Large Format Lens Resolution - tests from 1990's into 2004

Before my old Hevanet site goes away, I want to republish some of the early lens tests that Kerry Thalmann and I performed over 15 years of curiosity on the topic.

Copyright 1998, 1999,2000,2001,2002,2004 Christopher M. Perez/Kerry L. Thalmann- All Rights Reserved

last updated: 04/19/04

Test Results - Large Format photographic lenses

Kerry Thalmann and I tested the lenses found in the
table below. The emphasis is on compact portable lenses for use
in the field. Comments regarding these tests follow the
table. More information can be found at the links provided above
and below. This has been a long project and I hope people find
merit in being able to review this information on-line.
You can use the following to 'jump' to the desired
section of this test page.

Please note: Take care in comparing lenses.
Some were tested from f/11 to f/22, while others were tested from f/16
to f/32, and still others from f/18 to f/32.


65mm thru 90mm

Manufacturer	Model	Length	Fstop/cnt/mdl/edge	Weight	Shutter	Serial number	Age
Rodenstock	APO Grandigon	55mm	f/11 54 38 48 f/16 76 48 42 f/22 54 54 42	355g	Copal 0	115292xx	2000's
Schneider	Super Angulon f/8	65mm	f/11 26 23 21 f/16 42 30 26 f/22 37 37 30	.	Compur00	.	1950's
Schneider	Super Angulon f/5.6	65mm	f/11 67 60 38 f/16 67 60 42 f/22 48 48 42	325g	Copal 0	14,379,xxx	1990's
Horseman	Super ER f/5.6	75mm	f/11 64 54 34 f/16 60 54 34 f/22 54 60 38	150g	Seiko-SLV	12xxxx	1980's
Nikon	SW f/4.5	75mm	f/11 42 30 18 f/16 60 54 19 f/22 60 48 30	435g	Copal 0	661xxx	1980's
Rodenstock	Grandagon-N f/6.8	75mm	f/11 67 60 42 f/16 60 60 24 f/22 54 54 38	.	Copal 0	1133xxxx	1990's
Schneider	Super Angulon f/8	75mm	f/11 67 54 24 f/16 60 54 38 f/22 54 48 38	415g	Compur 0	985xxxx	1966
Ziess	Dagor f/9	7.5cm	f/11 60 34 17 f/16 54 42 19 f/22 48 42 21	65g (true!)	.	265xxxx	?
Schneider	Super Symmar XL f/4.5	80mm	f/11 76 42 34 f/16 76 42 42 f/22 60 48 42	270g	Copal 0	1477xxxx	2000
Schneider	Super Symmar XL f/4.5	80mm	f/11 48 54 38 f/16 67 54 48 f/22 60 54 54	270g	Copal 0	1479xxxx	2000
Schneider - too soft to focus - returned to factory	Super Symmar XL f/4.5	80mm	f/11 42 30 18 f/16 60 60 42 f/22 60 60 48	270g	Copal 0	147xxxxx	2000
Congo	WideField f/6.3	90mm	f/16 67 38 24 f/22 60 42 24 f/32 48 42 38 f/11 42 30 22 f/16 60 54 38 f/22 54 54 33	145g	Copal 0	301xx5	1990's
Congo	WideField f/6.3	90mm	f/11 60 32 18 f/16 60 42 19 f/22 60 54 21	145g	Copal 0	302xx4	1990's
Congo	WideField f/6.3	90mm	f/11 42 38 38 f/16 60 67 54 f/22 60 54 42	145g	Copal 0	301xx9	1990's
Komura - elements beginning to separate	f/6.3	90mm	f/11 26 26 24 f/16 33 30 26 f/22 54 42 26	???	Copal 0	???	???
Nikon	SW f/8	90mm	f/11 80 80 60 f/16 67 67 60 f/22 60 54 54	355g	Copal 0	693xxx	1980's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/11 60 54 19 f/16 60 60 21 f/22 54 54 42	150g	Synchro-Compur #0	9733xxx	1966
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/11 48 54 48 f/16 60/54/48 f/22 42 48 48	.	Copal 0	768xxx7	1960's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/16 67 60 21 f/22 60 54 38 f/32 42 42 27	120g	.	419xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/16 67 54 48 f/22 67 67 42 f/32 42 38 30	125g	.	246xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/11 54 42 32 f/16 60 54 32 f/22 60 60 42	125g	.	537xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/11 76 35 38 f/16 61 38 38 f/22 61 68 61	145g	.	891xxxx	1960's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	90mm	f/16 13 15 12 f/22 11 13 12 f/32 30 30 21	120g	.	360xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Super Angulon f/8	90mm	f/11 67 67 17 f/16 60 54 21	370g	Copal 0	118xxxx0	1980's
Graphlex	WA Optar f/6.8	90mm	f/11 54 32 15 f/16 54 42 24 f/22 54 44 18	140g	Rapax	903xxxx	1960's
Wollensak	WA Raptar f/6.3	3 1/2"	f/16 60 42 24 f/22 60 54 24 f/32 42 42 30	135g	Rapax	907xxx	1960's

