More Petzval

Blog:
<http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Mer_Petzval?lang=en>


I'll probably post more of these as time goes by. I were over at a
friend for barbecue and brought the Petzval, this time mounted on the
Sony A7 with a Nikon adapter, and the focus peaking and focus
magnification in the EVF certainly made it easier to focus. It's not
razor sharp, but really good overall.

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209462.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/1000 sec., ISO 100

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209463.jpg>

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209464.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/3200 sec., ISO 100

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209465.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/125 sec., ISO 100

<http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209466.jpg>
ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/160 sec., ISO 100



--
Sandman[.net]

 

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:51:43 AM UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
> Blog:
>
> <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Mer_Petzval?lang=en>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll probably post more of these as time goes by. I were over at a
>
> friend for barbecue and brought the Petzval, this time mounted on the
>
> Sony A7 with a Nikon adapter, and the focus peaking and focus
>
> magnification in the EVF certainly made it easier to focus. It's not
>
> razor sharp, but really good overall.
>
>
>
> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209462.jpg>
>
> ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/1000 sec., ISO 100
>
>
>
> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209463.jpg>
>
>
>
> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209464.jpg>
>
> ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/3200 sec., ISO 100
>
>
>
> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209465.jpg>
>
> ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/125 sec., ISO 100
>
>
>
> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg209466.jpg>
>
> ILCE-7, 0.0 mm, f/0.0, 1/160 sec., ISO 100
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sandman[.net]

Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned around.

 

On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
[]
> Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned around.

I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
them an improvement?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

 

On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
> []
>> Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
>> around.
>
> I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
> differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
> them an improvement?
>

They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
if they like it, that's fine with me.

--
PeterN

 

In article <>,
PeterN <> wrote:

> On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> > On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
> > []
> >> Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
> >> around.
> >
> > I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
> > differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
> > them an improvement?
> >
>
> They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
> if they like it, that's fine with me.

the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

In article <lmp03h$prg$>, David Taylor wrote:

> > RichA:
> > Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been
> > turned around.
>
> I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they
> supposed to differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone
> really consider them an improvement?

Not everything needs to be an improvement. It's an art lens, that renders
blur in a very specific way. A lot of people like the result. Not all do,
though.


--
Sandman[.net]

 

On 6/5/2014 9:15 AM, android wrote:
> In article <>,
> PeterN <> wrote:
>
>> On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
>>> []
>>>> Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
>>>> around.
>>>
>>> I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
>>> differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
>>> them an improvement?
>>>
>>
>> They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
>> if they like it, that's fine with me.
>
> the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
> generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...
>

I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just because
it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval bokeh simply
isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.

--
PeterN

 

In article <>,
PeterN <> wrote:

> On 6/5/2014 9:15 AM, android wrote:
> > In article <>,
> > PeterN <> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/5/2014 1:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> >>> On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
> >>> []
> >>>> Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
> >>>> around.
> >>>
> >>> I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
> >>> differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
> >>> them an improvement?
> >>>
> >>
> >> They say they do, but do they really believe it, deep down inside. But,
> >> if they like it, that's fine with me.
> >
> > the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
> > generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or something...
> >
>
> I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just because
> it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval bokeh simply
> isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.

No, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the optical principles are
now available for testing for anyone with $600 to spare.
I agree that the lomogryphy implementation probably isn't the best one
through history. But thats a guess since i haven't had the opportunity
to study others. Back in the days they were made for large format view
cameras, I believe and not of the same design that's sold now.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

In article <>, android wrote:

> > > android:
> > > the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
> > > generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or
> > > something...
> >
> > PeterN:
> > I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just
> > because it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval
> > bokeh simply isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.
>
> No, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the optical principles
> are now available for testing for anyone with $600 to spare. I agree
> that the lomogryphy implementation probably isn't the best one
> through history. But thats a guess since i haven't had the
> opportunity to study others. Back in the days they were made for
> large format view cameras, I believe and not of the same design
> that's sold now.

They were for large format cameras, yes. But the design is actually quite
consistent. Older Petzval's were bigger of course, but they also had
watergate apertures, and a focusing knob instead of a ring.

