Dan Dozer wrote:
Pretty cool start.  What size plates are these and what lens(s) are you using?

4x5 plates to start... I've got a conversion set up with a Speed Graphic and I use the Kodak Ektar 127mm that the camera usually has as well as a Francisque Faliez: Siamor 120mm Petzval.

And thanks!

MMDesign wrote:
Really like that sixth one down.

Thank you, sir...  That one's my favorite as well.

MMDesign wrote:
I wonder if more than a dozen people on here even know what collodion is.

There are a few pretty great collodion artists on this site that I've found. 

The majority though... probably not so much.  "Where's the collodion button on the menu screen?"

MMDesign wrote:
I wonder if more than a dozen people on here even know what collodion is.

It's the channel I watch Spongebob on.

Artifice wrote:

It's the channel I watch Spongebob on.

Svend wrote:

4x5 plates to start... I've got a conversion set up with a Speed Graphic and I use the Kodak Ektar 127mm that the camera usually has as well as a Francisque Faliez: Siamor 120mm Petzval.

And thanks!

Never heard of the Francisque Faliez before.  In case you're interested, I did a little checking and found that it was probably made in the early part of the 20th century and is designed as a projection lens for an old cinema projector.  No reason why it can't be used on a film camera.

If you haven't tried this before, I recommend you unscrew either the front or back element from the barrel and try shooting with only one of the glass elements.  I do this all the time with two of my old projection lenses and get great results.  The look is a little different from the straight Petzval look.  Your focal length will likely go up to probably about 200 - 250 mm and the focal lengths for the front element and back element will probably be different as well.  You might get 3 workable lenses instead of one.  Also, your image circle size should increase.  If you also have a 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10 camera, you might get enough coverage for the larger size film.

Dan Dozer wrote:

Never heard of the Francisque Faliez before.  In case you're interested, I did a little checking and found that it was probably made in the early part of the 20th century and is designed as a projection lens for an old cinema projector.  No reason why it can't be used on a film camera.

If you haven't tried this before, I recommend you unscrew either the front or back element from the barrel and try shooting with only one of the glass elements.  I do this all the time with two of my old projection lenses and get great results.  The look is a little different from the straight Petzval look.  Your focal length will likely go up to probably about 200 - 250 mm and the focal lengths for the front element and back element will probably be different as well.  You might get 3 workable lenses instead of one.  Also, your image circle size should increase.  If you also have a 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10 camera, you might get enough coverage for the larger size film.

The seller did mention that it was a Magic Lantern lens.  I'm glad you mentioned the thing about removing an element, because I had heard of that before and was thinking about it when I first picked up the lens, but it's been quite a while since then and I kind of forgot about it!  So thanks!  My biggest issue right now is light, or lack thereof.  I've been getting extremely consistent pours on my collodion and on the varnish.   Getting pretty clean images without a lot of oysters and imperfections.  Just have to knock down my exposure times from over half a minute to something more manageable for people.  I don't wanna do still-life every day.

If your lens is what I think it is and was designed for a cinema projector (I found a little info on it in the Vade Mecum),  it's likely to be a higher quality than a lens from a magic lantern.  That's obviously good.  Many of the old petzval lenses from the  magic lanterns were not really very good quality. 

I've tried 5 x 7 wet plates once.  Had a hard time getting the pours done fast enough so they really didn't turn out that well.  As I remember, we were using exposure times of around 10 - 12 seconds shooting outdoors in shade with background sunlight.

Dan Dozer wrote:
If your lens is what I think it is and was designed for a cinema projector (I found a little info on it in the Vade Mecum),  it's likely to be a higher quality than a lens from a magic lantern.  That's obviously good.  Many of the old petzval lenses from the  magic lanterns were not really very good quality. 

I've tried 5 x 7 wet plates once.  Had a hard time getting the pours done fast enough so they really didn't turn out that well.  As I remember, we were using exposure times of around 10 - 12 seconds shooting outdoors in shade with background sunlight.

I have almost everything I need to make 8x10s as well, except a camera.

Looking forward to the day I can afford to fix that problem. I think it would be much more fun to make large plates. Eventually, I plan to be pouring 24x30s.

Artifice wrote:
Have you seen these kits?

http://www.jaybender.com/BPH/8x10.htm

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/bender.html

Are they a savings over buying something already made?

Hmmmm... I hadn't seen those actually. Good price for a starter camera at 8x10.  My only concern would be whether it was able to stand up to the weight of a giant, brass petzval lens from 1870 and how well it would accept a plate back conversion. Thanks for the links, I'll definitely research more into those.

MesmerEyes Photography wrote:
Awesome work.

Thank you!