100mm thru 163mm

Goerz Zeiss Dagor	f/9	100mm	f/11 54 42 19 f/16 54 54 21 f/22 48 54 30	.	.	.	.
Kodak	WF Ektar f/6.3	100mm	f/16 67 60 30 f/22 60 60 30 f/32 48 42 30	175g	Supermatic	RYxxx	1950's
Kodak	Ektar f/3.7 - this is really a 6x9 format lens, but is included here because I tested it using a 4x5 camera	105mm	f/5.6 68 54 19 f/8 68 42 42 f/11 85 68 48 f/16 76 68 60 f/22 60 60 54	.	Supermatic	ES5xx	1940's
Wollensak	WA Raptar f/6.3	108mm	f/6.3 26 16 11 f/22 60 42 30	190g	Rapax	815xxx	1960's
Schneider	Super Symmar XL f/5.6	110mm	f/11 80 67 60 f/16 67 67 67 f/22 60 60 60	430g	Copal 1	1416xxxx	1990's
Schneider	Super Symmar XL f/5.6	110mm	f/11 24 38 42 f/16 42 48 42 f/22 54 48 42	430g	Copal 1	1485xxxx	1990's
Schneider	Super Symmar XL f/5.6	110mm	f/11 76 76 54 f/16 54 68 48 f/22 60 60 54	430g	Copal 1	14713xxx	1990's
Goerz	WA Dagor f/8	4 3/8"	f/11 60 60 24 f/16 60 60 18 f/22 54 54 18	.	.	803xxx	1960's
Bosch&Lomb	Series 5 Protar f/18	113mm	f/18 54 54 23 f/22 54 60 30 f/32 42 48 38	125g	Copal 0	TS24xx	19x0's
Caltar	II-N	115mm	f/11 68 60 42 f/16 54 48 42 f/22 54 48 42	715g	Copal 1	10682xxx	1980's?
Congo	WideAngle f/6.3	120mm	f/11 42 42 30 f/16 42 42 32 f/22 44 44 32	145g	Copal 0	302xxx	1990's
Congo	WideAngle f/6.3	120mm	f/11 32 30 18 f/16 38 30 19 f/22 60 42 24	145g	Copal 0	301xxx	1990's
Schneider	SuperSymmar HM f/5.6	120mm	f/11 42 42 24 f/16 80 80 60 f/22 67 60 42	390g	Copal 0	142xxxxx	1980's
Schneider	APO Symmar f/5.6	120mm	f/11 54 54 48 f/16 76 54 54 f/22 60 54 48	190g	Copal 0	1462xxxx	1990's
Schneider	APO Symmar f/5.6	120mm	f/11 67 67 38 f/16 64 64 54 f/22 60 60 42	190g	Copal 0	143xxxxx	1980's
Fuji	CM-W f/5.6	125mm	f/11 42 33 38 f/16 60 54 54 f/22 60 60 54	.	Copal 0	75xxx3	1990's
Goerz	Carl Ziess Jena f/9	12.5cm	f/16 60 67 38 f/22 54 54 48 f/32 48 48 42	155g	Copal 0	124xxxx	19x0's
Fuji	Fujinon-W/EBC f/5.6	135mm	f/11 76 76 48 f/16 68 68 48 f/22 54 60 54	230g	Copal #0	542xxx	1980's
Fuji	Fujinon-W f/5.6	135mm	f/11 21 30 60 f/16 33 42 54 f/22 48 54 54	230g	Copal #0	542xxx	1980's
Graphlex	Optar f/4.7	135mm	f/11 42 42 33 f/16 54 48 38 f/22 42 42 42	195g	Rapax	G2xxx1	1950's
Kodak	WF Ektar f/6.3	135mm	f/11 76 53 35 f/16 76 67 44 f/22 63 63 54	290g	Supermatic	RExxx	1950's
Kodak	WF Ektar f/6.3	135mm	f/11 42 42 24 f/16 48 38 24 f/22 67 54 42	290g	Supermatic	EEIxxxx	1960's???
Nikon	W f/5.6	135mm	f/11 48 38 15 f/16 67 42 21 f/22 60 54 38	210g	Copal 0	722xxx	1980's
Nikon	W f/5.6	135mm	f/11 27 21 19 f/16 60 42 15 f/22 54 54 30	210g	Copal 0	710xxx	1980's
Rodenstock	Sironar N f/5.6	135mm	f/11 48 48 24 f/16 54 54 54 f/22 60 54 54	185g	Copal 0	109xxxx2	1980's
Rodenstock	APO Sironar N f/5.6	135mm	f/11 38 42 30 f/16 54 60 54 f/22 48 48 48	170g	Copal 0	11369xxx	1990's
Rodenstock	APO Sironar S f/5.6	135mm	f/11 38 42 42 f/16 58 58 38 f/22 64 64 59	215g	Copal 0	112xxxxx	1990's
Schneider	Linhof Xenotar f/3.5	135mm	f/11 42 38 42 f/16 60 60 54 f/22 54 54 54	375g	Synchro-Compur #1	10,959,xxx	1968
Fuji	NSW f/5.6	150mm	f/11 68 76 68 f/16 68 76 68 f/22 60 60 60	.	Copal 0	.	1980's
Fuji	W f/6.3	150mm	f/11 60 60 48 f/16 48 60 54 f/22 54 60 54	140g	Seiko #0	130xxx	1970's
Fuji	W f/6.3	150mm	f/11 60 60 48 f/16 48 60 54 f/22 54 60 54	140g	Copal 0	130xx8	1970's
Fuji	WS f/6.3	150mm	f/11 60 67 48 f/16 60 67 48 f/22 60 60 54	140g	Copal 0	121xx9	1970's
Goerz	WA Gold Ring f/8	6 1/2"	f/11 21 24 21 f/16 38 54 48 f/22 48 48 48	.	Ilex	786xx8	1960's
Kowa	Graphic f/9	150mm	f/11 76 76 48 f/16 67 67 67 f/22 42 60 60	260g	Copal 0	12xx2	1980's
Rodenstock	Geronar	150mm	f/11 60 38 24 f/16 76 48 34 f/22 48 54 48	145g	Copal 0	10424xxx	1980's?
Rodenstock	APO Sironar(W) f/5.6	150mm	f/16 68 68 42 f/22 54 60 54	???	Copal 1	10886xxx	1990's
Rodenstock	APO Sironar S f/5.6	150mm	f/11 54 54 42 f/16 54 54 54 f/22 54 54 48	230g	Copal 0	116xxxxx	1990's
Rodenstock	APO Sironar S f/5.6	150mm	f/11 76 85 43 f/16 76 76 43 f/22 60 60 48	230g	Copal 0	113xxxxx	1990's
Rodenstock	Sironar N f/5.6	150mm	f/11 76 57 27 f/16 76 76 30 f/22 60 60 43	200g	Copal 0	103xxxxx	1980's
Schneider	APO Symmar f/5.6	150mm	f/11 54 60 54 f/16 60 60 54 f/22 42 42 38	235g	Copal 0	145xxxx8	1990's
Schneider	Symmar-S f/5.6	150mm	f/11 76 85 38 f/16 57 60 38 f/22 67 67 48	215g	Copal 0	141xxxxx	1980's
Schneider	G-Claron f/9	150mm	f/11 67 43 30 f/16 76 67 38 f/22 60 60 48	130g	Copal 0	142xxxxx	1980's
Schneider	Super Symmar HM f/5.6	150mm	f/11 38 42 38 f/16 76 76 42 f/22 54 54 42	740g	Copal 0	1449xxxx	1990's
Schneider - coating imperfections	Super Symmar HM f/5.6	150mm	f/11 20 30 42 f/16 30 48 48 f/22 42 48 48	740g	Copal 0	143xxxxx	1990's
Schneider	Symmar Convertable f/5.6	150mm	f/11 42 48 38 f/16 42 48 42 f/22 48 64 42	.	Linhof	449xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Symmar Convertable f/5.6	150mm single element at 265mm	f/16 48 48 23 f/22 48 48 33 f/32 42 42 38	.	Linhof	449xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Symmar Convertable f/5.6	150mm single element at 265mm with #15 yellow filter	f/16 48 48 21 f/22 48 48 32 f/32 30 38 33	.	Linhof	449xxxx	1950's
Schneider	Xenar f/5.6	150mm	f/11 42 54 26 f/16 54 67 24 f/22 67 60 48	170g	Copal 0	14xxxxxx	1990's
Voightlander	APO Lanthar lite element separation	15cm	f/11 67 67 42 f/16 54 67 54 f/22 54 42 42	290g	Linhof Select blackface	6745xxx	1960's
Ilex	Paragon-S f/4.5	163mm	f/11 64 48 21 f/16 34 42 30 f/22 58 54 48	.	Ilex	52xx9	1960's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	165mm	f/11 54 54 15 f/16 54 54 24 f/22 48 48 34	500g	Copal 3	13339xxx	1970's
Schneider	Angulon f/6.8	165mm	f/11 xx xx xx f/16 54 38 17 f/22 48 42 21	300g	Linhof Select blackface	9031xxx	1960's

