Charten whole plate, two double darkslide bookform holders
Auzoux 'rectiligne' lens
    Still working on focal length and aperture, just got it mounted
today
Hermagis Casket set

Is the Auzoux around 270mm? (Standard)
I've left the field blank for the Hermagis casket set ...I can't
recall whether yours had the

sorry - that's my faux pas.   I left out the 'modern' in the title
(now corrected).

Do feel welcome to add a list of the lenses you've used, particularly
the ones which you know can cover whole plate format.    I thought
this might be a good idea - in time, there would be a sufficient
database of usable lenses with whole plate format (either vintage or
modern) for newcomers to whole plate format to choose from, knowing
that the lenses will cover the image area.   If a user wants specific
information on a lens, a message to ask for details can be left.

Regarding the vintage & modern division; in many respects, this is an
arbitrary or forced decision.  I tend to have a very loose definition,
so any lens whose design has been recalculated, aided by computerised
design for the correction of coma, chromatic aberration, peripheral
distortion and field illumination, would come into the class of the
'modern' lens.   I've not used 'age' or decade of production as a
criterion; in 10 years time, the whole classification system would
then collapse in disarray!

Modern Lenses:

These lenses tend to have highly flare reducing multi-coatings which
increase contrast - for example - a lens like the Rodenstock Apo-
Sironar S 180mm f5.6, whose apochromatic correction is a purely modern
computerised invention,  or the Schneider Super Angulon 90mm XL f5.6,
whose covering power has been extended by computerised design.  For
most of us, the apo-chromatic designation isn't important since its
use applies mostly for colour imaging work.  Such designs leads to
very predictable image characteristics: high field resolution right to
the periphery of the image; minimum distortion and medium to high
contrast.  Out of focus rendition areas tend to be distinctively
modern, without the exoticism of the out of focus rendition areas of
vintage lenses.

Vintage Lenses:

On the opposite extreme, a lens like the Victorian doublets such as a
Ross Extra-Rapid Symmetrical lens with uncoated glass, represents a
vintage design; not simply because of its age, but because of its
design.  The presence of both coma, peripheral field softness (loss of
resolving power), and a variety of visual artifacts, including veiling
flare, specular flare and internal ghosting (not due to the age
related loss of the black interior surface of the lens, but the design
itself) all contribute to an  attenuation of macro-contrast across the
image plane.   Micro-contrast may indeed be an issue with such a
lens.   The out-of-focus rendition areas are highly variable and
specific to the class of lens design.

Somewhere in the middle, a lens like a Wollensak Velostigmat Series
II, 8 1/2 inch renders an interesting soft contrast vintage appearance
(see image link above).  It seems fitting to place this lens in the
'vintage' bracket, due to its absence of a computerised design for a
classic 4 element Tessar.  Again, a Nikkor 300-M lens shares the same
4 element Tessar construction, however has been optimised by computer
design and multi-coated; hence its modern, and somewhat clinical,
rendition,  in comparison to classic tessars.

There are a small number of confusing lenses, originating from th
1960's whose design was not computer-modelled, yet possess strong
modern traits.  The French manufacturer, Boyer of Paris, created a
series of jewel like Apo-Saphir lenses which share the same
construction as a Voigtlander Heliar lens.   I discovered a 300mm f10
Apo-Saphir, which is much smaller than a Nikkor-M 300mm f9 lens, thus
its designation as a 'jewel lens'.  However it is exceptionally heavy
for its diminutive size, due to its glass construction.  It has a
pleasing softness at full aperture (for portraiture work) and is
incisively sharp from f16 onwards.  It has an aperture scale marked
down to f128 and seems to have been used historically for mostly
repro' work, optimised for macro and print-setting work.  Thus, the
presence of this lens in both  a barrel form, with fixed waterhouse
aperture stops, as well as in later Compur 1 shutter incarnations, for
use on a field camera.   The lens has a very distinctive aqua-marine
hue/reflection, yet is apparently subjected to neither single or multi-
coating: the aqua marine hue derives from the use of rare earth metals
in its lens construction.   This latter criterion, along with its
absence of computer-assisted design would suggest that the lens should
be added to the 'vintage' list of lenses.  However paradoxically, the
images it creates, are on equal resolution to the Nikkor-M 300mm lens;
a distinctly 'modern' lens.

Okay, I will add to the lens list.  However, I really don't feel that
I have any idea about how to describe these lenses except in the most
basic of ways.  Is there anywhere I can look which has a good
description of how to tell lenses apart by their visible
characteristics?

Should I email the lens list to you?

Diane

On Sep 1, 9:39 am, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

No need to worry - if you add the lens to the list on this page,
others who know of
the lens will be able to contribute (unless it's a really obscure
lens!).  I can try and dig
out what I can and add it in too.

