• 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!

3 Pinkham Smith lenses compared

Jim Galli

Member
This is mostly for Asher as I don't think 99.8% of the folks here could care less about 95 year old lenses that were rare as hens teeth even then.

There has been much talk about comparing these lenses. The first problem is getting 3 of the rarest lenses on earth together in one place! What can I say, I'm blessed. So without further ado.....

3PScompared.jpg

It is an imperfect test perhaps but as close as you're going to get anytime soon. Same general subject, same lighting conditions, same film and developer etc. Hope you have some fun shopping :cool:
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Pinkham and Smith antique Lenses for Large Format Photography

Thanks so much Jim!

That was a lot of work. Tell me how does the "Visual Quality" fit in?

Asher
 

Jim Galli

Member
Thanks so much Jim!

That was a lot of work. Tell me how does the "Visual Quality" fit in?

Asher

Middle picture. The Pinkham Co. did a late run of the 14" lenses and for some reason couldn't use the original name so they called it the Bi-Quality. But it's the same design, same lens as your "Visual Quality".
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Middle picture. The Pinkham Co. did a late run of the 14" lenses and for some reason couldn't use the original name so they called it the Bi-Quality. But it's the same design, same lens as your "Visual Quality".

What leaves are you stacking in the white jug? I guess it's enamel? I'm wondering how a flower would look or better a face but for now I have a lot to study. Thanks so much for giving me a super present!

Asher
 

Jim Galli

Member
What leaves are you stacking in the white jug? I guess it's enamel? I'm wondering how a flower would look or better a face but for now I have a lot to study. Thanks so much for giving me a super present!

Asher


Good AM Asher! The leaves are falling from my peach tree. Flowers pretty much all gone at 6000 elev. Faces, give me time, I'll get there. I posted this at LFForum and the comments are telling. The Visual Quality is the most liked about 2:1. Me, I'm leaning heavily towards the Series II, but these are like 3 children and ya gotta love em all.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This is mostly for Asher as I don't think 99.8% of the folks here could care less about 95 year old lenses that were rare as hens teeth even then.

There has been much talk about comparing these lenses. The first problem is getting 3 of the rarest lenses on earth together in one place! What can I say, I'm blessed. So without further ado.....

3PScompared.jpg

It is an imperfect test perhaps but as close as you're going to get anytime soon. Same general subject, same lighting conditions, same film and developer etc. Hope you have some fun shopping :cool:

Jim,

The visual quality, (# 2), has a special presence. Great for a treasure appearing by command of angels or a sorcerer. Good for portraits because of that.

Asher
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Sereis V for me.... sharp and soft.. i would love to look at the real images....

Jim on a side note - I have a 42 inch Repo lens - if I mage a big tube would it be worth sticking infrount of my sensor ?
 

John Angulat

pro member
This is mostly for Asher as I don't think 99.8% of the folks here could care less about 95 year old lenses that were rare as hens teeth even then....

Hi Jim,
I think you're underestimating what many of us here feel about your work.
It may not be an art we practice, nor (for me, as an example) entirely understand.
Nevertheless; what you produce, how you accomplish it and the extraordinay skill and effort involved is pure genius.
Your images are always a wonder for me!
 

Jim Galli

Member
Hi Jim,
I think you're underestimating what many of us here feel about your work.
It may not be an art we practice, nor (for me, as an example) entirely understand.
Nevertheless; what you produce, how you accomplish it and the extraordinay skill and effort involved is pure genius.
Your images are always a wonder for me!

Thanks John!

I've obviously been away too long as I found this by accident checking in today. No thread updates in the e-mail.
 

Jim Galli

Member
Sereis V for me.... sharp and soft.. i would love to look at the real images....

Jim on a side note - I have a 42 inch Repo lens - if I mage a big tube would it be worth sticking infrount of my sensor ?

Sounds like fun to me. Focus will be a challenge I'm sure. Maybe a tube within a tube that could slide?
 
What georgous renditions. These old lenses really do push me closer and closer to the brink...

Hi Ben,

These old optical designs add a special signature, so I also enjoy Jim's images.

However, before you go over the edge ;-) , you can simulate this look by stitching with a similar focal length, and it won't cost you a dime ...

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Ben,

These old optical designs add a special signature, so I also enjoy Jim's images.

However, before you go over the edge ;-) , you can simulate this look by stitching with a similar focal length, and it won't cost you a dime ...
So Bart, how's it done?