<https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/775/314/8b3d892fe814863b5cdecf85bc3e7452_large.jpg?1374739912>


--
Sandman[.net]

 

In article <>,
Sandman <> wrote:

> In article <>, android wrote:
>
> > > > android:
> > > > the Petzval is about making old technology available for a new
> > > > generations of photographers. Those born after 1900 or
> > > > something...
> > >
> > > PeterN:
> > > I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just
> > > because it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval
> > > bokeh simply isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the optical principles
> > are now available for testing for anyone with $600 to spare. I agree
> > that the lomogryphy implementation probably isn't the best one
> > through history. But thats a guess since i haven't had the
> > opportunity to study others. Back in the days they were made for
> > large format view cameras, I believe and not of the same design
> > that's sold now.
>
> They were for large format cameras, yes. But the design is actually quite
> consistent. Older Petzval's were bigger of course, but they also had
> watergate apertures, and a focusing knob instead of a ring.
>
> <https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/775/314/8b3d892fe814863b5cdecf85bc3e7
> 452_large.jpg?1374739912>

You just wana argue for the sake arguing here...
I said that the Lomography implementation might not be the best... And
that PeterN could very well have a good grounds for his reservations.
I, don't have the time to investigate that right now.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

In article <>, android wrote:

> In article <>,

> > > > > android:
> > > > > the Petzval is about making old technology
> > > > > available for a new generations of photographers. Those born
> > > > > after 1900 or something...
> > > >
> > > > PeterN:
> > > > I understand that. However, no one has to like the look, just
> > > > because it's old. There are lots of old looks I like. The Petval
> > > > bokeh simply isn't one of them. I don't like haggis, either.
> > >
> > > android:
> > > No, I didn't mean that. What I meant was that the optical
> > > principles are now available for testing for anyone with $600 to
> > > spare. I agree that the lomogryphy implementation probably isn't
> > > the best one through history. But thats a guess since i haven't
> > > had the opportunity to study others. Back in the days they were
> > > made for large format view cameras, I believe and not of the
> > > same design that's sold now.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > They were for large format cameras, yes. But the design is
> > actually quite consistent. Older Petzval's were bigger of course,
> > but they also had watergate apertures, and a focusing knob instead
> > of a ring.
>
> > <https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/775/314/8b3d892fe814863b5cdecf85bc3e7
> > 452_large.jpg?1374739912>
>
> You just wana argue for the sake arguing here...

Huh? What am I arguing about here? I verified your suspicion about them
being for large format cameras, and then commented on your belief that
they're not the same design.

> I said that the Lomography implementation might not be the best...

Oh, it most certainly isn't. But it's the only one available for modern
cameras.

> And that PeterN could very well have a good grounds for his reservations.

His reservations were based on his own taste of image quality. How could he
not have good grounds for that? He just doesn't like the Petzval effect,
and that's perfectly fine.

> I, don't have the time to investigate that right now.

No need, there's nothing to investigate



--
Sandman[.net]

 

In article <>,
Sandman <> wrote:

> > I, don't have the time to investigate that right now.
>
> No need, there's nothing to investigate

You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say that
there's no need to investigate it's qualities....

You've just proved that your critics sometimes are right!

Idiot!
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

In article <>, android wrote:

> > > android:
> > > I, don't have the time to investigate that right now.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > No need, there's nothing to investigate
>
> You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say that
> there's no need to investigate it's qualities....

I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:

android
06/06/2014 <>

"And that PeterN could very well have a good grounds for his
reservations. I, don't have the time to investigate that
right now."

I didn't realize that you meant that the supposed reservations Peter has
against the lens' "qualities" was what you meant to investigate. I think
that's due to Peter not actually claiming anything about it's qualities,
only expressing a personal opinion about the resulting images.

> You've just proved that your critics sometimes are right!

Huh?

> Idiot!

Why so aggresive? Whatever did I say to make you this way? I seriously want
to know. I mean, the moron trolls here are offended all the time when I
prove them wrong, but I didn't do any of that here. You seem to just want
to blow things way out of proportion here.

You snipped away most of my post, so I never got an answer to my question
to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you claimed?

--
Sandman[.net]

 

In article <>,
Sandman <> wrote:

> In article <>, android wrote:
>
> > > > android:
> > > > I, don't have the time to investigate that right now.
> > >
> > > Sandman:
> > > No need, there's nothing to investigate
> >
> > You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say that
> > there's no need to investigate it's qualities....
>
> I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:
>
*************
On 2014-06-05 15:30, Sandman wrote:> In article
<lmp03h$prg$>, David Taylor wrote:
>
---
>> I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they
>> supposed to differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone
>> really consider them an improvement?
>
> Not everything needs to be an improvement. It's an art lens, that renders
> blur in a very specific way. A lot of people like the result. Not all do,
> though.
**************
> > You've just proved that your critics sometimes are right!
>
> Huh?
>
> > Idiot!
>
> Why so aggresive? Whatever did I say to make you this way? I seriously want
> to know. I mean, the moron trolls here are offended all the time when I
> prove them wrong, but I didn't do any of that here. You seem to just want
> to blow things way out of proportion here.
>
> You snipped away most of my post, so I never got an answer to my question
> to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you claimed?

Not only an idiot but also a blatant lier!

Bye!
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

In article <>, android wrote:

> In article <>,

> > > > > android:
> > > > > I, don't have the time to investigate that right
> > > > > now.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > No need, there's nothing to investigate
> > >
> > > android:
> > > You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say
> > > that there's no need to investigate it's qualities....
> >
> > Sandman:
> > I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:

> ************* On 2014-06-05 15:30, Sandman wrote:>In article
> > > I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they
> > > supposed to differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does
> > > anyone really consider them an improvement?
> >
> > Sandman:
> > Not everything needs to be an improvement. It's an art lens, that
> > renders blur in a very specific way. A lot of people like the
> > result. Not all do, though.
>
> **************

I didn't mean that I didn't say it was an art lens - I meant I didn't say
that there is "no need to investigate its qualities". There seems to be a
lot of confusion going around here.

> > > android:
> > > Idiot!
> >
> > Sandman:
> > Why so aggresive? Whatever did I say to make you this way? I
> > seriously want to know. I mean, the moron trolls here are offended
> > all the time when I prove them wrong, but I didn't do any of that
> > here. You seem to just want to blow things way out of proportion
> > here.
>
> > You snipped away most of my post, so I never got an answer to my
> > question to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you
> > claimed?
>
> Not only an idiot but also a blatant lier!

What am I lying about? Why can't you answer simple questions? What's wrong
with you?

Peter doesn't like the Petzval effect, you responded by saying that you
thought it was for large formats cameras and that maybe they're not
designed the same way. I responded to confirm your first thought and give
some information about the respective design of the old and the new.

I really can't see what got you so worked up.


--
Sandman[.net]

 

In article <>,
Sandman <> wrote:

> In article <>, android wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
>
> > > > > > android:
> > > > > > I, don't have the time to investigate that right
> > > > > > now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > No need, there's nothing to investigate
> > > >
> > > > android:
> > > > You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say
> > > > that there's no need to investigate it's qualities....
> > >
> > > Sandman:
> > > I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:
>
> > ************* On 2014-06-05 15:30, Sandman wrote:>In article
> > > > I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they
> > > > supposed to differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does
> > > > anyone really consider them an improvement?
> > >
> > > Sandman:
> > > Not everything needs to be an improvement. It's an art lens, that
> > > renders blur in a very specific way. A lot of people like the
> > > result. Not all do, though.
> >
> > **************
>
> I didn't mean that I didn't say it was an art lens - I meant I didn't say
> that there is "no need to investigate its qualities". There seems to be a
> lot of confusion going around here.
>
> > > > android:
> > > > Idiot!
> > >
> > > Sandman:
> > > Why so aggresive? Whatever did I say to make you this way? I
> > > seriously want to know. I mean, the moron trolls here are offended
> > > all the time when I prove them wrong, but I didn't do any of that
> > > here. You seem to just want to blow things way out of proportion
> > > here.
> >
> > > You snipped away most of my post, so I never got an answer to my
> > > question to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you
> > > claimed?
> >
> > Not only an idiot but also a blatant lier!
>
> What am I lying about? Why can't you answer simple questions? What's wrong
> with you?

You said that you hadn't called the Petzval an art lens. Obviously you
had. That article was a tad hard to find...
>
> Peter doesn't like the Petzval effect, you responded by saying that you
> thought it was for large formats cameras and that maybe they're not
> designed the same way. I responded to confirm your first thought and give
> some information about the respective design of the old and the new.

Nope I knew... And I was the on that informed you.