180mm thru 270mm

Computar	Symmetrigon f/6.3	180mm	f/11 42 33 26 f/16 60 60 33 f/22 54 54 30	386g	Copal 1	74xxx2	1980's
Fuji	A f/9	180mm	f/11 67 76 34 f/16 67 67 42 f/22 60 60 38	190g	Copal 0	28xxxx	1970's
Schneider	Symmar-S/MC f/5.6	180mm	f/11 54 54 48 f/16 60 48 42 f/22 54 54 42	450g	Compur 1	1410xxxx	1980's
Schneider	Symmar-S f/5.6 (single coated)	180mm	f/11 54 54 60 f/16 85 67 60 f/22 60 54 54	455g	Copal 1	1216xxxx	1970's
Bausch and Lomb	Protar series-V f/18	183mm	f/18 42 38 30 f/22 54 48 42 f/32 42 42 38	.	.	LF3xx5	.
Kodak	Ektar f/7.7	203mm	f/11 60 67 48 f/16 60 60 54 f/22 60 60 54	180g	Supermatic	RExxx	1950's
Kodak	Anastigmat /7.7 uncoated	203mm	f/11 48 67 54 f/16 67 73 42 f/22 54 60 48	180g	Supermatic	no-ser	1930's
Nikkor	M-series f/8	200mm	f/11 68 76 38 f/16 68 68 34 f/22 60 54 48	180g	Copal 0	200xxx	1980's?
Nikkor	M-series f/8	200mm	f/11 60 60 30 f/16 67 60 30 f/22 60 67 54	180g	Copal 0	201xxx	1980's
Computar (Kowa)	f/9 process lens	210mm	f/9 48 30 26 f/11 48 38 38 f/16 60 54 48 f/22 48 48 48	<220g	Copal 1	???	1970's
Fuji	L-series f/5.6	210mm	f/11 54 54 34 f/16 68 60 48 f/22 48 48 42	340g	Copal 1	255xxx	1970's
Fuji	L-series f/5.6	210mm	f/11 34 38 34 f/16 54 48 42 f/22 42 48 42	340g	Copal 1	253xxx	1970's
Fuji	W-series f/5.6	210mm	f/11 xx xx xx f/16 54 48 42 f/22 60 48 48	475g	Copal 1	253xxx	1980's
Nikkor	W-series f/5.6	210mm	f/11 60 42 24 f/16 60 60 38 f/22 48 54 54	475g	Copal 1	757xxx	1980's
Rodenstock	APO Sironar-S f/5.6	210mm	f/11 68 60 38 f/16 76 54 54 f/22 60 54 54	465g	Copal 1	11589xx1	1990's
Rodenstock	APO Sironar-S f/5.6	210mm	f/11 54 38 48 f/16 76 48 54 f/22 60 48 54	465g	Copal 1	11589xx0	1990's
Rodenstock	SironarN f/5.6	210mm	f/11 48 54 42 f/16 42 42 38 f/22 34 34 34	415g	Copal 1	103xxxx1	1980's
Schneider	Symmar APO f/5.6	210mm	f/11 76 76 60 f/16 67 67 54 f/22 60 60 54	475g	Copal 1	143xxxxx	1990's
Fuji	A-series f/9	240mm	f/11 54 38 34 f/16 68 60 54 f/22 60 60 60	245g	Copal 0	5xxxxx	1990's
Fuji	A-series f/9	240mm	f/11 60 54 48 f/16 76 60 48 f/22 60 67 60	245g	Copal 0	522xxx	1990's
Rodenstock	APO Ronar f/9	240mm	f/11 76 68 38 f/16 68 48 54 f/22 60 42 48	355g	Copal 0?	10526xxx	1970's
Goerz	Red Dot Artar f/9	9.5 inch	f/11 54 38 24 f/16 60 54 24 f/22 60 60 42	185g	Compur 1	838xxx	1960's
Schneider	Linhof TeleArton f/5.6	250mm	f/11 xx xx xx f/16 54 60 54 f/22 54 60 54	820g	Prontor-Pro #1	14,076,xxx	1984
Ilex	Paragon f/6.3	254mm	f/11 26 42 30 f/16 48 48 42 f/22 54 54 54	.	Ilex #2	1xx2	1950's
Rodenstock	TeleOptar f/6.5	270mm	f/11 48 48 30 f/16 48 38 34 f/22 42 33 30	900g	Copal 0	469xxx6	1970's
Rodenstock	TeleRotelar f/6.5	270mm	f/11 21 21 21 f/16 38 42 19 f/22 42 33 33	940g	Copal 0	491xxx2	1970's

