Nice nice very nice.
September 20, 2010 10:59 AM Subscribe
What you get when you attach a 102-year old Wollensak 35mm F5.0 Cine-Velostigmat lens to a 5DmkII. And you're photographer Timur Civan.
I don't know anything about lens and camera technology.
I do know that these pictures are awesome.
posted by rtha at 11:06 AM on September 20, 2010
I do know that these pictures are awesome.
posted by rtha at 11:06 AM on September 20, 2010
These are beautiful and ghostly. That clock tower!
posted by bewilderbeast at 11:18 AM on September 20, 2010
posted by bewilderbeast at 11:18 AM on September 20, 2010
Interesting. For a while I've been telling anyone who will listen that digital photography will get really cool when someone starts building full frame sensors to fit into old film cameras like Rolleiflexes and Pentax 6x7s and Speed Graphics, etc. A lot of old cameras had really great optics (or, if not actually objectively "great", had optics that did interesting things).
posted by Drab_Parts at 11:20 AM on September 20, 2010
posted by Drab_Parts at 11:20 AM on September 20, 2010
So, lots of bloom? What is this, video games in 2005?!
But really, beautiful. Ethereal almost.
posted by pyrex at 11:20 AM on September 20, 2010
But really, beautiful. Ethereal almost.
posted by pyrex at 11:20 AM on September 20, 2010
Look upon this, oh iPhone owners who have the tiresome Hipstamatic app, and despair.
posted by permafrost at 11:22 AM on September 20, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by permafrost at 11:22 AM on September 20, 2010 [6 favorites]
It looks like these photos were originally put on the Cinema 5D forum, where he posted a bit more information:
posted by filthy light thief at 11:22 AM on September 20, 2010 [5 favorites]
My friend, a Russian lens technician, who loves nothing more than to frankenstein equipment, was assisting me in building the 4x5 camera. After we abandoned the 4x5 solution, i put the project on back burner. This morning he called me into his store on NYC. He has something for me.... He found in a box of random parts, hidden inside anther lens this gem. A circa 1908 ( possibly earlier) 35mm lens. Still functioning, mostly brass, and not nearly as much dust or fungus as one would think after sitting in a box for over a hundred years. This lens is a piece of motion picture history, and at this point rare beyond words. So i say to him, "Wow... what do you have in mind?" he smiles, and says, ( in the thickest russian accent you can imagine) " i can make this fit EF you know..." my eye twinkled, and then 6 nail biting hours later,he had it finished. My Russian Lens technician is a mad scientist and he took what sounded like an angle grinder to the lens to make its clear the flange distance and the mirror....... This lens' value is unclear. its sort of on loan. It's the only lens of its kind on a 5D... or any digital for that matter.Tim Civan's website has some more photos and some video, but nothing as interesting as the photos in the OP (IMO). And Wollensak started making lenses in 1902, so at most this lens could be a few years older. The Velostigmat seems key for hazy photos.
Its funny while i was shooting these, EVERY photographer i saw stopped and asked me about the lens... it just looks so goofy on there.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:22 AM on September 20, 2010 [5 favorites]
Lovely! For more pictures taken with ancient camera and magic-lantern lenses, check out Jim Galli's Tonopah Nevada Pictures.
posted by misteraitch at 11:25 AM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by misteraitch at 11:25 AM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
I want video on that thing. Can someone loan it to Wally Pfister or Janusz Kaminsky?
posted by incessant at 11:32 AM on September 20, 2010
posted by incessant at 11:32 AM on September 20, 2010
In case you're wondering, the EXIF info appears to still be in the files. The first one of the Empire State Building:
Shutter speed: 1/50 s
ISO: 1250
Focal Length: 50 mm
Other fields of note are empty.
I wonder if you created a new lens, with modern materials and machinery, that met the basic dimensions of this lens would the photographs be more like these or would they be crisper and clearer. Theoretically they would be crisper because the glass could be clearer and more precisely focused while allowing more light into the camera.
Typically when I shoot with my Nikon 50mm lens I'm at ISO 100, aperture is around 2.2, and my shutter speed is at least a couple hundred. And even though the output is "visual reality on a flat surface", those pictures often lack personality and interest. Simply slapping an old timey lens on the camera and taking pictures of the same boring stuff generates emotional reactions to the photography.
