Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Dallmeyer 8" f2.0 Super Six Anastigmat revisited
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:14 pm    Post subject: Dallmeyer 8" f2.0 Super Six Anastigmat revisited Reply with quote

Since learning that this forum should be populated with non-processed images, I have decided to revisit a few lenses with images that have not been sharpened or the contrast altered in any way. I have optimized exposure in some cases because I meter for highlights in some cases, and a lot of what I do is grabbed with matrix metering aperture priority which doesn't always give idea exposures, and because I generally shot AWB because anyway they are raws, I have made some WB corrections over and above whatever the raw converter has decided to impose. But this is the look of the lens without further processing.

The Dallmeyer Super Sixes were a response to the Taylor and Hobson Opic series, and both are classic double gauss lenses with a 6/4 configuration. The DSS's ranged from 1 inch to 8 inches, in the lower range in 1/4 inch increments in the lower range, then 1/2 inch increments up to 4 inches, then 5, 6 and 8 inch models. All in many series in classic lenses, all were a constant f stop. The DSS's are all f1.9 with the exception of the 8 inch which is f2.0 (ignoring the fact that a few smaller lenses had special models at f2 or f2.Cool

The 8 inch is a monster, with a front diameter of about 120mm and weighing 3.5 kilos. The single elements are often more than 2cm thick. If you know lens design, you will know that to make a fast double gauss in longer focal lengths is quite a feat, not to mention a 204 (actually closer to 220) mm lens at f2.0. The 7 inch f2.5 Kodak Aero Ektar is the closest equivalent, but that lens has a cemented doublet at the rear and used thorium-doped glass. The Super Sixes used very expensive glasses to make the design work. In addition the 8 inch model has an image circle of nine inches I have read, making it absolutely usable on a 5x7 inch view camera.

The look is somewhat similar to the Aero Ektar, and it suffers from some of the same defects, including serious LoCA and color fringing. A couple of lens surfaces in mine have scratches, slightly lowering cpntrast. It has a weak monocoating, so it is quite prone to flare. I'm struggling with some vignetting issues due to the mount, partly due to a homemade lens hood which misbehaves, and party because the rear element is 80mm, and the adaptation down to Sony E with the pieces I've put together may be causing problems. You will see that in some of the images.

The Super Sixes have become cult lenses because of their bokeh rendering, which is not what one would call smooth, but has a pictorial quality that is hard to quantify. It is not hard bubbles like the Trioplan, but it can create very bright thin rings, with the centers quite even. I'm posting some examples here for your amusement and hopefully enjoyment.


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impressive. Can we see the picture of the lens itself? Thanks.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1l) Like 1 You definitely have skill with bokeh!

Daylight White Balance would enable color comparisons with other lens examples which use Daylight White Balance, which most do not unfortunately.

Doesn't adjusting exposure on images metered for highlights also adjust contrast?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
1l) Like 1 You definitely have skill with bokeh!

Daylight White Balance would enable color comparisons with other lens examples which use Daylight White Balance, which most do not unfortunately.

Doesn't adjusting exposure on images metered for highlights also adjust contrast?


Adjusting exposure does essentially the same thing that adjusting exposure does on the camera. It does not change the relationships on the gamma curve. I perfectly well understand why people would not want post processing performed on images that are not possible to duplicate via analog means (meaning what film shooters can do), such as sharpening and lifing shadows or dropping highlights, but even with film (unless you are shooting chromes), you have quite a few adjustments that can be made between the camera and the final image. In the darkroom you have the possiblity to adjust exposure in printing, plus choosing a paper grade, not even talking about dodging and burning and other local adjustments. It seems totally logical to optimize the image in the same way that every film shooter has done since day one. As to white balance, sorry, but I'm not taking the time to switch WB and lose shots when I am shooting raw.

Here is a pic of the lens mounted on a custom made 80mm to M65 adapter, screwed into an M65 extension with tripod collar, screwed into a M65 helicoid, with an adapter from M65 to M42 to Sony E. I had a hell of a time with a lens hood, which is really a good idea. I custom made one, but it was too flexible. This one is a one-size-fits-all expandable rubber one that works reasonably well.

