U2 spy plane camera lens - umm...wow.

[Colin Corneau]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/22/u-2-spy-plane-lens-used-on-homegrown-camera-and-other-diy-monst/

 

[Marco B]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/22/u-2-spy-plane-lens-used-on-homegrown-camera-and-other-diy-monst/

That contraption wouldn't be misplaced in "Ellis in Wonderland"...

 

[mabman]

Interesting. After several clicks and "via" links, I think the original article/interview with Chris McCaw is http://blog.photoeye.com/2010/10/chris-mccaw-on-his-sunburned-series.html .

 

[flatulent1]

I wonder if I could put an FD mount on that lens...

 

[Jeff Kubach]

That is a heck of lens indeed!

Jeff

 

[Marco B]

Interesting. After several clicks and "via" links, I think the original article/interview with Chris McCaw is http://blog.photoeye.com/2010/10/chris-mccaw-on-his-sunburned-series.html .

H**y s**t:



What size will this be 100x120 cm (40x50") or so??? Edit: should have read better, it is 30x40", still a whopping size.

 

[Dan Fromm]

What silly fantasies. There's something about aerial camera lenses that makes people lose their senses.

I found what I think is the monstrosity in my USAF data sheets. Weighs 125 pounds, covers 9" x 18", back focus 14.5", very high transmittance for that sort of thing, 85%. Made by Perkin-Elmer, flew in the K-36 and possibly other cameras.

Not very sharp wide open, 25 lp/mm centrally, 10 in the corners.

Seems like a poisoned gift, but not quite as bad as some shorter aerial camera lenses.

 

[edp]

Not very sharp wide open, 25 lp/mm centrally, 10 in the corners.

He only needs about 2 lines per inch; it looks like all he does with it is burn holes in paper.

 

[jamesgignac]

Yeah, this is certainly an interesting one Colin, I read this over when you first posted it but really didn't know what to say

I'd love to have the thing sitting in studio - I doubt I could use it for anything but it's certainly intimidating - I might ocassionally point it at a particularly difficult client.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

All this gear porn is making me feel inadequate with my "Mere mortal" cameras. Just kidding I wonder if the lens is for 10x10 aerial camera film?

 

[Kerik]

Chris is a great guy and the sunburn prints are stunning in person. Some of the most unique and original work being done in photography today, IMO. A bit more than just burning holes in paper...

 

[ntenny]

Reading the interview inspired me to give his "sunburn" process a try, and I concluded it's not as easy as it looks! (3 hours at f/16; the printed-out image looked good under the safelight, but I wanted to see what would happen in the developer, and I got solid black except for the light track of the sun. I assume the exposure wasn't enough to solarise the rest of the image.)

I like the "sad robot" camera, even if the lens isn't that spectacular technically. It doesn't seem like the limits of lens resolution are the big thing to worry about in this body of work anyway.

-NT

 

[mabman]

Reading the interview inspired me to give his "sunburn" process a try, and I concluded it's not as easy as it looks! (3 hours at f/16; the printed-out image looked good under the safelight, but I wanted to see what would happen in the developer, and I got solid black except for the light track of the sun. I assume the exposure wasn't enough to solarise the rest of the image.)

I like the "sad robot" camera, even if the lens isn't that spectacular technically. It doesn't seem like the limits of lens resolution are the big thing to worry about in this body of work anyway.

-NT

jnanian (John) does something similar with long exposures on photo paper minus the sunburn, but in other threads he's said it's a developer-less process that can't be fixed (the images fades away in fixer), so the image goes away over time.

The interview is a bit vague on the details, but it does mention McCaw uses vintage photo paper - maybe that's the secret to fixing it permanently (which I'm assuming McCaw does - it really doesn't say one way or the other).

 

[Kerik]

Chris uses vintage paper because he can't get the same result on modern papers - or hasn't been able to yet. AFAIK the images are permanent, but I don't know how he processes them.

 

[ntenny]

Chris uses vintage paper because he can't get the same result on modern papers - or hasn't been able to yet. AFAIK the images are permanent, but I don't know how he processes them.

He does say that he "discovered" the process on film that he (seems to suggest he) processed normally, though, so I'm assuming it's something that survives the developer. And of course in principle solarisation can do that---Ansel Adams's "Black Sun" image is an example---but it's not clear why that would be different for modern and "vintage" papers...

Interesting stuff in any case, and good motivation for playing around with strange processes.

-NT

 

[totalamateur]

I've got a Kodak Aerostigmat 24" F6 sitting on a shelf waiting for me to build a camera around it. Looks like about a 22" Image circle wide open at infintity, but it's difficult to tell without acutally building a camera. This gives me a little motivation to revive that dead horse of a project. (need to find/manufacture a shutter and waterhouse stops, ina ddition to the rest of the camera)

I'd be shooting film, though.

Anyone know what kind of lens covers 30x40? Has to be some kind of process lens, eh?

if any one wants to make an offer for a similar one on the evil auction site:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270651756352
Methinks he's alittle too proud of it, though, considering I got mine for a little less that 1/50th of what he's asking.

 

[Dan Fromm]

30x40? Inches or cm?

If inches, needs a 50" circle. The 2500/12.5 Apo-Saphir will cover, also the 1800/16 Apo Ronar. The 2500 A-S is not a myth, I have an Apo-Saphir brochure that has a picture of, IIRC, 14 of them, all destined for the French atomic energy commission. Practically speaking it is a myth.

 

[AgX]

And of course in principle solarisation can do that---Ansel Adams's "Black Sun" image is an example---but it's not clear why that would be different for modern and "vintage" papers...

Basically modern emulsions are less susceptible to solarisation.