Would you feel the same way if you didn't know these were produced by light passing through a 100+ year old lens? Or would you think they're just crappy pictures from a crappy camera?
posted by LoudMusic at 11:33 AM on September 20, 2010 [3 favorites]
Shutter speed: 1/50 s
ISO: 1250
Focal Length: 50 mm
Other fields of note are empty.
I wonder if you created a new lens, with modern materials and machinery, that met the basic dimensions of this lens would the photographs be more like these or would they be crisper and clearer. Theoretically they would be crisper because the glass could be clearer and more precisely focused while allowing more light into the camera.
Typically when I shoot with my Nikon 50mm lens I'm at ISO 100, aperture is around 2.2, and my shutter speed is at least a couple hundred. And even though the output is "visual reality on a flat surface", those pictures often lack personality and interest. Simply slapping an old timey lens on the camera and taking pictures of the same boring stuff generates emotional reactions to the photography.
Would you feel the same way if you didn't know these were produced by light passing through a 100+ year old lens? Or would you think they're just crappy pictures from a crappy camera?
posted by LoudMusic at 11:33 AM on September 20, 2010 [3 favorites]
These are great! Is the vignetting the result of the lens, too?
(The dynamic image loading as you scroll down is a nice, user-friendly touch.)
posted by invitapriore at 11:33 AM on September 20, 2010
(The dynamic image loading as you scroll down is a nice, user-friendly touch.)
posted by invitapriore at 11:33 AM on September 20, 2010
Was going to say something to the tune of "yeah, you can stick any old piece of glass in front of a camera and it will still take pictures", but man, these are some great-looking pics.
posted by daniel_charms at 11:39 AM on September 20, 2010
posted by daniel_charms at 11:39 AM on September 20, 2010
I would love to have a digital back for my 2x3 Speed Graphic (that I could afford). The 101mm Graflex Optar (made by Wollensak) is a very good performer stopped down and would make for a nifty medium format digital combination.
Sidenote: I live in Rochester, which was the home of both Graflex and Wollensak. The two company's buildings still exist, but sadly Wollensak's is abandoned. I actually used to work in Graflex's building for a while in the early 90s.
posted by tommasz at 11:45 AM on September 20, 2010
Sidenote: I live in Rochester, which was the home of both Graflex and Wollensak. The two company's buildings still exist, but sadly Wollensak's is abandoned. I actually used to work in Graflex's building for a while in the early 90s.
posted by tommasz at 11:45 AM on September 20, 2010
What you get...
Before I clicked on the link, I guessed: "Something beautiful that will make me both wistful and jealous".
I guessed correctly.
posted by quin at 11:49 AM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Before I clicked on the link, I guessed: "Something beautiful that will make me both wistful and jealous".
I guessed correctly.
posted by quin at 11:49 AM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Would you feel the same way if you didn't know these were produced by light passing through a 100+ year old lens? Or would you think they're just crappy pictures from a crappy camera?
The latter. Sorry. Maybe not the "crappy camera" bit, since the lens does appear capable of sharpness. The images themselves, though (except maybe this one, which I quite like) are rather unremarkable.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:53 AM on September 20, 2010
The latter. Sorry. Maybe not the "crappy camera" bit, since the lens does appear capable of sharpness. The images themselves, though (except maybe this one, which I quite like) are rather unremarkable.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:53 AM on September 20, 2010
You, yes, you can do things like this yourself.
1. Go to a pawnshop, or anywhere that sells old cameras. Bonus points for 35mm film cameras!
2. Put film in one, go down to midtown, point camera at buildings, press the shutter.
3. Once all the film is gone, drop it off at Walgreens or Duane Reade.
4. Order a photoCD - put 'em on the Internet
5. ???
6. Profit
Med format also works, but it is a bitch to have developed.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 11:59 AM on September 20, 2010
1. Go to a pawnshop, or anywhere that sells old cameras. Bonus points for 35mm film cameras!
2. Put film in one, go down to midtown, point camera at buildings, press the shutter.
3. Once all the film is gone, drop it off at Walgreens or Duane Reade.
4. Order a photoCD - put 'em on the Internet
5. ???