Do you know of the Lens Vademecum? It is a useful if not a basic
encyclopaedia for researching more vintage lenses. It's available on a
CD-ROM on the internet.   I have an outdated copy of one, however its
bandwidth may overwhelm anyone on a dial-up connection.  Being out-
dated by a decade or so, the edition is still far from being
obsolete ;)

The Classic Camera site by CCHarrison has an extensive web
illustration of some of the more popular vintage lenses too.   Other
internet sources, such as the tests by Chris Perez exist alongside an
extensive number of semi-technical tests on 'modern' lenses looking at
line resolution tested against visual charts on the internet
particularly for  8x10" or 4x5" lenses.  I'm not sure if these numbers
and technical data have any utility  when applied to contact-printing
or 1:1 negative reproduction, and I've not personally found this line
of enquiry useful for discerning my own practice.   In any case, the
original manufacturers' lens data for more popular mainstream lenses
i.e.  Rodenstock & Schneider,  are more authoritative on the technical
data, with MTF data being available.  Perhaps this line of researching
a lens' characteristics gives the impression of being overwrought by
the internet community, however it may be, that such technical data
was produced for lenses intended for an image enlarging output, and
not for 1:1 image reproduction, and therefore the critical performance
of a lens was more important.

I've found the single most useful determining factor for utility,
bears on the covering power of a lens.  Like you, I have an
architectural project running, and an extreme wide-angle lens with
sufficient movements for correction seems fantastical.  The 90mm XL
already represents a field view, approximately around 16mm-18mm on
35mm format, or analogous to a Schneider 58mm XL on 4x5" format.  This
is not quite wide-enough for some applications.  A 110mm or 120mm
Schneider/Rodenstock offering would improve on the field perspective
correction, however won't possess the ultra-wide angle of view like
the 90mm XL.   Still, since their covering power is more than generous
on whole plate format, either may be a more useful lens overall.

Regarding your question on distinguishing lenses from their visual
characteristics.  I'm not very good at this task, and only a very
unusual or unique lens would impress  on me  ~ unfortunately such
impression might
have no bearing on its image potential too.  The Boyer Apo-Saphir's
glass reflection (hue/colour) is distinctive; as is, for example, the
concave front element of an English petzval type lens; or the
phenomenal surface area of a 15 inch f5 English Tessar type lens (4
element).  I'm  afraid this isn't a great direction to travel too far
along.

Generally if the front and rear elements of a lens can be unscrewed,
the number of reflections of a point light source, visible in the lens
will bear on the number of elements.  For an assembled lens, the
strong and weak reflections combined indicate the number of glass
surfaces in the front and back of the lens.  Generally, the name of a
lens usually has a derived  optical construction.  This issue is
perhaps more important for smaller format (i.e. 35mm).  The effect
size of such differences in optical construction are less noticeable
for a whole plate format than 35mm format, due to the latter's
requirement for enlargement.  Where optical construction matters for
the whole plate format, it seems to relate to the correction of
optical aberrations across the whole field, or the limits of image
coverage due to the design of the lens.
For instance - the Wollensak Verito lens has a distinctive signature
at full to middling apertures, however this lens signature is lost by
levelling down the aperture (true for most lenses) until diffraction
limits the image resolution and contrast.  On the other hand, an
obscure Petzval designed lens, usually runs into problems with full
image circle coverage for whole plate, unless it is extraordinarily
long, wide and bulky (due to its design requirement).  The light fall-
off from the expired coverage can be appealing.

Both examples of such 'vintage lenses', represents a recovery of the
traditional aesthetic of vintage lenses.  It seems like a historical
revival, albeit  of slightly fringe or cult interest.   Aesthetically,
the approach lies within the tradition of historical whole plate
format photography and offers a lineage for this kind of imaging
ethos.

The Whole Plate Book Project represents one venture into discovering
the breadth of application; of how contemporary whole plate work could
be rendered, using modern lenses or vintage lenses.   The traditional
vintage lenswork using signature optics, resulting from lens design
limitations, is a fascinating field in itself - I know very little of
this modus operandi, practising even less of it myself.  This is one
pole or extreme: on the other, is the use of modern optics which
although often have not been fetishized to the extent of vintage
optics, offer a more clinically transparent mode of visualisation.

I think there's room for both poles of lenswork and practice in whole
plate - it would certainly be fascinating to see this blend of optical
use.   Personally, I would like to see more of the modern application
of lenswork as applied to the traditional whole plate format, however
that might require some time and confidence to grasp the subtlety of
this application.

As for lenses to add:  Schneider 355 mm G-Claron; Goerz Dagor Ser.
III, No. 2, 7 in. (I call it 180 mm in my notes); 600 mm Fujinon-C

I have heard of the Lens Vademecum from Ole Tjugen on the LF forum,
but have not shelled out the money for a copy.

Diane

On Sep 2, 9:45 am, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think I spoke too soon; my copy of the Lens Vademecum is definitely
outdated by much more than a decade.

I've added the list of lenses to the main reference page above.  It's
great to see your focal
length is at the extreme end of what I've been starting whole plate
work with.   Have you had
any difficulty mounting such long lenses onto your Century or Japanese
whole plate camera at all?

So far, I've added in your lenses and drafted out a template for the
Schneider
355mm G Claron. The page should be visible from the PAGES section.  Or
here:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web/3-3-schneider-g-claro...