300mm and longer

Doktor	Tessar f/5.6	300mm	f/11 38 34 27 f/16 54 48 48 f/22 60 42 54	745g	Copal 3	10xx	.
Nikon	M f/9	300mm	f/11 67 67 47 f/16 48 42 42 f/22 42 42 42	270g	Copal 1	75xxx6	1980's
Nikon	M f/9	300mm	f/11 48 48 48 f/16 48 48 48 f/22 54 54 54	270g	Copal 1	75xxx2	1980's
Fuji	Fujinon-T f/8	300mm	f/11 54 38 38 f/16 54 42 38 f/22 54 48 38	415g	Copal 0	70xxxx	1990's
Fuji	Fujinon-W f/5.6	300mm	f/11 38 48 42 f/16 48 54 48 f/22 48 54 48	1100g	Copal #3	272xxx	1980's
Schneider	G-Claron f/9	305mm	f/16 67 67 54 f/22 54 60 54	.	Copal 1	.	1989
Goerz	L.D.Artar f/9	14inch	f/11 19 15 10 f/16 38 38 21 f/22 48 48 30 f/11 42 34 26 f/16 54 42 33 f/22 xx xx xx	315g	Compur #2	837xxx	.
Goerz	L.D.Artar f/9	14inch	f/11 48 48 24 f/16 48 60 42 f/22 48 54 48	565g	Copal #3S front mounted	837xxx	.
Fuji	A-series f/10	360mm	f/11 48 48 42 f/16 54 48 42 f/22 48 48 48	475g	Copal 1	521xxx	1980's
Nikon	T-ED f/8	360mm	f/11 42 42 42 f/16 54 60 54 f/22 54 54 54	.	Copal 1	52xxx6	1980's
Schneider	Tele Xenar Compact	400mm	f/11 50 50 42 f/16 50 42 50 f/22 50 42 50	870g	Copal 3	xxx	200x
Fuji	C-series f/12.5	450mm	f/16 54 54 54 f/22 54 54 54 f/32 38 33 38	285g	Copal 1	640xx0	1990's
Fuji	C-series f/12.5	450mm	f/12.5 48 48 24 f/16 48 48 34 f/22 48 48 34 f/32 42 48 34	285g	Copal 1	640xxx	1990's
Nikon	T-ED f/11	500mm	f/16 19 19 19 f/22 42 38 33 f/32 42 42 42	185g rear element weight	Copal 1	18xxx0	1980's
Nikon	T-ED f/16	720mm	f/22 38 42 38 f/32 34 34 34 f/45 30 26 30	150g rear element weight	Copal 1	200xxx	1980's

Please NOTE:

• This is at best a relative (not absolute)
  comparison between these lenses. Kerry and I are simply looking for the Pick
  of the Litter.



• All lenses tested at 1:20 magnification (a
  typical working distance).


• Test setup was TMax100, D76 processed to my
  system's calibrated exposure/time/temp


• Canham DCLH(?) metal field 4x5, Linhof Tech III,
  Linhof Master Technika, Linhof Master Karden, and Tachihara wood field
  4x5


• Edmond Scientific Lens Resolution Chart


• The negatives were exposed for Zone 7-8 for
  detailed white and Zone 3 for detailed shadow.

It's also important to remember that things that
influence system testing include:

• Camera alignment


• lens quality


• ground glass plane accuracy (which influences
  holder accuracy)


• film's granularity


• light source (narrow band blue will test better
  than narrow band red)


• film sag/bulge/droop at focal plane



• test pattern

---

As a comparison, I include Larry Whatley's test
results.

From: linda_aw@ix.netcom.com(Linda A Whatley )
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Resolution Data - Ektar 203 7.7
Date: 3 Mar 1997 01:43:37 GMT
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Mar 02  5:43:37 PM PST 1997

Here is resolution data of a Kodak 203mm f/7.7 Ektar,
measured in the film plane with an eyepiece. (Thanks, Bill F., for
lending it!) This is a very good lens, usually at a modest used price.
Corners for this lens are at 21 degrees for 4x5 and 27 degrees for 5x7.
Angles here are half-field angles-- angle from the optical axis. Notice
that you need to be a little careful in using this one for 5x7 if you
want the corners sharp.

- Larry Whatley

---

          0     5    10    15    20    25    27    29    30   deg. from axis
f/stop  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

7.7     100    75    60    50    50    30     5     0     0   lines/mm
11      120   105    85    70    50    35    15     0     0
16       90    90    75    60    50    35    25     0     0
22       60    60    60    55    50    40    35     5     0
32       50    50    45    45    40    40    40    10     0
45       30    30    30    30    30    30    30    20     0

A short pause to consider...

I have been running two or three sites on the internet for many years now. I started by hand editing a web-site that was hosted by our ISP. It became somewhat popular for it's large format and medium format lens testing that Kerry Thalmann and I performed with film cameras and systems. I posted a few other "reports" on cameras and image quality.





The time for "hevanet.com/cperez" to end has come. With a move out of the US, my wife and I will no longer need nor use our old ISP. It's been a great service and I have learned a lot about web sites and what to do and what to avoid.

Shortly after a friend recommended Flickr, I joined and started posting my palladium print images. I thought I would put a few works in progress up on the site and see what happened. I quickly learned that Flickr was a great site for sharing images with a very broad group of viewers. I also learned to contribute to different "groups" on that web site. I witnessed the power of what I'll call the collective viewing of images.





It all started 7 years ago.

