce an image which a pictorialist would claim as their own. In fact, lenses like the Verito (which Kerik uses to produce such beautiful and haunting images) were design in reaction against such sharpness.

That said, the coma (field curvature) of the Petzval when shot 'short' or at landscape distances does produce a very interesting and almost pictorialist look with its crazy swirly bokeh, but the focal point remains sharp.

 

[rrankin]

I use Petzvals regularly, and agree with JG Motamedia. The object of focus is very sharp. In my experience, the interesting part is the out of focus parts due to the shallow depth of field on these lenses at f5 or so. I use this 'blur' to frame what I see as the point of interest. But I have some shots that are razor sharp on the object of interest. I've always been a bit confused why people were considering these soft-focus lenses. They aren't in my experience, with lenses going back to 1860 or so.

Cheers, Richard

 

[MattCarey]

Something, I'll never understand. I prefer the newest, sharpest lenses I can get.

I'd just say...look at some of the portraits that Jim Galli has taken of himself. Do you think he wants sharpness? (sorry Jim!)

Personally, a portrait of me is best with the lens-cap on!

Matt

 

[Kerik]

Jason,

Thanks for clearing that up. I've been a little confused by all the petzval threads - which is why I put petzval in quotes in my previous post. How would you classify a Dallmeyer 3A? I've got one, but haven't put it on a board yet. And thanks for the kind words...

 

[Denis P.]

One of the advantages of APUG. If I had read about this in a magazine, I would have just blown it off. Hearing others discuss, and show their fascination for this process, gives it a life that you can't get from a magazine.

Robert, I guess it's an acquired taste

And, as JG and rrankin mentioned, the Petzvals are not inherently "soft". They are just "different".

I must admit I'm also strongly drawn to such images. As with Dave, my interest in the "old brassies" started with Robb Kendrick's tintype portraits (cover photo on National Geographic portraits book). Then I got interested in this old fashioned "look" - soon I discovered Jim Galli's portraits, and saw Kerik's work, etc.. Now I'm hooked

Perhaps it's also a bit of "rebellion" against the emotional coldness of digital imagery (at least that's how I fell towards it).

Having mainly shot Leica glass in the previous year, I was fairly prepared and "trained" to pay more attention to OOF areas of image, and I guess this is how I noticed this "magic" of old glass.

For me, it's been a full circle - from Nikon, to medium format, back to Leica and rangefinders, and finally large format with "antiquated" equipment and lenses.

Once, when I spoke about that tintype portrait of a girl by Robb Kendrick, I used a term "haunting". Emotionally, that portrait does more for me than all the digital shooters of the world combined

Suffice to say that my Leica has not seen much use ever since I started shooting LF and playing with "old brassies"

I may be mad, but with Jim Galli, Kerik, and others here on apug, at least I'm in good company

Denis

PS: This particular shot has not been done with an "old brassie", but it still has some of the "feel" that I'm after... (Kodak Aero Ektar on a Speed Graphic)

 

[rbarker]

OK, can anyone guess which lens was used for this image?

Dead Link Removed

 

[Whiteymorange]

Very beautiful images.

Whiteymorange mentions digital clarity as one of the factors leading to this revival, but I don't find digtal images clear at all.

Ah, but I put "digital clarity" in quotes! I agree. Sterile, sharp and clinical but not really all that clear. I mean only that this type of argument being used by proponants of the "digital revolution" (again, notice the quotes) may be one of the reasons people like us are looking at the other strengths of film. We do not need to give ground on sharpness, of course, but some are tired of the argument. We may simply be focused (pun intended) on the other ways that our photographs can move and impress us.

 

[colrehogan]

I love "petzvals" and other soft focus lenses for landscapes as well as portraits. I also use modernish, sharp lenses, but more and more my primary rig is a 14"x17" camera with a 18" Verito up front. Kind of the great-granddaddy of the Diana...

Here's a few, although the beauty of the softness is suppressed by these small JPGs:

Isn't this the lens with the air bubble in it?

BTW, aren't you awake a bit early?

 

[rrankin]

OK, can anyone guess which lens was used for this image?


Nope, I dunno, but I sure do like it. The soft glow is terrific regardless of how you obtained it.

My guess is that it is a modern lens but it could also be an older one stepped down. The object lying flat in the front seems too in focus to me for this to be a Petzval. If the front were tilted to get that object, then I think the sharpness on the head and camera should be different. I have some RRs that could do that, though, I believe.

But then, I don't claim to be able to tell the difference anyway from a picture. I just know how I use them. I'm curious what others will think.

Cheers, Richard

 

[Ole]

The object lying flat in the front seems too in focus to me for this to be a Petzval. If the front were tilted to get that object, then I think the sharpness on the head and camera should be different. ...

Or it could be a wide open lens, and the wonderful field curvature has brought the foreground into the same focus...

 

[Ole]

BTW, I've used the day for going through my pile of old lenses. The list is in my Journal...

 

[BradS]

What an interesting job you have Bob. Did any of the conference goers take an interest in the big guns? Could you make money with that rig?

Thanks for sharing the story and the lovely photo.

 

[jimgalli]

Well, this discussion has taken a life of it's own. Ralph, I'll guess you ripped a lens from a Holga and put it on a 4X5 board?

I've only scratched the surface but have discovered there is a bottomless pit of different looks that can be had from the different ancient lenses. The Petzval "look" is only one of very many. The task ahead is to really learn the strengths of each type well enough to know which tool to grab for which job. I'll admit that just now that seems daunting. Will I live long enough?

Here's a portrait of my friend Leroy done on Sunday afternoon. This was done with a Hermagis Eidoscope. It is a design very like the more name recognized Pinkham & Smith. It is 2 doublets like an ordinary Rapid Rectilinear but it is purposely uncorrected to cause the most beautiful diffusion. Unlike a Petzval, it is diffuse equally across the scene. You then stop down to your choice of glow. Here I used f10 which has nearly eliminated the effect. That seemed well for Leroy.

But for the tiny atique cars in "6 Racers" I chose to only stop down to about f6 because the effect of sharpness and defocus was exactly what I wanted.

 

[Kerik]

Jim,

What is the focal length of your Eidoscope? I have a 480mm version of that lens in mint condition that I've used a couple times for 11x14 wet plate work. It makes a beautifully diffused image. The highlight glow is amazing. Here is an example, but again, much of the effect is suppressed in a small jpg. The lens is a beast, but worth the effort.

 

[Dave Wooten]

OK, can anyone guess which lens was used for this image?

Dead Link Removed

210 rodenstock...diffusion added?

 

[jimgalli]

Jim,

What is the focal length of your Eidoscope? I have a 480mm version of that lens in mint condition that I've used a couple times for 11x14 wet plate work. It makes a beautifully diffused image. The highlight glow is amazing. Here is an example, but again, much of the effect is suppressed in a small jpg. The lens is a beast, but worth the effort.

Mine is a #2 which is 15 or 15 1/2". (here we go again driving the prices up,) Trashy worthless lens that Eidoscope.

 

[Kerik]

(here we go again driving the prices up,) Trashy worthless lens that Eidoscope.

Um, yes that's right! Eidoscopes suck! Absolute crap. I only use mine as a paperweight.

 

[JG Motamedi]

The Eidoscope is, as I recall, essentially a RR. In otherwords, as Jim pointed out, its the same design as a P&S Visual Quality no. 4. The RRs have really nice aberrations when the maximum aperture is taken wide. Note that the Hermagis Portrait is a Petzval. I do recall somebody posting pictures of naked women on the LF forum with one of them.

Kerik, the 3A is a modified Petzval, with reversed rear elements. After the patent was up Wolly copied it as the Vitax, although for some reason the Wollies I have used seem to have serious flare problems, while most of the Dallmeyers do not. See attached diagrams for details (culled from somewhere on the web, so my apologies if I am stealing...)

The Verito is essentially a Meniscus lens, like the Kodak Portrait or the Rodenstock Imagon, with a single element out front which serves to shorten the lens and reduce some of the aberrations. I have never done it, but the Verito can be used as a "convertable", just remove the front element.

In any case, I think we should all walk away from this thread remembering that not only do Eidoscopes suck, but in fact all SF and Portrait lenses are useless pieces of junk...

 

[smieglitz]

OK, can anyone guess which lens was used for this image?

Sure. I can guess. Whether I'm correct or not is another story.

Some sort of meniscus lens.

Joe

 

[vet173]

not only do Eidoscopes suck, but in fact all SF and Portrait lenses are useless pieces of junk...

That's what your kids will think when the inherit them. They will probably pay someone $50.00 to haul all that stuff off. Would you all please send me your kids email addresses.