[LargeFormat] Old vs New Glass (was Re: Rapax shutter CLA)

[Clive Warren]

At 18:48 26/02/01 -0800, Les Newcomer wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> >On Behalf Of Clive Warren
>snip
> >
> > There's something quite special about the look and feel of images
> > made from older glass. Multicoating and high contrast is all very
> > well but Spring is good for the more natural rendition offered by
> > older glass.
> >
> > With all this chat about pinholes maybe no glass is the way forwards :-)
>
>
>
>Lee Carmichael wrote:
> >
> > Clive,
> >         Put me squarely in the modern glass catagory.  For me the whole 
> point is to
> > make the image a sharp as possible.  Anything less is a waste of time.  I
> > labored for years with junk lenses and my images suffered because of it.
> > You might say that Ansel and compatriots used the old glass, true.  But 
> that
> > is all they had. They went to the newer glass as soon as it became
> > available.  I may be wrong about this but didn't Margaret Bourke-White
> > lement in some of her writings about the poor quality of the 
> lenses?  We now
> > have the best there is, I say use them.
> >
> > Lee Carmichael
> > mailto:click76112@home.com
>
>
>
>Call me a mugwump, compartmentalist or fence sitter, but I've done both.
>For my architectural high pay work, that won't allow the use of 8x10
>contact prints, hey give me Hassy with T*, or in the new millenium, an
>arc with a digi back and an APO whatever. I can get the work done in 1/3
>the time and the client will love it, scan it, print it and hang it. the
>Colors will be zippy and people will go wow. The pics go into my book.
>
>Then there's the personal side where I can get contemplative, not have
>to worry about an AD breathing over my neck and wondering if the shot
>will fit in his life scheme, or if there's the right fung shway.  I go
>play with any number of formats from 5x7 to 8x10 and old lenses from
>meniscus to Dagors, most are barrel and even some zone plates (now
>THERE'S soft focus for you Clive!) and I never take a meter.
>
>
>I tank develop (still process) and contact print. The pics go on the
>wall. Nothing bigger than an 8x10. This way I won't run out of wall
>space for a long time.
>
>It's the same psychological effect of a Wall Street yuppie going on an
>Outward Bound trip.--throw away the rules.
>
>A friend, who used to work for Zeiss, and has both old and new glass
>showed me an interesting phenomenon.  Using a microscope on the aerial
>image, we chucked some MC glass in a Deardorff and focused on infinity,
>then we chucked a 14" comm ektar.  With the MC glass you could see the
>black mail box a few miles away was distinctly visable. With the Comm
>Ektar, the edges of the box were noticably softer, but you could read
>the name on the side.
>
>Les

Les,

Like the idea of throwing out the rule book - on the other hand, form is 
freedom.......

The results from your lens tests are great - you have to ask yourself what 
are the qualities you desire from an image?  This will vary depending on 
the subject and your examples of different styles of working simply 
underline how the requirements vary with application and context.

There's something about those Ektar lenses - they all seem to rival modern 
glass.  The 12" Commercial Ektar sitting here is used for some portraiture 
- but not for the female of the species, it's just too truthful :-)

Tell me more about zone plates!




All the best,
                 Clive   http://www.f32.net
                         Large Format Travel and Stock Photography