Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,548,871   Online: 1167
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,864
    Images
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but what on earth is the point of using an antique camera? I mean, you can get the same results with a modern one. This is not a question about choice of lens or film, it is about about choice of camera.
    Dan,

    Depending on the lens you may not be able to mount it on a modern field camera. The Petzvals are really huge for the focal length and require a robust camera with large lensboard.

    Plus there is the whole Living History/ Reenactment thing to consider. Lenses made pre-Civil War are in great demand and those from 1867 much less so.

    Joe

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,547
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    Well, let's see -- in my case, I can spend $200 to $300 for a working Speed or Crown Graphic and another $100 on film holders to shoot 4x5, or (as I've done) I can spend $12.50 on a Zeiss-Ikon Ideal plate camera, $50 on another for parts, and $70 for film holders, and make negatives about 90% the size of 4x5 for less than 1/3 the money. My Kawee Camera is even better -- $16.50 for the camera and three film holders, plus a few dollars for some film sheaths ($10 for a dozen, as I recall) a few months later. Not only does it take the same 9x12 cm film as the Ideal, it's about the same size, folded, as a 4x5 film holder.

    Yes, I can get the same results with a modern camera -- for five to fifty times the money.
    Donald,

    There hasn't been a Speed or Crown produced in any shape or form in 35 years. That's not a modern camera.

    While yes, you can buy a speed for 2-3 hundred bucks, you can buy one for 50 to 60 bucks just as easy and it might be just as nice a camera.


    That said, I am not in disagreement with you in principle. I am just as thilled with the photos from my 1926 Trona as I am with my 1955 Speed with a Fujinon lens on it. I have much more fun hauling around my 3x4 Graphex RB SLR as anything else. I love the photo qualities I get from my 1949 Kalart Press more than anything I have ever shot with my Nikon FM2 from the mid 80s.


    I have been amazed at what you do with so little. I am still going to send you a Nettar for you to compare with your other MF stuff. Send me a snail mail address.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  3. #43
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by David White
    Hello again,

    It seems that I have to now get very serious about this, as it looks like I have been commissioned to take a series of pictures of Brunel's achievements on a camera and lens combination as similar as possible to Howlett's.
    This means, I think, that I need a Tailboard bellows camera, 12x10 or 250x300mm ish,and most importantly of all, the right lens. I am not sure that I am any clearer now than when I started! Do I need to look for a portrait or outdoor lens? Petzval or Voigtlander? Rapid rectilinear etc etc..Somewhere near 450mm I think..?

    I will not be using plates though, wet or otherwise. How will I achieve correct registration?

    And what is going on with the shape of his plate? see hereat bottom)
    http://tinyurl.com/a33tp

    Either way..I need to buy this set up. I will put an ad in wanted soon, but thought I'd ask here first. ..
    There's an Ebay seller in India, lexim2k, who has a very nice 12x10" Gandolfi camera for sale. At least it didn't sell last time he put it up, it's not exactly cheap. There's a Dallmeyer Serrac lens on it, if you want something more "contemporary" contact me: I have a J. Lancaster 12x10" Patent Rectilinear lens I don't need. Focal length is about 46cm - 18".

    Or you could use a Russian 30x40cm camera, perhaps (12x16" appx)? 24x30cm cameras are unfortunately as rare as 12x10"...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    36
    Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but what on earth is the point of using an antique camera? I mean, you can get the same results with a modern one. This is not a question about choice of lens or film, it is about about choice of camera.

    I don't understand your point above, Dan.
    The whole point of the entire project IS to use a camera as close to Howlett used as is possible. This is the essence of the project that I have a grant for. Bristol, where I live, is celebrating 200 years since Brunel's birth. My project will be part of those celebrations, as I have been commissioned to take 20 images of Brunel's achievements in the manner described above.
    And, pray tell, how do I get the same results with a modern camera as I would with an 1850 12x10 with a wonderfully primitive lens? Even if I could that would be no good, as Bristol want to display the camera I use along with the images.

    Ole...what sort of age is your RR?

    I just missed a great camera last week, 12x10, seemed perfect if a little newer than ideal. Didn't go for it because the commission hadn't come in.
    Does anyone have a clue as to the reason for the arch along the top of Howlett's plates?

    best,

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    36
    Hello,

    How much did the man in India want for his Gandolfi Ole?
    Sounds a bit new though..

  6. #46
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by David White
    Hello,

    How much did the man in India want for his Gandolfi Ole?
    Sounds a bit new though..
    David, run a search for "lexim2k" and "ended auctions". I think it was about $650. It's certainly newer than 1860, though - Gandolfi started in 1885.

    My Lancaster lens is also newer, I'd guess about 1900.
    I have a "Steinheil Patent no.6" too, which is probably one of the first Aplanats (=RR) made. 1868? But it's not exactly the most "primitive" lens, being the a representative of the first "modern" lenses instead. Besides you want a British lens, certainly not a German one for that project!
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #47
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Oh yes - the "arch".

    It's quite common on pictures of about that age, and albums from the same time often have "pockets" of the same shape. Maybe it was common to mask it off for some reason - could be to get rid of some of the (very) bright sky areas, or emulsion faults on the bottom on the wet plate (when in the camera), or maybe just a fad?

    No - I don't quite believe in the "fad theory": It's the same in UK and Germany - and things rarely are unless there's a reason!
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,427
    David. Thanks for the explanation. I'm still confused.

    An LF camera is a light tight box that supports a lens at one end and a film holder at the other. I appreciate that using an aged lens and an old-style but fresh emulsion will let you simulate Howlett's work. But what does the light tight box contribute to anything that matters EXCEPT, as you pointed out, a display?

    Cheers,

  9. #49
    reellis67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,887
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    Oh yes - the "arch".

    It's quite common on pictures of about that age, and albums from the same time often have "pockets" of the same shape. Maybe it was common to mask it off for some reason - could be to get rid of some of the (very) bright sky areas, or emulsion faults on the bottom on the wet plate (when in the camera), or maybe just a fad?

    No - I don't quite believe in the "fad theory": It's the same in UK and Germany - and things rarely are unless there's a reason!
    It could also be one half of a stereo pair. Many stereo images had that arch on the top part of the image, and many stereo pairs were printed singly later on.

    - Randy

  10. #50
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Randy, I think many stereo pairs had the arches for the same reasons that this one has the arch! As to this being part of a stereo pair - no. With a 12x10" plate size there is no way it could be half a stereo pair: The plate size for stereo is limited by the average interocular (sp?) distance, AKA the distance between your eyes.

    Since there were no enlargers or enlarging papers when the exposure was made, there is every reason to believe a 12x10" print would have been made by contact printing a 12x10" negative.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin