Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,929   Posts: 1,585,230   Online: 824
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3

    Classic, Non-Coated Camera Lens for Contact Prints Only?

    I recall reading somewhere that an uncoated lens (If in fact, one prefers the softer, low contrast quality) should not be used when an enlargement is planned. In other words, would the highly regarded non coated Heliar, for example, lose it's magic when shot in 4x5 and then enlarged? Or, would a coated lens always be preferred for enlargements, leaving non-coated lenses for contact printing only?

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,487
    Images
    20
    It's not that simple, and coating isn't the only issue or necessarily the main issue. There are some uncoated lenses that have very good contrast and will hold up to enlargement.

    My own sense, though, is that the classic lenses look better in most cases on contact prints, so I use them mostly for 5x7" and larger, which I contact print, and more modern lenses for 4x5" and smaller.

    There are a few exceptions though. I have a 168mm ser. iii Dagor that's fine on 4x5" when I need its extra image circle. It's not as sharp as a modern plasmat, but when I need an approximately normal lens on 4x5" and lots of front rise, it's the right tool for the job. I have an 11.5" Verito that I use mainly on 4x5". I prefer the 14" Verito on 8x10", but it's not always possible to bring the 8x10" camera.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3
    Thanks, David. That's kind of what I figured. In your opinion, being a Heliar fan that you are, how do you feel about 16 x 20 enlargements from an uncoated Heliar in 4x5? I like enlagements up to 8x10 or so, but I'm wondering if the resolution would fall apart in a big image for exhibition. Naturally, in the final analysis, I have to be the judge, but do you think I'd be better off with a more modern, coated lens. I actually like the Geronars despite what many say. Just a tad soft and less clinical than something like a Sironar-S.

  4. #4
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,487
    Images
    20
    You've got to test the lens you have, since Heliars were produced for quite a few years and there is some sample variation. I have one older 24cm Heliar that I use on 6x6 that doesn't hold up well to enlargement at wide apertures, but the later 36cm Heliar that I usually use on 8x10" isn't bad with modest enlargement on 4x5".
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    337
    I used to enlarge a lot, but am doing less and less as contacts just have more intensity. Enlarged photos look a bit drab somehow. I use 'classic lenses', a dagor, kodak anastigmat, gundlach triple convertible, etc. and contact print everything from 3x4 up to 8x10. I like the look of these lenses and combined with contact printing the look is beautiful. I am not an expert in these matters!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Uncoated lenses may be lower in contrast, but certainly lenses from the top manufacturers are not necessarily lower in resolution. Contrast ultimately is controlled by film development and choice of printing paper and paper developer.

    In the days before lens coatings, photographers did outstanding work by being careful to shield their lens from direct sunlight and other reflective sources outside the field of view. Good practices even today.

  7. #7
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    There is absolutely no reason not to enlarge from uncoated lenses.

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...500&ppuser=124 was shot with an uncoated lens (zeiss Doppel-Amatar 150mm), so was http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/502/thumbs/Senja01.jpg (Angulon 210mm), http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...500&ppuser=124 (WA Rectilinear 3 1/4") and http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...500&ppuser=124 (Heliar 150mm).

    I can assure you that all of these hold up very well under enlarging - and one of them is a crop of less than 1/4 of the film area.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  8. #8
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,436
    Images
    148
    Under many circumstances an old uncoated lens will perform almost as well as a modern MC lens, it will all most certainly appear to be more tonal, lacking the wiry modern sharpness of Japanes lenses, but that's not a bad thing.

    I have a couple of Tessars, 1919 & mid 30's both are very good, sharp with plenty of contrast, edge sharpness isn't quite up to modern standard but is only noticeable with enlargements. A late 30's Dagor, later factory coated is on a par with modern lenses.

    Where older lenses just can't compete is shooting into the light, I'm just putting some image together for a project and there isn't the slightest hint of flare or degradation shooting straight into stage lighting, or into the sun with the best modern lenses.

    Reality is if you use an old lens, remember how people recommended their use at the time of manufacture.

    Then also think of those wonderful images you've seen that were made with these old lenses when they were first produced. If you can't match the quality there's something wrong with your technique

    Ian

  9. #9
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,718
    Images
    20
    Weston did quite a bit of contact printing and Ansel did quite a bit of enlarging. IMHO both photographers have made some very nice prints suitable for framing
    Last edited by Dave Wooten; 10-28-2007 at 05:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    [FONT="Arial Black"][/FONT]

  10. #10
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,436
    Images
    148
    You make a good point there Dave.

    I bought a 10x8 camera with the intention of just making contact prints, one look at my first negatives and I knew I had to enlarge, despite the taking lens being well over 75 years old. It's as good now as the day it was made, so as long as I use it wisely I can't blame the lens for poor quality images.

    Ian

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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