6. Profit
Med format also works, but it is a bitch to have developed.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 11:59 AM on September 20, 2010
Thanks for the additional info, filthy light thief. I was just about to ask how they attached the lens!
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:07 PM on September 20, 2010
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:07 PM on September 20, 2010
Threeway Handshake: "4. Order a photoCD - put 'em on the Internet"
Or don't, since the Walgreens photo lab scanners are absolute garbage. Just buy a midrange scanner that does slides and scan in your negatives, and get your film developed without prints at Costco for $1.80.
posted by mullingitover at 12:07 PM on September 20, 2010
Or don't, since the Walgreens photo lab scanners are absolute garbage. Just buy a midrange scanner that does slides and scan in your negatives, and get your film developed without prints at Costco for $1.80.
posted by mullingitover at 12:07 PM on September 20, 2010
Threeway Handshake: "You, yes, you can do things like this yourself.
"
Pretty much, except for the 100-year-old lens and angle grinder bits.
posted by jquinby at 12:16 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
"
Pretty much, except for the 100-year-old lens and angle grinder bits.
posted by jquinby at 12:16 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but if you're after the look of these kinds of photos, the shitty scanning can help.
There's two ways to look at things like this. One is the "awesome, this old lens on a newfangled digicam" which is cool on its own, or you can look at the photos themselves. As referenced above, to an observer, you could reasonably guess that these were taken with a toy/old camera.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:26 PM on September 20, 2010
There's two ways to look at things like this. One is the "awesome, this old lens on a newfangled digicam" which is cool on its own, or you can look at the photos themselves. As referenced above, to an observer, you could reasonably guess that these were taken with a toy/old camera.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:26 PM on September 20, 2010
Interesting. For a while I've been telling anyone who will listen that digital photography will get really cool when someone starts building full frame sensors to fit into old film cameras like Rolleiflexes and Pentax 6x7s and Speed Graphics, etc. A lot of old cameras had really great optics (or, if not actually objectively "great", had optics that did interesting things).
Pentax's medium format digital will fit all sorts of their old, old lenses.
posted by rodgerd at 12:26 PM on September 20, 2010
Pentax's medium format digital will fit all sorts of their old, old lenses.
posted by rodgerd at 12:26 PM on September 20, 2010
That's some beautiful shit.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:26 PM on September 20, 2010
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 12:26 PM on September 20, 2010
Missing that 35mm feel?
Vivitar to the rescue! [autostart video]
coff coff.
anyways, some of those photos where decent, some where cool simply because of the ability to wield the two technologies together, and some... well I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't pee my pants over them.
the 5Dii is a nice camera though, been enjoying it immensely.
posted by edgeways at 12:29 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Vivitar to the rescue! [autostart video]
coff coff.
anyways, some of those photos where decent, some where cool simply because of the ability to wield the two technologies together, and some... well I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't pee my pants over them.
the 5Dii is a nice camera though, been enjoying it immensely.
posted by edgeways at 12:29 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Check out the gams on this doll!
Hubba, Hubba!
/era inappropriate slang
/boyzone
I'll just go crawl back under a rock
posted by Reverend John at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2010
Hubba, Hubba!
/era inappropriate slang
/boyzone
I'll just go crawl back under a rock
posted by Reverend John at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2010
What, this thing can't take pictures of naked ladies?
Kidding, I'm a kidder. These are very nice.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:29 PM on September 20, 2010
Kidding, I'm a kidder. These are very nice.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:29 PM on September 20, 2010
Heh! just like running the output of your computer music sequencer out through a old tube pre-amp!
posted by Twang at 3:02 PM on September 20, 2010
posted by Twang at 3:02 PM on September 20, 2010
Phew, that's an f/5 lens, not f5. For a moment there I was really excited!
