Why we Love our Cooke's

Just a classic example of why we love our Cooke lenses. This one just about identical to the one Frank Hurley took with him on the Endurance. This is a 9 inch Series III f6.5. Exposure on Adox 100 13X18cm film was 100 seconds f32 1/2 with a 5X7 speed graphic. This isn't one of the cult expensive lenses. These come and go for perhaps $200 bucks.

Jim; A tiny 72 dpi Web image is an admittedly pathetic medium for displaying photography. So, given that, I unfortunately see absolutely nothing special in your image. Please help me see what you see (presumably in the original print) that makes this a "...classic example" of a Cooke lens and what makes them special.

Jim Galli said:

28 Model A Ford​

Just a classic example of why we love our Cooke lenses. This one just about identical to the one Frank Hurley took with him on the Endurance. This is a 9 inch Series III f6.5. Exposure on Adox 100 13X18cm film was 100 seconds f32 1/2 with a 5X7 speed graphic. This isn't one of the cult expensive lenses. These come and go for perhaps $200 bucks.

Click to expand...

That, Jim was the car I drove in Medical School in 1965!


The lens was good enough to record the weddings of the British Royal Family in the 1920's so it's good enough for a Ford Motor car!

Splendid work, old chap!

Cheers,

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

Jim; A tiny 72 dpi Web image is an admittedly pathetic medium for displaying photography. So, given that, I unfortunately see absolutely nothing special in your image. Please help me see what you see (presumably in the original print) that makes this a "...classic example" of a Cooke lens and what makes them special.

Click to expand...

3 words Ken. Tonality, tonality, tonality. They are just milky smooth. Of course I'm an anal fool for struggling with a 5X7 camera when I could duplicate this shot now with any old 10 mp camera. But, so be it. I continue to get a thrill when I take the 5X7 and 8X10 negs out of the developer and have that first look.

Thank you, Jim. I certainly understand little thrills in photography. Given the characteristics of the lens I would be very inclined to shoot such a subject much tighter. Look at the detail you used to illustrate the smooth contrast gradations. The reflections from that hood front, from the headlamp housing, the headlight lens...those might be luscious details to feed such a lens. Admittedly, I think that very early autos look like contraptions...early studies for prototypes. But by the late 20's and early 30's some of the details and vignettes from body designs were positively erotic in the right light.

Thanks again for your patience.

Ken Tanaka said:

....by the late 20's and early 30's some of the details and vignettes from body designs were positively erotic in the right light.

Click to expand...

Which brings up a point that you have eluded to. Our minds see something different than the literal. How many times have you seen someone who writes, 'this picture haunts me'? It's not the literalness of the picture that is haunting, it's what it has unlocked deep inside your memory. 100 years ago there were photographers who understood this and explored this phenomena usually but not always with soft focus. Your mind doesn't need a sharp literal picture to go on it's adventure, in fact a softer synthesis of the scene often will get you there easier.


This is where my heart is at in photography. I'm not really interested in showing you the trillionth literal picture of the front of a Model A Ford. I'd be happier if you glanced at my picture and your mind immediately went to the back seat of a Model A Ford your grandpa was driving being a little raucous and your grandma was telling him to slow down while Kathleen is holding onto her hat that has just nearly blown off her head. or whatever. Everyone's place is different than mine but I'd love to make pictures that take them somewhere else.

The Karl Struss Pictorial lens is a magnificent tool for making dream like pictures. I'm just scratching the surface with it so far. But, heh, heh, you have to shine it onto a big old piece of film.

Ken Tanaka said:

Jim; A tiny 72 dpi Web image is an admittedly pathetic medium for displaying photography. So, given that, I unfortunately see absolutely nothing special in your image. Please help me see what you see (presumably in the original print) that makes this a "...classic example" of a Cooke lens and what makes them special.

Click to expand...

web-images don't do anything justice, even digital cameras.