-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Pinkham's, Petzval's, & Petrol on Pater's Day 2008
- Thread starter Jim Galli
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Wow, Jim,
It would be interesting next time to also take this with a digital camera wide open. I would love to see the parameters that change. BTW,wWhat's the difference between the P&S Series V Synthetic and the visual quality?
Your ideas on bundling photography with a journey is sound! That's a great justification for me to impose my LF on my wife when we drive! I'll insist this is to keep the planet green and save gas to boot.
Now where both decanter pics taken with the same lens? Do you have a reducing back for the 8x10 or you have to cameras?
I'd love to see a picture of the setup. Also what film and do you tray develop?
Asher
It would be interesting next time to also take this with a digital camera wide open. I would love to see the parameters that change. BTW,wWhat's the difference between the P&S Series V Synthetic and the visual quality?
Your ideas on bundling photography with a journey is sound! That's a great justification for me to impose my LF on my wife when we drive! I'll insist this is to keep the planet green and save gas to boot.
Now where both decanter pics taken with the same lens? Do you have a reducing back for the 8x10 or you have to cameras?
I'd love to see a picture of the setup. Also what film and do you tray develop?
Asher
Last edited:
I love all the questions
The digital camera stayed home. Yes, both of the decanter pictures were done with the same lens. I do have reducing backs but these were done on full 8X10 format. Film was Kodak Aerial Recon Panatomic X rated at asa 32. Exposures for the first was 8 seconds and for the second was 5 minutes timed with the microwave timer. I develop in a Jobo 3005 tank with CPA machine. Shutter was by lenscap on the 2 decanter pics and Packard at 1/15th on the 2 portraits outdoors in open shade. The "Synthetic" Series V is actually softer than the Visual Quality Series IV. There is an original 1920's catalog on line here. Caution, you're entering very addictive territory
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I love all the questions
Does Kodak still have it? I guess it's a good way to buy the film. Just need to cut it in the dark! Now how on earth do you do that? Also do you need to leave it in the film holder for some time to let the curve relax?
You seem to have no problem with the lens cap as a shutter! At that length of time, it is very accurate!
Yes it's quite addictive! I already know that!The "Synthetic" Series V is actually softer than the Visual Quality Series IV. There is an original 1920's catalog on line here. Caution, you're entering very addictive territory
Asher
I'm not sure if Kodak still has the aerial Panatomic X or not. It's marvelous film. I bought it on Ebay, 500 feet. One little problem. It is fogged 3/8 to 1/2 inch on both ends of the roll. This means I have to make 3 cuts before I put it in the holders. I cut it at 10" and make a big pile of 10's. Then I cut 3/4" off each side to rid me of the fogged portion. Then I load. It's a LOT of handling in the dark. Add to that the fact that the film is a scant 4 mil thickness polyester base. It can be maddening to try to load this thin stuff. The curl works for you. It holds the film flat against the back of the holders. On the plus side, for doing platinum printing, I've never seen another film with a tonal scale like the Pan X. It is just gorgeous. I'll print the final of those 2 portraits in Pt / Pd and it will have a gorgeous tonality.
Don't feel bad, did you see what yours truly spent on a Hermagis lens in UK this weekend? Mercy! mercie. jg
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, Jim, one has to feed one's addictions! At least you can't get hepatitis or worse! Also there's no angry husband!
I love to see your work. Now have you used these soft lenses for trees? I wonder how they would look in a morning mist with a soft portrait lens?
Asher
I love to see your work. Now have you used these soft lenses for trees? I wonder how they would look in a morning mist with a soft portrait lens?
Asher
Tim Ashley
Moderator
Jim, I don't want to make you hunger for more ways of making your lovely soft creamy work but in the spirit of sharing, have you tried using a Leica Noctilux? Mine does gorgeous, dreamy things even on a digital sensor in my M8 so your posts here are tempting me to try it in a MP with some real film!
I bought mine from a friend who 'couldn't get along with it' for £1,000 and I now hear of them going for up to $10,000. So addictions can pay for themselves!
Tim
I bought mine from a friend who 'couldn't get along with it' for £1,000 and I now hear of them going for up to $10,000. So addictions can pay for themselves!
Tim
Jim, I don't want to make you hunger for more ways of making your lovely soft creamy work but in the spirit of sharing, have you tried using a Leica Noctilux? Mine does gorgeous, dreamy things even on a digital sensor in my M8 so your posts here are tempting me to try it in a MP with some real film!
I bought mine from a friend who 'couldn't get along with it' for £1,000 and I now hear of them going for up to $10,000. So addictions can pay for themselves!
Tim
There is a lesson in brute force here assuming the soft dreamlike image is the desired result. On the bigger format I need only f5.6 to achieve the shallow depth you see. As the format size goes down, the aperture size must go up to achieve a similar result. As apertures get larger the lens gets rarer and more costly. The Pinkham was a mere $650 (when I bought it, likely doubled by now). Fun to think about different ways to achieve the shallow depth. I have a gaggle of Rodenstock Heligon's that were used for low light TV that will also cover a Nikon chip. 100mm f 0.95 and nearly worthless. I just need to figure a way to cobble them onto the Nikon and see if I can get a nice effect similar to the old fashioned stuff but in digital capture.
You're certainly right about the addiction paying a nice dividend. Not only do I get to enjoy the lenses as I use them, they've tripled and quadrupled in value since I've owned them.