How does one get the gradual loss of focus? Are you suggesting that one takes pictures for the periphery that are progressively OOF?

Asher
 
So Bart, how's it done?

How does one get the gradual loss of focus? Are you suggesting that one takes pictures for the periphery that are progressively OOF?

First, most of the look is due to shallow DOF. That can be achieved by matching the focal length and aperture used in the original. Of course that will automatically require to stitch because the physically smaller sensor array will crop the field of view. If we accept an amount of field curvature we can use a no-parallax corrected rotation and keep our focus distance fixed, otherwise we need to refocus for 'off-axis' shooting angles.

Second, we can attempt to mimick the degradation towards the corners by creating a layer copy and running a lens blur filter on it. We then use a circular (or elliptical) gradient mask to block the center of the layer and letting the sharper version shine through. By using a separate layer (or layers) we gain flexibility we would not have when we would have used a depth mask with the lens blur.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Jim Galli

Member
Current combined value of the 3 lenses on Ebay is perhaps $10,400. Relative of course. Wouldn't buy a decent M9 kit with Noctilux.
 

Dr Klaus Schmitt

Well-known member
Wonderful work Jim - don't put your "candle under a chair " as we say here (in Germany)!
Yep, I should have invested in these lenses...(too, I mean) ;)
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
I'm trying to understand what you are explaining so be patient with me :)

Are you saying that by shooting with the same focal length and aperture and stitching to given an equivelent imaging area of the film the 'look' will be the same?

I understand that you can approximate the look of MF or LF by using a longer focal length for a similar FOV. However the specific look of these lenses would be practically impossible to replicate with modern glass. Heck these 3 lenses all have a significantly different signature eventhough the focal lengths and apertures are approximately equal as is the imaging medium.

You can use PS to approximate the look but forgive me if I maintain that it never goes further than a rather over clinical approximation.

First, most of the look is due to shallow DOF. That can be achieved by matching the focal length and aperture used in the original. Of course that will automatically require to stitch because the physically smaller sensor array will crop the field of view. If we accept an amount of field curvature we can use a no-parallax corrected rotation and keep our focus distance fixed, otherwise we need to refocus for 'off-axis' shooting angles.

Second, we can attempt to mimick the degradation towards the corners by creating a layer copy and running a lens blur filter on it. We then use a circular (or elliptical) gradient mask to block the center of the layer and letting the sharper version shine through. By using a separate layer (or layers) we gain flexibility we would not have when we would have used a depth mask with the lens blur.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Jim Galli

Member
I'm trying to understand what you are explaining so be patient with me :)

Are you saying that by shooting with the same focal length and aperture and stitching to given an equivelent imaging area of the film the 'look' will be the same?

I understand that you can approximate the look of MF or LF by using a longer focal length for a similar FOV. However the specific look of these lenses would be practically impossible to replicate with modern glass. Heck these 3 lenses all have a significantly different signature eventhough the focal lengths and apertures are approximately equal as is the imaging medium.

You can use PS to approximate the look but forgive me if I maintain that it never goes further than a rather over clinical approximation.

Sorry guys. You haven't seen the contact prints, only the .jpg's and those dismally small. It's foolish to say you can copy the effect of the brute force of a Pinkham & Smith lens shot on 8X10" medium. Simply cannot be done, which is why I spend stupid money on this equipment.
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Sorry guys. You haven't seen the contact prints, only the .jpg's and those dismally small. It's foolish to say you can copy the effect of the brute force of a Pinkham & Smith lens shot on 8X10" medium. Simply cannot be done, which is why I spend stupid money on this equipment.

Jim,

its not analog... and thats where the bit bytes... that 9 inch lens .. in the hands of a mad man could destroy the world !


dont do it !

do it!

dont!

do it... a portrait with the 9 !

cheers - sorry - just been havin cheep JD
 

Jim Galli

Member
Jim,

its not analog... and thats where the bit bytes... that 9 inch lens .. in the hands of a mad man could destroy the world !


dont do it !

do it!

dont!

do it... a portrait with the 9 !

cheers - sorry - just been havin cheep JD

Ha ha ha ha, made my day.

Now I may have to send that 9" into outer space with the little green men and if they focus the light from sun through

THAT lens back onto earth,

we're toast, it's all over.

fuzzy toast, but toast just the same. hmmmmmmmmm. should I do it? Maybe?
 
Top