View Full Version : wornout shoes

08-10-2006, 12:07 PM
from the old studio 4x5 i built.. paper negative of course

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/stilllife_shoes_3238.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/stilllife_shoes_3238.jpg)

08-10-2006, 12:47 PM
Cool! It almost looks like they are tiny shoes laying in the palm of someone's hand.

08-10-2006, 09:11 PM
i wonder how much of it has to do with the 3a lens being so long. I didn't crop it at all that is full frame so I was right on top of the shoes. with the help of a close up lens of course.

08-11-2006, 02:01 PM
This is very nice. I remain amazed and excited at the prospects of improvised lenses with paper negatives for large format. Especially the larger the better, with contact prints.

08-11-2006, 03:21 PM
I want to go 5x7 next Im not sure since the lens well be so expensive. the camera would be pretty easy since I build the backs any size I want. the existing bellow and lens board would be for focus, So the only hang up now is the lens coverage.

Do you happen to have any ideas. Maybe an old plate camera lens. How big were full size plates and half size plates. Also I wonder what the coverage is for a 3a lens. I have one of those laying around somewhere.

08-11-2006, 05:28 PM
i remembered someone saying that with the front element of the old lens removed it increased their coverage, Since I have one that isnt on anything, I Thought I would give it a try as a 5x7 single element lens. So that is tomorrows project for me. Build the camera frame that is. of course if I wait till i can buy a 5x7 film holder I won't get it done for a while, so I think I'll just plan on making a custom film holder as well.

08-18-2006, 09:49 AM
3A full lens f.l. is allegedly 170-173 mm, and the Rapid Recilinears allegedly have larger coverage than more uptight lenses like Tessars. 170 isn't so far from traditional 210, so why not see if it'll cover 5x7?

You can do whatever you like regarding front or rear lens, but performance is supposedly better (less distorted) with a single element BEHIND the aperture/shutter. The Kodak meniscus achromat lenses were usually like that in that era.

If you use one of a pair of Rapid Rectilinear elements, I think you get a tiny bite more than double the f.l.of the matched set...350-ish mm because a pair of identical lenses gives you <0.5 the f.l. of a single lens because of the slight spacing between then in the shutter (Gullstrand's Equation).

DannL (?) on APUG did 8x10 paper negs w/ 1/2 a 3A lens.

Each half is an achromat.

The Anastigmat version will NOT work in halves because rather than a symmetrical pair of cells that work alone, one is positive and one is negative, with the positive one allegedly (reading other people's experience) at a f.l. that doesn't work with the existing camera structure, and the negative unable to focus a 'real' image..