I can look back over these 7 years and see how my image making has improved. Vastly, some might say. I started by posting images made with film cameras and quickly transitioned to posting images made digitally. With this change in technology came a rapid increase in productivity. It was easy to review my results publicly and to make changes in successive image projects.

The statistics page tells me that my work has received well over 1 MILLION views in 7 years.

Think about that a moment.





What gallery could you hang your art in where you could get these kinds of "eyes"? What public forum could you use the feedback you receive to hone and shape future work?

It boggles my mind. Truly, it does.

I know the approach works well for me because of all the work that's been published and all the fine creative people I have met through Flickr.





This set represents the images that I think work well and express my vision in the best possible manner. While not thematic, perhaps you can see how my work relates across time, across ideas, and across bodies of work.

My images have been published worldwide in the following locations and publications -

A steampunk book published out of England sometime this summer, 2012.

"1000 Steampunk Creations: Neo-Victorian Fashion, Gear, & Art", Curated and presented by Dr. Grymm, with Barbe Saint John, copyright 2011 by Quarry Books, pages 60 and 61 (USA)

"Victorian Gothic", Images published across 16 pages of Silvershotz Magazine, January 2011 (Great Britain)

"In the Railyard" Selections from a larger work published in The Center for Fine Art Photography's "Portfolio Showcase, Volume 3" (USA)

"Age of Steam" ~ New Visions, published in November 2009, Photolife Magazine (Canada)

"In the Railyard" ~ LensWork Magazine, Extended issue #78 (USA)





I have connected with the Bohemian culture in the city I am moving from. I have worked with some of the the world's finest performers, dancers, actors, tailors, seamstresses, and musicians. I have helped share with the world the beauty in their art.

As we prepare to make the jump to Paris, France, I have made connections with publishers and editors there, as well as made the first tentative links into the Parisian steampunk community.

I'm looking forward to continuing to create images, regardless of where I live. Flickr helped me share my work worldwide, and I know whatever I do, I will continue to post and publish my art through this incredible medium.

Saying good bye...

My wife and I have been visiting our family over the past three weeks. The first came as part of our Visa trip to San Fransisco. The second came as a deliberate trip to the south coast.





It feels rather strange to say "good bye". Everyone is very supportive of our move and are quite surprised at how rapidly everything is coming together. It will be around 5 months from the time I was laid off to the time we arrive in our new home, Paris, France. This will have covered everything from healthcare insurance and Cobra costs, to selling the house, downsizing dramatically, selling things we don't need nor want, getting the French Long Stay Visa, to packing and moving.

Yikes! Lots to do.

It's felt like we're running a marathon at a sprinter's pace.

I realize that it's far too early to have any perspective on what we're doing. This, even though people tell us we're their vanguard and that they're very excited to see and witness what might be possible for even themselves.






To keep myself focused and to form a bridge between this life and the one we are running to, I've been in contact with various people in Paris.

My creative life has included making a lot of photographic images. One of the great joys has been to connect with creative people with whom I can work. They bring their style and talents in exchange for my photography.






Two wonderful connections already made in France. One person is a photo-magazine editor and the other is with a Paris Steampunk group.

It will likely take a few months, if not a year or more, for me to develop any perspective and to lay claim to any lasting judgement about what's happening. For now, it's one foot in front of the other and to keep going...

... back in the dim and distant past...

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and well before I got a "real" job, I worked in Hollywood as a B&W print maker. The shop was on Sunset Blvd and was an extension of Samy's Cameras, which was just down the street.

It was an interesting place to work. One of the guys who worked in the building (for an unrelated business) had a Lamborgini Mura S that he'd drive into work every now and then. I could hear it start up in the afternoon, even as I was deep in the dark cave of the darkroom. What a great sound it was!

We used to print lots of rush jobs for all kinds of folks. Photographers and "gallery" owners and just plain 'ol mom and pop kinds of people coming in, literally, off Sunset Blvd's sidewalk.

One rush-rush job we got was from a guy who had a stack of negatives that he wanted "proof sheet" like quality prints from. Just throw them into the enlarger and "let 'er rip!", he said.

Of course he wanted to "approve" the images before he paid for them and could walk away with his proofs.

I was handed one stack of negs and my colleague was handed another. In my stack was a rather poorly exposed very difficult to print 4x5inch negative of Clark Gable.

My first resin coated print was junk. I quickly fine tuned the exposure and tried a very fast burn effort along one edge that was particularly "blown out". Out of the Kodak quick printer came the second RC print and off to the front desk for approval.

While it was out being looked at I grabbed an 11x14 sheet of Kodak G double weight paper and set to work. The first print was also junk. Even though I had an excellent sense of exposure, the image needed to be torn up. It just didn't "work".

Putting a second sheet of Kodak G double weight into the easel I made my second exposure and burned the hell out of one corner. Just as I dropped the paper into the developer, the front desk lady came in a retrieved the negative.

I finished off the print and took it home.

I was SHOCKED when, three months later, I visited a local shopping mall and walked by a poster shop. In there was the print I'd made on RC that I'd considered junk. It was a poster made from the "proof" image of Clark Gable!

I couldn't stand it. All the guy had to do was wait another 10 minutes and I could have given him a real print. Something worth hanging. Rather, what the world ended up with was just absolute garbage, as far as I was concerned.

It made me sad.

But, I still have the 11x14 inch Kodak G double weight original. It still pleases me, even after all these years.

Resolution and Wishful Thinking...

I've been on conversations with fellow engineering colleagues where, over the years, we tend to note just how disconnected from reality some people are who make claims about resolution and it's effect on photographic image making. Typically, arguments arise in on-line forums where someone will claim that Zeiss lenses are "the best" and someone else says Leica "can't be beaten", and all parties claiming they can tell the difference in images made with different lenses. DP Review is pretty typical of this effect.

The claim that really takes the cake is the one Zeiss and other manufacturers use when they say a lens "writes" well. What the hell is that? Optics are optics and physics is still physics. It's all bunk. There's no truth to those kinds of claims, no matter what some folk would like to believe.

In optics, lens design, when well-executed in manufacturing, tends to not be the limiting factor in resolution. It's either the film or the sensor (depending on which technology you use).

The following is a chart of theoretic limits of resolution of a perfect lens at various apertures.

Resolving Power

This presents the theoretic resolving power of an ideal lens where the light's
wavelength is 589.3mu (green).

Tangential lines/mm
f-number Angular distance from axis (in degrees)
    0    10    25
1     1391 1329  1035
2     695  665   518
4     348  332   259
5.6   246  235   183
8     174  166   130
11    123  117   92  <--- approx. limits of film/sensor resolution
16    87   83    65
22    61   59    46
32    43   41    32
45    31   29    23
64    22   21    16

Radial lines/mm
f-number Angular distance from axis (in degrees)
    0    10    25
1     1391 1370  1260
2     695  685   630
4     348  343   315
5.6   246  243   223
8     174  171   158
11    123  121   111  <--- approx. limits of film/sensor resolution

16    87   86    79
22    61   61    56
32    43   43    39
45    31   30    28
64    22   21    20

Which means that diffraction limits really can't come into play in any meaningful manner until a lens is stopped way down to at least f/11. Even then, most modern digital sensors are resolution limited to around 70 lp/mm. So with those systems (such as with either Canon's, Nikon's, or Sony's full frame sensor'd wonder boxes), diffraction in the pure optical physical sense will not come into play until you're well beyond the limits of what a lens offers. ie: f/16

As sensor resolution rises, diffraction will still not come into play as many photographer shoot at apertures brighter than f/11.

Said another way, I've never met a lens I didn't like. Some, yes, I liked more than others. But seldom, if ever, were the issues of "liking" a lens related to it's ability to be sharp.

I've shot them all. Leica. Zeiss (small, medium, and large formats). Canon. Nikon. Pentax. Mamiya (medium format), Schneider (medium format, large format). Sigma (I know people claim to hate these lenses, but I can't find fault with them, they're wonderful optics, regardless of money). Dagor (large format). Kodak (small, medium, large formats - brilliant optics from WWII until the mid-1960's).

It's not a matter of the lens. It's the nut behind the eyepiece.

So there. Now go out and make some fine images. Forget about the blather on those forums. OK?

A funny thing happened...

My wife and I have been going to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge up in Ridgefield Washington for three or four years. I wanted to go because two of my then colleagues, Rick Cameron and Rob Sanford, would come back with wonderful images of a bird I've never seen before. They told me it was a Bittern.

Their images were to fun and interesting that we'd trek up there from time to time to see if we too could find that funny shaped bird.

We never found him.

I accused Rob of taking a stuffed Bittern and placing him by the road at RNWR just so he could take a "realistic" image. Rob and Rick both laughed and told me how easy it was to find them.

They didn't tell me how illusive the Bittern could be. No. They just continued to laugh at my predicament.






Once. Just once, we found a Bittern. I took his photo and was thrilled. But that was three years ago.

On recent a Sunday when our house was being shown (it was on the market for sale) and there was some silly National Holiday Sporting Event on TV, my wife suggested we go to RNWR to say goodbye to all our feathered friends. One last time.

All our bird friends were there. The Tundra Swans, the Shoveler Ducks, the small song birds, and the big Northern Harriers were all out giving us a winged farewell. Everyone but the Bittern.






We were cursing the Bittern for his illusive ways.

We came around the south edge of the loop, muttering all the way. "Where is that Bittern?" "Where, oh where is that Bittern?"

Coming around a corner, my wife asked again "Where is that Bittern?" I said "There he is!!!"

Not 20 feet from the car was our funny Bittern friend. He was so close that if I used all 400mm's of my Canon 7D/100-400L combo, I only caught the Bittern's head.





He'd come out to say goodbye too.

I'll miss them all up at RNWR. Such a beautiful place. Such a peaceful area.

It's time to go. April 11th is our pending departure date. The house is sold. Our things are packed. Paris awaits.

Did I really get to work with Rachel? Pinch me. I must be dreaming.

So... what would you say if the world's finest bellydancer's agent contacted you and asked if you could make a few images? Would you A) Say, thank's but I'm booked? B) Scream and hollar, jump up and down, and run around like a chicken with it's head cut off? C) Suddenly get worried that the Muse, in all her loveliness has left you? D) B and C?

I've heard of Rachel for several years and made a rather terrible video of her during a local event. Imagine my surprise when, in spite of the video, I actually got to work with Rachel and Sol?

What I've come to realize is that creative people are creative through and through.





There was a photoshoot that I did for a Steampunk theme set where a model came in with her entourage and tried to "own" the place. Rather like they knew what they were doing. But, as you can likely already guess, they were just young and inexperienced. They'll get better with time and we came away with a few good images (which have since been published).

When I work with true creative people (professional or not), the essence of who they are, what their craft is, and how they live in the world comes through, loud and clear. The Baron Samedi photoshoot was just like that. Scream'n hot great images from the "get, go".

Such was the case with Rachel, too. Solid. Centered. Clear vision. Just perfect to work with from the outset.





I've since spoken with one of Portland's leading photographic lights, Ted Mishima. He is a great artistst and is staying true to his vision. And we get to live his dream. Ted and I spoke a number of years back and he mentioned how fun it would be to work photography in an atelier in Paris, France.

Little then did I realize that my wife and I would be moving there. Soon.

After working with such fine people in Portland, I'm a little worried about being able to find such high caliber folk in Paris. Funny, isn't it? Yet, there it is.

If I'm lucky, creative people will like what I do there and my wife and I will be able to work with them too. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for good luck.

In the mean time, I have a LOT of potentially fine images to work from in our shoot with Rachel, and Eyerish, and Danielle, and....

Something wicked this way comes...

As a sometimes neurotic artist, I wonder if my work is "good enough". Every now and then, I take a look back and realize, to me, it's better than I could ever imagine I was capable of.

Perhaps it comes from working with such talented people?



HD version is found here. It looks good as 720p or 1080p, so check it out.

All Hallows Eve ~ Dark Themes

Occasionally the Muse reaches out and swivels my head in a different direction.

Up to some point this Fall I had been working to express beauty in white on white images. All Hallows Eve loomed and my mind suddenly turned dark.