*************
On 2014-04-28 21:59, android wrote:> In article
<>,
> Sandman <> wrote:
>
>> Blog:
>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Petzval?lang=en>
>>
>>
>> I haven't posted many pictures taken with the Petzval, which is mostly
>> due to the weather not being too nice until now when spring is in full
>> bloom. So here are some pics, but I hope to get a few more soon
>> enough.
>>
>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208322.jpg>
>>
>> Here's the box it came in
>>
>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208321.jpg>
>>
>> And here are the things that came with it if you supported the
>> Kickstarter-campaign. Quite a few trinkets and stuff. The camera strap
>> fit nicely on my Sony RX1.
>>
>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208320.jpg>
>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
>>
>> It's really hard to focus with the lens. Partly due to the lens not
>> being very sharp to begin with, but also due to the fact that you
>> focus with a knob on the side instead of turning a focus ring. It's a
>> bit tricky, but practice makes perfect!
>>
>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208318.jpg>
>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
>>
>> Here you see the pretty fantastic bokeh, and the slight circular
>> movement in the background.
>>
>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208317.jpg>
>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
>>
>> Also quite unsharp, but the bokeh is really nice
>
> Well, it is a classic portrait lens design from a time when flattering
> the customer was of the outmost importance. The photogs had to compete
> with painters and their vimfull adjustment of reality! I think that this
> lens can be interesting for you then you make classical portraits.
> Remember that whose were often made vailed daylight.
*************
And at that time, in the early nineteen century view cameras was was it
was all about... You know this by now. Couse I told ya!
http://tinyurl.com/opbb6jz

> I really can't see what got you so worked up.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

In article <>, android <> wrote:

>> > > > android:
>> > > > You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say
>> > > > that there's no need to investigate it's qualities....
>> > >
>> > > Sandman:
>> > > I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:

>> I didn't mean that I didn't say it was an art lens - I meant I didn't say
>> that there is "no need to investigate its qualities". There seems to be a
>> lot of confusion going around here.


>> > > question to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you
>> > > claimed?
>> >
>> > Not only an idiot but also a blatant lier!
>>
>> What am I lying about? Why can't you answer simple questions? What's wrong
>> with you?
>
> You said that you hadn't called the Petzval an art lens. Obviously you
> had. That article was a tad hard to find...

You misunderstood me, and perhaps I was unclear. And I even explained above
(still quoted) what I meant. I didn't lie. I never lie.

You made two claims:

1. You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens
2. You say that there's no need to investigate its qualities

I responded following the second claim with "I didn't say that", which you
thought was a response to the first claim. My mistake was to not break up
your sentence in smaller parts and affirm the first claim and deny the
second, eliminating any cause for confusion.

What baffles me is how you would totally miss that there were two claims
from you and instead of contemplating that I might be in reference to the
latter, you just jump up and call me a liar.

>> Peter doesn't like the Petzval effect, you responded by saying that you
>> thought it was for large formats cameras and that maybe they're not
>> designed the same way. I responded to confirm your first thought and give
>> some information about the respective design of the old and the new.
>
> Nope I knew... And I was the on that informed you.

About which part? I responded to you expressing a thought and a suspicion.
You made no claim.

> *************
> On 2014-04-28 21:59, android wrote:> In article
> <>,
>> Sandman <> wrote:
>>
>>> Blog:
>>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Petzval?lang=en>
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't posted many pictures taken with the Petzval, which is mostly
>>> due to the weather not being too nice until now when spring is in full
>>> bloom. So here are some pics, but I hope to get a few more soon
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208322.jpg>
>>>
>>> Here's the box it came in
>>>
>>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208321.jpg>
>>>
>>> And here are the things that came with it if you supported the
>>> Kickstarter-campaign. Quite a few trinkets and stuff. The camera strap
>>> fit nicely on my Sony RX1.
>>>
>>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208320.jpg>
>>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
>>>
>>> It's really hard to focus with the lens. Partly due to the lens not
>>> being very sharp to begin with, but also due to the fact that you
>>> focus with a knob on the side instead of turning a focus ring. It's a
>>> bit tricky, but practice makes perfect!
>>>
>>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208318.jpg>
>>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
>>>
>>> Here you see the pretty fantastic bokeh, and the slight circular
>>> movement in the background.
>>>
>>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208317.jpg>
>>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
>>>
>>> Also quite unsharp, but the bokeh is really nice
>>
>> Well, it is a classic portrait lens design from a time when flattering
>> the customer was of the outmost importance. The photogs had to compete
>> with painters and their vimfull adjustment of reality! I think that this
>> lens can be interesting for you then you make classical portraits.
>> Remember that whose were often made vailed daylight.
> *************

Nowhere above are you commenting on whether or not it was for large format
cameras, nor about whether or not the Lomography used the same design as
the originals. Not sure why you're pasting this in?

