c._w._dean

I have been making prints most of today with a 5x7 Elwood outfitted

with it's original tungsten head as you describe and after some 30

years of printing with all the other options, I can't say that I've

ever made better prints. I also have an Elwood with a recent cold

light head by Aristo and from time to time, I'll set it up but I

always seem to go back to the tungsten original job because the prints

seem to be intangibly nicer.

Speaking as a professional portrait photographer, I can verify that

optically these process lenses will make fine images at the distances

you mention but for my purposes, they are much too sharp and worse

much too slow. I have used up to 24" Artars for portraits both

commercially and experimentally with success. The bulk of my

work is sold to individuals and they dislike sharp, sharp

details especially skin blemishes and flaws which are rendered

in minute detail by the process lenses. Also, consider that most are

no faster than f:9, then figure how much light you need to expose at

f:9 knowing that you'll probably want to stop down a bit. I guess my

point is that they are fine lenses but you need a lot of light, a lot

of working space, a lot of bellows, and subjects who won't complain

about the razor sharp detail.

You don't say what format you intend to use but generally old large

format portrait lenses in focal lengths of 9" and larger may give you

the "look" you're after. These are tricky lenses as the image quality

changes with different f stops and at different working

distances--many variables requiring a bit of experimentation. Many

pre 1900 lenses are quite sharp despite design advancements that came

later around the turn of the century. Nevertheless, portrait and

pictorial photographers kept the softer lenses popular well into the

20th century. Look for names like Pinkham-Smith, Spencer Port-Land,

Wollensak Verito, Wollensak Vesta, Wollensak Versar, Graf Variable,

and, of course, the Rodenstock Imagon. Some of these are most

difficult to use and learn as the ground glass focus is not the same

as the developed image on the film, hence the term "chemical" focus.

These are often trashed as "bad" when, in fact, they work fine when

you learn the focusing correction methods. Further, you can get

interesting results with single elements of certain doublets, but with

a loss of some speed.

Old Elwoods are real sleepers. The one you describe has a cast iron

metal chassis. Many older models were wooden. It's a perfect

candidate for an after market cold light head, and I believe VIEW

CAMERA magazine is soon to print an article on this topic.

The flaws you mention are probably insignificant. You can polish up

the reflector surface gently with something like BonAMI.

If you want to use the tungsten head that is original, make sure that

the diffusion glass plate that sits between the bulb and negative

carrier is present and undamaged. This piece is crucial to operation

and is often broken or missing. It is a piece of what looks like

frosted glass, but it's graduated from center to edges to smooth out

the hot center spot from the bulb and reflector. If this glass is

present, the prints resemble cold light diffusion and are very nice.

The original bulbs came is several sizes and wattages and equivalents

can still be obtained.

<p>

Since 5x7 was a popular portrait format (ideal for full-length bridal

portraits), many small studios owned these and there are plenty of

them around but probably a lot of them got trashed in the '70's when

color roll film replaced sheet film in portrait studios. They take a

little tinkering and fabrication to get them back in shape but it's a

wonderful enlarger and you can't beat the price.