Working with one of my favorite expressive extremely creative models, Eyerish Heather Collins, we developed a couple ideas for a photoshoot where we would work black on black.

As the photoshoot approached I had difficulties "seeing" something useful and interesting.

The day before our shoot, Eyerish asked if she could bring two friends. Meghann Rose and Myrk Kauna were to join us for the three person event in front of my lens.





When my wife and I went to pick up our models, my chin dropped at the sight of them. What they expressed and how they dressed were beyond my wildest dreams. Suddenly my concern for what to capture flew out the window as I was presented with one of the best opportunities I've had for making fun and interesting images in a rather long time.

I asked Myrk what had represented. His reply was, "Baron Samedi". That was it! Our theme and our purpose.





I'm thrilled with the outcome of this shoot.

I worked to include Gothic elements from images I made earlier this Fall in Paris, France. Which reminds me. I need to start a blog on a Bohemian Moves to Paris. That aside, the images from Paris lent themselves very well to what I felt as I worked through the 1200+ images we made that day.





Up to this photoshoot, I was seriously considering selling my lighting gear just before our move and never working in the studio like this again.

I may have to reconsider that position.

While I'm at it, I need to publicly thank HamburgerSteaky for uncovering the seed of desire to move to Paris that was planted nearly 30 years ago. He brought up just how wonderful it would be to have an atelier in Paris to make images in. Thank you, HamburgerSteaky! You know who you are.

A little technology doesn't hurt...

I'm about to cover a topic that makes me a little uncomfortable. Why the uncomfortableness? Well, as I've been preaching to my friends and colleagues ([laughing] sometimes it's a miracle I have either at this point), making a fine photographic image is not about the tools. It's about the fool behind the tools that makes or breaks an image.

Yet, there are some interesting changes taking place in the photographic industry that are having a direct impact on my "vision" and ability to "see" a final image. This entry explores one of the new tools that I've found particularly interesting.

I recently purchased a pair of Sony NEX5 to take with me to Europe this Fall. One had a 16mm f/2.8 lens and the other had Sony's fabulous 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 SEL superzoom. As you likely already know, Sony introduced the NEX series with the ability to perform in-camera image stitching. The function produces a jpg file from a series of images that the camera makes when the camera moved in a sweeping arc.





When the NEX firmware was capable of creating these kinds of in-camera stitched panoramic images, I knew I had to try it out. The reason is related to something I've been pursuing in one form or another for over 20 years. At the height of my large format film camera Madness, I owned an incredible Folmer and Schwing 12x20inch monster, complete with lenses (Fuji, Schneider, Zeiss). This camera was shortly followed with an equally incredible Korona 7x17inch mini-monster.

I never really made any images of value with either of these camera systems. Well, perhaps I did with the 7x17 Korona. I have a stack of negatives I've never printed of steam locomotives that I shot using a Kodak 250mm Wide Field Ektar. So the jury is still out. The fact I don't have anything to really show for those early efforts lends credence to the rumor that I'm completely mad about camera equipment and not image making.

A decade down the road, many gallery showings, magazine publications, and awards of all kinds later, I may finally be able to dis-spell those early evil but entirely likely true rumors of my insanity. It took me that long to finally believe what I said to my friends and colleagues. The image is all that matters. How you get there does not.





Moving along to the Digital Age and thinking about how I could get a large detail filled file and create a panorama, I have used several image stitching software packages. I found I like the wide narrow aspect of panoramas. Some of my better work included software stitched panoramas from inside steam engine cabins. These software applications were used outside of the camera and on a computer during post-processing. So when working in the field, I had to rely on my abilities to provide enough overlap between frames to ensure a decent panorama result.

Enter the Sony NEX5.





In-camera panorama creation is great! Now I can see panorama image results in the field. This allows me to make adjustments in exposure, field sweep, and composition from one image to the next. The number of, to me, interesting panoramas I come back with has suddenly increased.

When my wife and I recently visited Paris, France, I was keen to try my hand at in-camera panorama generation. The images here are some of the first results of this exercise. To say I'm thrilled would be an understatement.

Does in-camera panorama creation supplant my earlier software stitch processes? No. It only enhances what I can come away with.

The last image shared here is an example of a software stitched panorama that I took on the same Paris trip. I hand held the camera and shot off images one at a time in an upward sweeping motion. I did this because I wanted to see if I could keep the shadow area noise level to a minimum by shooting RAW images in place of jpgs.





It doesn't matter, actually. A good image is a good image, whether it's shot as RAW or in-camera processed jpg original files. As an academic exercise, I'm satisfied with both results.

It feels like I'm coming back with more and more images that please me. Which leads me to believe that new photographic image making tools are helping me create broader range of expressions.

Something gripped me...

Yes, something gripped my imagination.

It started with looking at images from my favorite artists. I wanted to reverse engineer what I was looking at to see how certain effects and composition might be applied to my work.


As a line out of an old Mel Brooks movie goes, "Something funny happened on the way to the Coliseum."






I find it's true in nearly 100 percent of the cases where I reverse engineer something, work to implement changes in my own work and ways of seeing, only to come out the other end with something completely unexpected and nearly fully my own.

This is what happened on my way to shooting a series of white on white images.

One of my favorite models needed to get in front of my lens and we were kicking around ideas for what we might do. I like the very Portland style bohemian fashions that turn out in this city. So we talked about white on white, but heavily layered and heavily textured.






When Eyerish showed up at the studio both my wife and I were stunned and instantly appreciative. The level of effort that went into the costumes that Eyerish and Lulu created is nothing short of amazing.






We worked for three hours together and turned out some really fun work.

Not a month later, another model asked if I would photograph her dance troupe. She wanted to be photographed against a white backdrop too.

Taking liberties with the idea, I continued to deepen and expand the white on white theme that I started to develop with Eyerish. The results of the bellydance photoshoot are also, in my mind, outstanding. I find I really enjoy the high key lighting over textures and skin tones.






For all the liberties that I took with everyone, I need to thank them for allowing me to risk their publish printed "look" in allowing me to work in the processing manner that I did. Behind each image is the straight, normal photographic image.