> And at that time, in the early nineteen century view cameras was was it
> was all about... You know this by now. Couse I told ya!

I have known about the Petzval for decades. Don't flatter yourself

I responded to this from you:

android
06/05/2014 <>

"Back in the days they were made for large format view
cameras, I believe and not of the same design that's sold
now."

There you seemed, to me, to express a belief that "back in the days" the
Petzval was for large format cameras. This is a true belief, so I responded
by verifying that. Then you said, and I saw this is conjecture on your part
as well, that the Lomography is not of the same design as the old lenses.
So I added some information to that as well, without actually saying either
way. I noted that they both use watergate apertures and a focusing knob.
Oh, and they're both made in brass.

So, basically, I wrote nothing to contradict or question anything you said,
and then you replied by saying that I just wanted to argue - but with WHAT?
I haven't argued about anything - if anything, I am agreeing with you.

So again - I have no idea what got you so worked up.

--
Sandman[.net]

 

In article <>,
Sandman <> wrote:

> In article <>, android <> wrote:
>
> >> > > > android:
> >> > > > You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens and then you say
> >> > > > that there's no need to investigate it's qualities....
> >> > >
> >> > > Sandman:
> >> > > I didn't say that. Maybe I misunderstood this comment of yours:
>
> >> I didn't mean that I didn't say it was an art lens - I meant I didn't say
> >> that there is "no need to investigate its qualities". There seems to be a
> >> lot of confusion going around here.
>
>
> >> > > question to what supposedly I'm "arguing" about here, as you
> >> > > claimed?
> >> >
> >> > Not only an idiot but also a blatant lier!
> >>
> >> What am I lying about? Why can't you answer simple questions? What's wrong
> >> with you?
> >
> > You said that you hadn't called the Petzval an art lens. Obviously you
> > had. That article was a tad hard to find...
>
> You misunderstood me, and perhaps I was unclear. And I even explained above
> (still quoted) what I meant. I didn't lie. I never lie.
>
> You made two claims:
>
> 1. You call the Lomography Petzval an art lens
> 2. You say that there's no need to investigate its qualities
>
> I responded following the second claim with "I didn't say that", which you
> thought was a response to the first claim. My mistake was to not break up
> your sentence in smaller parts and affirm the first claim and deny the
> second, eliminating any cause for confusion.
>
> What baffles me is how you would totally miss that there were two claims
> from you and instead of contemplating that I might be in reference to the
> latter, you just jump up and call me a liar.
>
> >> Peter doesn't like the Petzval effect, you responded by saying that you
> >> thought it was for large formats cameras and that maybe they're not
> >> designed the same way. I responded to confirm your first thought and give
> >> some information about the respective design of the old and the new.
> >
> > Nope I knew... And I was the on that informed you.
>
> About which part? I responded to you expressing a thought and a suspicion.
> You made no claim.
>
> > *************
> > On 2014-04-28 21:59, android wrote:> In article
> > <>,
> >> Sandman <> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Blog:
> >>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Petzval?lang=en>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I haven't posted many pictures taken with the Petzval, which is mostly
> >>> due to the weather not being too nice until now when spring is in full
> >>> bloom. So here are some pics, but I hope to get a few more soon
> >>> enough.
> >>>
> >>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208322.jpg>
> >>>
> >>> Here's the box it came in
> >>>
> >>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208321.jpg>
> >>>
> >>> And here are the things that came with it if you supported the
> >>> Kickstarter-campaign. Quite a few trinkets and stuff. The camera strap
> >>> fit nicely on my Sony RX1.
> >>>
> >>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208320.jpg>
> >>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
> >>>
> >>> It's really hard to focus with the lens. Partly due to the lens not
> >>> being very sharp to begin with, but also due to the fact that you
> >>> focus with a knob on the side instead of turning a focus ring. It's a
> >>> bit tricky, but practice makes perfect!
> >>>
> >>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208318.jpg>
> >>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
> >>>
> >>> Here you see the pretty fantastic bokeh, and the slight circular
> >>> movement in the background.
> >>>
> >>> <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg208317.jpg>
> >>> NIKON D800E, 35.0 mm, f/22.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 400
> >>>
> >>> Also quite unsharp, but the bokeh is really nice
> >>
> >> Well, it is a classic portrait lens design from a time when flattering
> >> the customer was of the outmost importance. The photogs had to compete
> >> with painters and their vimfull adjustment of reality! I think that this
> >> lens can be interesting for you then you make classical portraits.
> >> Remember that whose were often made vailed daylight.
> > *************
>
> Nowhere above are you commenting on whether or not it was for large format
> cameras, nor about whether or not the Lomography used the same design as
> the originals. Not sure why you're pasting this in?
>
> > And at that time, in the early nineteen century view cameras was was it
> > was all about... You know this by now. Couse I told ya!
>
> I have known about the Petzval for decades. Don't flatter yourself
>
> I responded to this from you:
>
> android
> 06/05/2014 <>
>
> "Back in the days they were made for large format view
> cameras, I believe and not of the same design that's sold
> now."
>
> There you seemed, to me, to express a belief that "back in the days" the
> Petzval was for large format cameras. This is a true belief, so I responded
> by verifying that.

It was and is a fact. Your verification totally unnecessary.

Then you said, and I saw this is conjecture on your part
> as well, that the Lomography is not of the same design as the old lenses.

Then you would agree that lenses for different formats has to evaluated
separately.

> So I added some information to that as well, without actually saying either
> way. I noted that they both use watergate apertures and a focusing knob.
> Oh, and they're both made in brass.

Totally irrelevant for the output from the camera...
>
> So, basically, I wrote nothing to contradict or question anything you said,
> and then you replied by saying that I just wanted to argue - but with WHAT?
> I haven't argued about anything - if anything, I am agreeing with you.
>
> So again - I have no idea what got you so worked up.

I have only informed you that you're an idiot and a liar and on your
request substantiated that claim... You snipped the essentials out of my
previous posts, of course. Those can't be deleted by you though...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

 

On 05/06/2014 06:44, David Taylor wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 00:10, RichA wrote:
> []
>> Number five could have been a Heinz ad, if the bottle had been turned
>> around.
>
> I find the backgrounds extremely unattractive. How are they supposed to
> differ from a regular wide-aperture lens? Does anyone really consider
> them an improvement?

It's not supposed to be an improvement, it's supposed to be a "wacky
lens" or "effect lens".

Have a look at this https://vimeo.com/88834695 at the 01:30 mark, that's
Lomography Petzval on a 5Dmk3. Gives you a direct comparison to other
lenses, so you can see what the Petzval "does".

 

In article <>, android wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > I responded to this from you:
>
> > android 06/05/2014 <>
>
> > "Back in the days they were made for large format view cameras, I
> > believe and not of the same design that's sold now."
>
> > There you seemed, to me, to express a belief that "back in the
> > days" the Petzval was for large format cameras. This is a true
> > belief, so I responded by verifying that.
>
> It was and is a fact. Your verification totally unnecessary.

Fair enough. But it still not me arguing. You expressed a belief, and I
verified it. No big deal.

> > Sandman:
> > Then you said, and I saw this is conjecture on your part as well, that
> > the Lomography is not of the same design as the old lenses.
>
> Then you would agree that lenses for different formats has to
> evaluated separately.

Naturally.

> > Sandman:
> > So I added some information to that as well, without actually
> > saying either way. I noted that they both use watergate apertures
> > and a focusing knob. Oh, and they're both made in brass.
>
> Totally irrelevant for the output from the camera...

I was just responding to what you said, not saying anything about the
output from the camera. Not sure why you're bringing that up?

> > Sandman:
> > So, basically, I wrote nothing to contradict or question anything
> > you said, and then you replied by saying that I just wanted to
> > argue - but with WHAT? I haven't argued about anything - if
> > anything, I am agreeing with you.
>
> > So again - I have no idea what got you so worked up.
>
> I have only informed you that you're an idiot and a liar and on your
> request substantiated that claim...

You have called me an idiot and a liar without being able to substantiate
either, yes.

> You snipped the essentials out of my previous posts, of course. Those
> can't be deleted by you though...

You have called me a liar. I have shown that that isn't case. You have also
called me an idiot for no obvious reason. I'm still waiting for a reason
for that one. You have also said I am only arguing but you have failed to
point to what argument we're having.

You make lots of claims you can't stand by. Why is that? And why do you
continously fail to answer very simple questions?

I don't lie, nor have I argued about anything with regards to the Petzval
lens. You have misunderstood several things I've said and when I've
explained what I've meant I have seen nothing from you to acknowledge that
you misunderstood me (or that I was being unclear) and here you are still
calling me a liar. Bad form, very bad form.


--
Sandman[.net]