I'll be interested to see how you find, editing and filling in the
blanks in the page.  Is the software user friendly?
Is it intuitive, or is it too taxing?

Thank you for the suggestion of adding images of the lenses.  I hadn't
considered how useful that might be for
others so I'll remember to find a few images from the manufacturer
(for modern lenses) or take a few (for the
vintage lenses).

Kind regards,

My main difficulty is getting the lensboards made.  The gentleman who
had been making them went out of the camera repair business, but is
still willing to make them for me; it just takes longer to get them
made. :(

On Sep 2, 5:56 pm, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

As far as filling in the blanks, I just sort of re-worked the html a
bit.  All I saw was html code, I didn't really see 'blanks' of any
sort on the page.  So, I might try and look at it again from home
provided I can stay connected long enough.

Diane

On Sep 3, 6:41 am, colrehogan <colreho...@earthlink.net> wrote:

That looks fine! I've tried to sort out the pagination issues (I'm on
Firefox widescreen, so I'm not sure if the formatting is disrupted in
smaller width screens).

Re: your Charten lensboard - can you check the size of it (height x
width) of your lensboards?  I have a few makeshift panels.  Scott-
from the forum issued some high quality planed American Walnut
lensboards however he's wound down the lensboard manufacturing too.
From the Chartens I've, seen, I've not found any consistency in
lensboard dimensions - despite the similarities of appearance and
construction, it seems that lensboard dimensions varied over the long
history of the Charten Whole Plate.

I have noticed that the line formatting gets a bit weird when the
bookmarks bar is showing in Firefox.

Diane

On Sep 3, 11:16 am, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your Charten boards are very similar to mine:

4 3/16 x 4 2/16 (vertical side) x 5 millimetres (sorry - I don't know
how to express
this in inches)

The slight discrepancy in width/height may be inconsequential...?

I'll try and scan the article on the Charten Whole Plate camera for
you tonight.

Thank you for the feedback on the line formatting.  I'm not sure I
know how to
fix this!

Kind regards,

RJ

On 3 Sep, 18:09, colrehogan <colreho...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Also, in the picture of me in the snow with the camera, I was using
the 355 G-Claron at the time.  That's a Lee hood attached to the front
of it and you can see the size of the tripod I am using, so these
heavy lenses aren't really a problem for me.  I do have some pictures
of the Crown Anastigmat mounted on the camera, but the camera is
sitting on the bed in a hotel room, not exactly a great image.

I also have an image of my Century camera with the 600 mm Fuji mounted
on it.

Diane

p.s.  I think you and I are turning into gear heads (personally, I
want to get away from talking gear and it's hard at times).  I can
post these images if you want.  Let me know.

On Sep 3, 3:01 pm, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Diane,

I think it's inevitable in someway - in trying to set up a whole plate
resource, that the basic
building blocks on equipment/lenses will need to be scaffolded.  This
foundation needs to
be aggregated and accumulated empirically at least, to make it useful
for others, so I guess
I'll just have to bite my lip and continue adding what seems now like
copious amount of data
on whole plate materials!

Do feel welcome to upload the images  - no doubt you might find it
surprising how large some
of the other lenses I've listed in the Optics Index, mount up on a
whole plate camera.

PS - many thanks for the addendum to the pages.

Kind regards,

Diane

On Sep 4, 1:56 pm, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

no - not at all.  I remind myself often, just to keep track of this
project.   In many respects, trying to work out what the basic
building blocks for a whole plate starter means drawing together
the strands of the various listed lenses, and making some
recommendation.

At this stage, it doesn't strike me as appropriate, since it would
only
be possible to recommend...the lenses which each whole plate
photographer
uses.

I wonder if you feel it is worthwhile constructiong a FAQ  page at
all...

I hope it's becoming easier to manage the software for the page
editing
now!

Kind regards,

As far as the software is concerned, I wind up trying to remember what
little html I recall from my attempts at putting together a web
site.
As long as I stick to a computer with a fast connection, I'm fine with
making changes and additions.

Diane

On Sep 4, 8:09 pm, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:56 am, colrehogan <colreho...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Diane

On Sep 9, 7:09 am, colrehogan <colreho...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Many thanks - sorry for the delay - been away recently.

I've re-edited the pages and put some order there.

The option to 'Add a new page' is perhaps easier to use than Page 7.2;
it seems that I need to re-introduce a Page 7.2 everytime one is used
for creating a new page! This means going into the other pages and
correcting all of the links.   In any case, not to worry - I think
it's working out.

I'm impressed at how small your Dagor lens appears.  Looking forward
to seeing its visual characteristics.

Kind regards,

On Sep 13, 2:31 am, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks ~ I haven't found an ultrawide solution other than bearing up
with the limitations of the S.A. 90mm XL which offers
no correction at all.  Do you use a centre filter for correction of
the light fall-off, or is the vignetting of a mechanical nature
related solely to the extent of front rise?

I'd love to see the images to ascertain if it's worthwhile changing
for a slightly longer focal length.

Kind regards,

Diane

On Oct 2, 5:39 am, RJ <luxcam...@gmail.com> wrote: