Tom Ferguson (tomf2468@pipeline.com)
Mon, 01 Feb 1999 08:36:05 -0800
>Steve Shapiro wrote:
>
>>We're not talking Brownie Hawkeye, here, and cheap to make it available to
>>everybody. Larger than 4X5 is a special dedication; and all the time and
>>trouble to make one negative, I don't want to focus through cheap lenses.
>>Been there, done that. Cried a lot. I'd rather pay the price and get more
>>from the gallery.
>>
>Sandy King <sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>No question, large format equipment, even used, can be very expensive.
>However, I don't think Tom Ferguson was recommending the use of cheap
>lenses. The fact is there are a lot of inexpensive lenses available used
>that will produce results in contact printing with most, if not all, of the
>alternative processes that are for all practical purposes indistinguishable
>from the results using modern lenses costing 3-10 times as much.
>
>Granting that we could debate the above proposition, there is another
>consideration regarding lenses, availability. <BIG SNIP>
Ahhhhh... isn't language fun??? I did use the word "cheap" to describe my
choice of lenses for 8x10 and larger in camera negatives destine for hand
coated alt process contact prints. I ment that to be understood as "less
expensive", not "of poor quality". I own some very nice modern large
format glass. I use it on 4x5 for silver and color work, both for myself
and clients. It often is ENLARGED greatly, and still looks really good.
Wonderful things, these $$modern$$ $$computer$$ $$designed$$
$$lenses$$. I wouldn't want to be without them.
BUT.... for our conversation (realy big cameras for alt). We can safely
assume that you aren't going to enlarge your 8x10, 11x14, 12x20 negs. We
can safely assume that you will print them on hand coated paper that has
some degree of texture. We can safely assume that you will need to stop
down to at least F16 for depth of field. That is next to ZERO depth of
field on a 11x14 camera with it's "normal" 450mm lens!
Under these conditions I've made 8x10 and 11x14 negs with nice older
"cheap" lenses. Wollensaks are great if you test a few and pick a good
one, my 10 inch Wollensak convertable with shutter was $89US, covers 8x10
and converts to a very useable 16 and 21 inches. My 19 inch Wollensak in
shutter was $125US and covers 11x14 nicely. Off brand "cheap" lenses can
also be a great buy. My 14 inch Kowa process lens (with a modern Copal
shutter) is so sharp I use it on my 4x5 for "enlargement" negs. Cost about
$350.00US new and covers 11x14. As mentioned, I've done the tests. With a
lens shade, these are equal to my modern glass for platinum or cyanotype or
gum.
A few words of caution regarding "listening to Tom". I very rarely shoot
outdoors, so very rarely focus at infinity. I rarely shoot 8x10/11x14 at
less than F32. My sense of what a lens "covers" may thus be suspect (if
you are always focusing close and stopping down, you have more coverage).
I almost always use a lens shade of some sort. That helps the older lenses
a lot, multi coating is great stuff if you are lazy ;-)
My bottom line.... save some money for film and chemicals! More of those
will produce better alt prints, a more expensive modern lens won't.
Tom
tomf2468@pipeline.com
http://www.thefstop.com/tf.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:49