As I've come to learn about myself, I can't leave straight, normal photographic images alone. Not when where is something glimmering and attracting way down the processing line.

Meanwhile...

I have been preparing a few prints for a show I'll have starting later this month down at Bread and Ink. They're located around 37th and Hawthorn near-in SE. It's a great restaurant that's been around for years. They use locally sourced organic foods that are then cooked up into various tasty dishes. Well worth a visit.





Taking a quick look at the results, I have to say, I can't believe these images are my own work. The works are full of detail and show (to me) incredible resolution. They also have a quality of light that I never thought I'd ever achieve (see a prior blog entry on this very topic).

Looking at my work from a somewhat removed third person point of view is rather educational. I realize that I work differently than many of my friends and colleagues. This came after an email exchange with Pete Gomena, current President of the Portland Photographer's Forum (PPF). He p0inted out something that I hadn't fully considered nor appreciated before.





In very broad generalizations, I feel that there are two approaches used by photographers in making their images. The first are "found" image makers and the second are "idea" image makers. In "f0und" image making, a person wanders the world looking for something that attracts their eye. *Snap* goes the shutter and, with luck, a person has a pleasing image. When I follow DP Review, Fred Miranda, and many of the camera manufacturer's "expert" advice posts I see that a great many people work in this manner. Wander the world. Look for something interesting.

For "idea" image makers, it seems like we start from something we read or saw or felt. Then we work to re-create the reading, seeing, or feeling in the form of an image. I count myself as one of these kinds of image makers. I feel I can't make a decent landscape image, but, after looking at the prints for the upcoming show, I'm not half bad at taking ideas and transforming them into images.





It's a strange feeling to realize this about myself. I worked for years to follow in Saint Ansel's and Brother Weston's footsteps. The path to enlightenment lay in the world of cameras, lenses, and image making processes (careful film selection, film exposure and development, and printmaking). Or so I believed.

Perhaps seven years ago a huge shift in how I worked took place. I rented a studio from Ray Bidegain for a year or two and started to work with models. For me, to work with models, I needed an idea. Somewhere to begin. Otherwise all I would be left with was a model, perhaps attractively attired, standing in from of a viewer like a stiff sack of potatoes.





Over the next several years I read a lot of books by Terry Pratchett, a few by Niel Gaiman, Susanna Clarke and Ian Banks, and remembered how it felt to read Jules Verne. It was natural for me to then seek out scenes and settings that reminded me of what I read. It took time for me to work the lighting to the point where the images expressed the depth and perspective of what I saw in "my mind's eye" (hmmm... that's almost like St Ansel's "pre-visualization", only turned on it's head in oh so many ways...).

This morning I read a few threads on DP Review and Fred Miranda that reminded me of where I started, oh, forty some years ago. Folks yammering on about equipment and lenses and what's best and what's junk. It's almost as if they need to yackity-yack so they can avoid having to make an image they could be judged against. Then I considered my prints. These are sharper in all dimensions, particularly in the execution of ideas, than anything I ever made from an 8x10inch silver gelatine contact print.






At this point, the camera equipment nearly does not matter. For me, it is the development of ideas that matter most. All the rest doesn't really matter. Nearly. I would like to show my work in Paris, France. But that still has nothing to do with camera equipment, now does it?

The more things change...

I spent some time studying the images of Joel Grimes. I also spent some time studying the Canadian photographer, Renaud Bergeron, and the European photographer, Eugenio Recuenco.





What attracts me to their work is the quality of light they have each achieved. There seems to be a sense of balance between the strong off camera lighting and their somewhat subdued shadow details. Eugenio Recuenco's work reminds me of film set lighting. Perhaps something from a colorized film noir feature. Renaud Bergeron's work is stunning for his mastery of his subject matter. I found Joel Grimes through his Flickr images.

My own work seemed flat and boring by comparison. Perhaps it's that competitive streak in me. Or perhaps it's my continual striving for "perfection". I don't know, but something needed to be done about my boring lighting.





After WWII certain fashion photographers working in Paris, France made wonderful use of north light. That's where a large bank of north facing windows spilled light onto a subject. It is gorgeous, this kind of light. But the three photographers who's work I admire did not seem to employ that kind of light.

William Mortensen (St Ansel's arch nemesis, for reasons I have never understood) wrote a series of wonderful books back in the 1930's. They helped photographers understand their craft as a means of improving their work. William encouraged the use of two kinds of lighting. One gave an iconic, Byzantine tile mosaic kind of light. The other gives a more "familiar" kind of lighting effect. I have followed William's ideas for the past four years. Perhaps it was my flat lighting approach which led to boring images?





In any event, I reviewed my lighting equipment along with my approach and came to feel additional controlled light sources were required. Alien Bees had a PLM parabolic umbrella light system that was back-ordered for many months. One day I saw that their new materials were arriving and I ordered a PLM64.

What I came to realize was that my shoot-thru umbrellas were spilling too much light onto the backdrop, and that my main light could not be controlled in the manner I wanted. I also realized I needed to begin varying the intensity of my various lights to enhance the textures of a subject's clothing as well as to gently spread the shadow areas in certain ways.





It took awhile and several shoots for me to gain confidence in the new approach. Yet the goal was attractive enough that I felt it was worth pursuing. By the time Ivy Slime of Wigslitters asked me to help photograph her wigs a second time, I felt I was ready. Quickly on the heals of that shoot, Tiare Tashnick asked if I could make a few images of her Bogville ~ Gypsy Dust cast.

The results are, hopefully, conveying the change in direction in a way that makes my work subtly more dramatic and approachable. It's only been two years since I submitted work for publication in "1000 Steampunk Creations." The book was very recently released and I am fortunate enough to have two pages of work printed as part of the large, beautiful compilation of Steampunk-themed work. While this is quite thrilling, I realize that I'd love to have another shot at it. I'm much more pleased with my latest images.





Perhaps this is what drives me, then. Not competition. Not "perfection". Rather, perhaps what I'm really involved in is a continual exploration of the craft and art of image making.

It's a real joy, photography.