shotz

<p>There are those that cannot see and those that will not see. Says me.<br> I didn't invent any of those concepts and phenomena I was trying to explain. As stated above, they are explained and defined by real scientists in actual scientific texts. When I read posts based on magic properties of mythical lenses I cringe. There's no magic in the glass. Zero. It is so much more about vision, creativity and technique.</p> <p>In fact, it's all about vision, creativity and technique. The emperor has no clothes. Actually, I am pretty sure he is not even really the emperor.</p>

<p>I believe the only demonstration of "proof" would be to shoot the same, exact scene with two different lenses. Second best would be to measure the light from the shadow area and then the highlight and compute the dynamic range. Expose for what we know would not record shadow detail and then, voila, get shadow detail. So, what I offer as proof can be considered anecdotal. I concede that it is. There is actual science, however, and I can see it demonstrated in my results. Maybe you can too. Maybe not. It's all OK.</p>

<p>Post-war excess inventories of tiny hinges? (I actually agree entirely with Rodeo Joe)</p>

<p>If these MOD54 things were easy to load digital imaging would never have established a foot hold in the market. No, I'm just joking. Take some sheets of film you no longer need (ruined, scratched, fogged, outdated, etc.) into your work area. Practice with the lights on, a lot. Then practice with the lights out, a lot. You'll get it. I am sure. I have confidence in you. Practice is the key. I use Jobo and it took practice to get good at it.</p>

<p>OK, here's my attempt of showing this effect:<br> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00d9ad-555267584.jpg<br> If you look at the underside of these roadways you see excellent shadow detail despite the fact that there is not all that much light falling directly onto the bottom of a road. However, there is a large amount of sky included in the photo. The lens is an old uncoated Optar.<br> The flare or "non-image light" from the large amount of sky is added to the entire amount of film surface equally - highlights, mid-tones and shadows. The modest amount of light has little effect on highlights and midtones, being a smaller percentage of the total light in this area. This 'flare' or 'fog' makes a significant addition to the light in the shadow areas and thus brings areas where the light is too small to record up into recordable range. I hope this explanation helps.</p>

<p>I believe that your success in achieving the type/look/feel of what you want in your photographs is going to be about your dedication to the work, your vision and the amount of time and energy that you invest. I think it's a great idea to start with a Crown Graphic because they work and they are rugged and dependable. They offer basic movements. They will accommodate a very wide variety of lenses. They are plentiful and inexpensive. And, when you decide you want to upgrade or switch to another pursuit they are relatively easy to sell for about what you paid for it.<br> Don't get too involved in exactly which camera is perfect for you. Buy something you like and can easily afford and get to the business of shooting film. Shoot a lot of film and invest lots of time and energy. Get a basic high quality lens. I see 135mm to 180mm lenses in very good shutters - Fujinon and Schneider, coated - selling for under $200 on eBay. Some can be had for hardly over $100. These are incredible deals and, again, in the future you can if you want to, sell them for about what you pay.<br> A good tripod is important. A big enough and comfortable case to carry everything is important. A good focusing loupe and a good light meter are essential. Five or six film holders will be enough to start.<br> Mainly, don't obsess over finding the exact "perfect" kit. Get started and things will evolve over time. I repeat, this pursuit is much more about you, your vision, your dedication of time and energy and creativity and less so about the gear. Really. I've made some extremely satisfying images with a Crown Graphic and a $70 Raptar lens. Work that makes me very happy and that I enjoy looking at and sharing many years after I created it. Work that has meaning for me. I have also produced tone of trite, boring photos with Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Nikon, etc. - film and digital. It's much more about the photographer than the camera.</p>

<p>Charles, when you speak of Ansel Adams in the present tense you do realize he passed away some time ago, yes?<br> Some things are indeed "better" if they better enable us to express ourselves. A hammer made of steel is better than a hammer made of styrofoam if the job is driving a nail. We are talking about tools and about trying to achieve a result that pleases us; a result that we (for whatever reason) want. There can be a "better" and there can be a "different". A hammer is not a wrench. A claw hammer for one job and a sledge hammer for another.<br> There is no photographer I can think of whose technical skills and proficiency would have made photos worth a damn if there was no artistic vision expressed within those photos. If you say what you want to say with an old lens, good for you. "None of his modern images even came close"? His work in the 1940's had quality and his later work did not? Uh. OK. <br> Tools. It's just tools. You and I are the artists; we are the craftsmen. We have all seen countless images created with technical mastery that were completely worthless because they contained no creative expression. Might as well have been made on a Xerox machine. But, if what you create makes you happy, it does not matter one bit what I think of it. I have created a thousand failed images for every one of mine which succeeds, in my eyes. Some of the near misses are pretty cool, though.</p><div></div>