Reminds me of the time I installed a nikon lens on a webcam some years ago....
posted by phliar at 3:13 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Reminds me of the time I installed a nikon lens on a webcam some years ago....
posted by phliar at 3:13 PM on September 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
I have had some fun making a pinhole lens for my 5D Mark II. The results are interesting, but the really neat part is that the sensor is sensitive enough to capture at 1/30th for full motion pin-hole video.
posted by autopilot at 4:11 PM on September 20, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by autopilot at 4:11 PM on September 20, 2010 [2 favorites]
These are really pretty boring.
posted by blaneyphoto at 4:36 PM on September 20, 2010
posted by blaneyphoto at 4:36 PM on September 20, 2010
The first three or four are great! The subjects fit the method really well.
past the first three or four they aren't mindblowing but are decent anyway
posted by tmcw at 8:10 PM on September 20, 2010
past the first three or four they aren't mindblowing but are decent anyway
posted by tmcw at 8:10 PM on September 20, 2010
I guess it's because I'm on my iPhone, but only the first image loaded for me. Anyway, for people wishing to see video shot with a similar setup, I recommend checking out 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford'.
And for those wishing to try this without having to take an angle grinder to antique optics, you could always pick up a Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds camera, a C-mount adapter, and any of hundreds of old cine lenses.
posted by Venadium at 9:38 PM on September 20, 2010
And for those wishing to try this without having to take an angle grinder to antique optics, you could always pick up a Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds camera, a C-mount adapter, and any of hundreds of old cine lenses.
posted by Venadium at 9:38 PM on September 20, 2010
Interesting. For a while I've been telling anyone who will listen that digital photography will get really cool when someone starts building full frame sensors to fit into old film cameras like Rolleiflexes and Pentax 6x7s and Speed Graphics, etc. A lot of old cameras had really great optics (or, if not actually objectively "great", had optics that did interesting things).
Well, there's this.
posted by carping demon at 1:05 AM on September 21, 2010
Well, there's this.
posted by carping demon at 1:05 AM on September 21, 2010
Awesome pix.
also, a photographer's site with a non-annoying user interface? what's the world coming to?
posted by slater at 7:47 AM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
also, a photographer's site with a non-annoying user interface? what's the world coming to?
posted by slater at 7:47 AM on September 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
With the crop-sensor digital cameras, adaptors are cool. I have a 1970s Nikon 50/1.2 on my Canon EOS 7d and it works beautifully. http://www.flickr.com/photos/davad/4915583899/lightbox/
posted by dopaminer at 8:07 AM on September 21, 2010
posted by dopaminer at 8:07 AM on September 21, 2010
While I appreciate the coolness of old lens/new camera merging... The photos don't strike me as particularly fascinating. Without knowing how they were created, I wouldn't see them as much different from the many, MANY folks out there right now who are doing very similar effects with post processing.
posted by antifuse at 10:00 AM on September 21, 2010
posted by antifuse at 10:00 AM on September 21, 2010
I wonder if you created a new lens, with modern materials and machinery, that met the basic dimensions of this lens would the photographs be more like these or would they be crisper and clearer.
Back then they were more than likely hand ground using crown and, flint glass. Sometime in the mid 1870's (too lazy to crack open Neblette's book on lenses) lens manufacturers started to add extra chemicals to the silica to make lenses optically sharper. Would depend on what kind of glass they used and, whether a hand or machine shaped the lens.
I suspect its not likely possible. I have two petzvals, one is a "magic lantern" from the 1800's and, another made by Kodak in the 1940's and, even though they're the same lens design they behave differently. Same is true of lenses made in the same time period eg: a CC Harrison vs a Dallmeyer 3A they have their own unique look. Which is partly why I [heart] Jim Gali's page.
posted by squeak at 9:50 AM on September 23, 2010
Back then they were more than likely hand ground using crown and, flint glass. Sometime in the mid 1870's (too lazy to crack open Neblette's book on lenses) lens manufacturers started to add extra chemicals to the silica to make lenses optically sharper. Would depend on what kind of glass they used and, whether a hand or machine shaped the lens.
I suspect its not likely possible. I have two petzvals, one is a "magic lantern" from the 1800's and, another made by Kodak in the 1940's and, even though they're the same lens design they behave differently. Same is true of lenses made in the same time period eg: a CC Harrison vs a Dallmeyer 3A they have their own unique look. Which is partly why I [heart] Jim Gali's page.
posted by squeak at 9:50 AM on September 23, 2010
« Older 40 years of Xerox Parc | Gangnix Wolfadaeus Phoeamada Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by brundlefly at 11:00 AM on September 20, 2010