<p>Posting a note about member comments concerning lenses that offer "better shadow detail".<br> I believe the science is as follows. Film has a 'threshold' exposure value below which no image will record, no latent image will be recorded and developed. Shadows will hold detail that can be seen in person and will send a sub-threshold amount of light to the film with no effect. This threshold value will determine the 'film speed' (density in developed film above base+fog).<br> Shadow detail can be brought out better and recorded with a lens that has a certain amount of glare due to transmitting non-image light from scene to film. This small amount of non-image light adds to the little bit of image light from shadow areas and brings it over the threshold value; it is now recorded on the film. It is the 'fog' from the lens that helps it render this shadow detail. It also has the effect of "lowering contrast". This can be considered a flaw of the lens, this glare or fog. Lens makers worked hard and coated lenses to eliminate the fog. It makes the rendering more accurate. However, there is no fault in loving and embracing this characteristic of the lens.<br> If what you like is shadow detail and lower contrast images but you also enjoy working with modern lenses for the more accurate images they are capable of and the more reliable shutters they are mounted in you can get that quality from them. One technique is the simple and basic method of overexposure and underdevelopment. The extra stop or two gives you excellent shadow detail and the underdevelopment will keep your highlights from blocking up.<br> The other formerly common technique is called "flashing" your film. If you put your film into holders and expose it to a uniform sub-threshold amount of light (usually in the darkroom) it will be 'primed' to bring out detail from the shadows with even the tiniest amount of light coming from these dark areas. I believe there are many articles and book chapters explaining this practice.<br> There is no fault in loving the old lenses. You should not think that there is any magic in them. It's not magic. Love them, collect them, enjoy them. Make beautiful images that make you happy. Sometimes these older, uncoated lenses are incredible bargains. Sometimes they are grossly over-valued for their 'character' which are properties easily achieved with any newer lens by easily changing your exposure and processing practices.</p>

<p>I am going to keep working on getting the fresnel into the camera without shifting focus during composition and focus time. I'll figure it out. <br> For now I finally got the GG and the film to agree right on the money! I put the GG on the 'rails' it was meant to mount upon and shimmed it on each side with a strip cut from a piece of FP4+ 4x5. Perfect thickness shim! It works. (I think)</p>

<p>David Bebbington - There is not vignetting from the lens. The corners are very well illuminated and then I darkened the corners in PhotoShop because I liked the way it looks. That was me, not the lens.</p>

<p>Hey, Charles Monday - Nice Shot!</p><div></div>

<p>detail</p><div></div>

<p>Posting this because it was such a surprise.<br> I shot a photo of a highway overpass on I-84 on Christmas Day of 2014. The exposure was 2 seconds so the cars really don't register at all. FP4 was the film, HC-110 the developer, in case that matters.<br> When I did my scan I noticed something that surprised me. My very inexpensive, uncoated, old lens - with no "heritage" or "mystique" captured detail that astounded me. You can get one of these for fifty bucks on eBay any day of the week. The contrast on this photo is low because the scene is low contrast - all gray. I could have developed for 15% longer and gotten higher contrast or tweaked the settings in PhotoShop.<br> You can see and read signs in the distance in this scan that were barely discernable from my position with the unaided eye. These are specks in the overall image. I was very surprised. My cheapie old lens has superpowers!<br> Has this ever happened to you? Have you shot with some old unremarkable glass and found it did something special? Have you discovered a gem for under a hundred bucks that outshines the $1,000 jewels from some old German lens maker?</p><div></div>

<p>Follow up:<br> I sent this same inquiry to MAC - the company that imports and distributes the Toyo 45CF (BTW it is the only camera I use which is currently in production!)<strong> Here</strong> is their response:<br> Peter:<br> The problem is the Fresnel; it is only for the AII and AX cameras. Its width is the likely cause of the focusing error.<br> -------------<br> So, I will use a regular GG. I cut one last night from an old salvage 5x7" piece I had on hand. I had bought a glass cutter, a simple one, on eBay for 5 <strong>bucks. </strong> I shimmed the glass with three thin strips of sheet film between it and the rails it mounts upon because a test shot yesterday showed it needed this little bit of extra distance. Or so I think. I shot a test sheet of film and and I'll let you know.<br> This is an interesting little puzzle to solve. I am checking GG vs film using the ruler tilted away from the camera at about 6 feet away, lit with studio strobe. I do like solving these little puzzles and that's how I first convinced myself to open up a shutter to try to clean the old lube off myself. It worked.<br> I am not much for solving these things with complex mathematical formulas and I have enough experience to know that "perfect" is a mirage. Good enough really can be good enough. Empirical trial-and-error is a way I have learned a great dealof what I know. Tuning up my tools is not as creative as actually being out (or in) shooting film but it is satisfying to be self reliant. Also, some problems I can solve for myself are extra satisfying because I can use the saved money for film or maybe another lens.<br> If you'd like to see my work, go to: www.Lerman.net<br> Thanks again, everyone. If someone reads this thread in the future and has achieved good focus reliability (registration) with the Toyo 45CF and a fresnel PLEASE let me know. My old eyes to appreciate a brighter image.</p>

<p>Oh, for the sake of Ellis Vener,<br> Calumet 4x5 and 8x10 (ugly and clunky), Kodak Clinical 5x7 and Kodak Commercial 8x10 (elegant classics), Crown Graphic (x3 the standard) , Busch Pressman Model D, Technica III, Wista Field (Cherrywood), Ritterick 5x7, Plaubel Peco III 5x7. More than one of these has employed a fresnel lens and more than one of those had a clear cover glass because the fresnel is soft (scratches) and not stain-proof. The Crown Graphic has a glass over the fresnel but it's the GG. In all cases, the glass protects it from scratches and stains. </p>