#1


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kymarto wrote:

Here is a pic of the lens . . .


"Oh my goodness" were the words which burst out of my mouth when I saw that... behemoth. Wow.

But you obviously know how to put the Dallmeyer to good use, kymarto.
I always enjoy your photos - processed or otherwise. I hope you'll continue to share them with us.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Since learning that this forum should be populated with non-processed images..."

That's new. I thought we just stated what treatments, if any, had been applied. I'm not sure if you can achieve some form of forum baseline now, as lenses can have their properties monkeyed around with 'in-camera' these days. The photographer may not even be aware. 'If you do this, you get this', works for me.

Anyway. It's a treat to see that six doing it's thing. And also to see it in the metal. Cool.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kymarto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
1l) Like 1 You definitely have skill with bokeh!

Daylight White Balance would enable color comparisons with other lens examples which use Daylight White Balance, which most do not unfortunately.

Doesn't adjusting exposure on images metered for highlights also adjust contrast?


Adjusting exposure does essentially the same thing that adjusting exposure does on the camera. It does not change the relationships on the gamma curve. I perfectly well understand why people would not want post processing performed on images that are not possible to duplicate via analog means (meaning what film shooters can do), such as sharpening and lifing shadows or dropping highlights, but even with film (unless you are shooting chromes), you have quite a few adjustments that can be made between the camera and the final image. In the darkroom you have the possiblity to adjust exposure in printing, plus choosing a paper grade, not even talking about dodging and burning and other local adjustments. It seems totally logical to optimize the image in the same way that every film shooter has done since day one. As to white balance, sorry, but I'm not taking the time to switch WB and lose shots when I am shooting raw.

Here is a pic of the lens mounted on a custom made 80mm to M65 adapter, screwed into an M65 extension with tripod collar, screwed into a M65 helicoid, with an adapter from M65 to M42 to Sony E. I had a hell of a time with a lens hood, which is really a good idea. I custom made one, but it was too flexible. This one is a one-size-fits-all expandable rubber one that works reasonably well.

...


Camera white balance doesn't matter in RAW -- white balance is set by raw converter...


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kymarto wrote:

#1


The world’s most expensive toilet plunger is now available in E-mount.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like the samples! Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:

The world’s most expensive toilet plunger is now available in E-mount.


Laugh 1 .

Can you imagine if you visited a friends and it was sitting next to the bowl? Only in Hollywood maybe. A lot of rich cinematographers out there. A lot of poor ones too, I know.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote:

The world’s most expensive toilet plunger is now available in E-mount.


.

Can you imagine if you visited a friends and it was sitting next to the bowl? Only in Hollywood maybe. A lot of rich cinematographers out there. A lot of poor ones too, I know.


Yeah, too much bowlkeh. I would not want to edit that RAW file.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
kymarto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
1l) Like 1 You definitely have skill with bokeh!

Daylight White Balance would enable color comparisons with other lens examples which use Daylight White Balance, which most do not unfortunately.

Doesn't adjusting exposure on images metered for highlights also adjust contrast?


Adjusting exposure does essentially the same thing that adjusting exposure does on the camera. It does not change the relationships on the gamma curve. I perfectly well understand why people would not want post processing performed on images that are not possible to duplicate via analog means (meaning what film shooters can do), such as sharpening and lifing shadows or dropping highlights, but even with film (unless you are shooting chromes), you have quite a few adjustments that can be made between the camera and the final image. In the darkroom you have the possiblity to adjust exposure in printing, plus choosing a paper grade, not even talking about dodging and burning and other local adjustments. It seems totally logical to optimize the image in the same way that every film shooter has done since day one. As to white balance, sorry, but I'm not taking the time to switch WB and lose shots when I am shooting raw.

Here is a pic of the lens mounted on a custom made 80mm to M65 adapter, screwed into an M65 extension with tripod collar, screwed into a M65 helicoid, with an adapter from M65 to M42 to Sony E. I had a hell of a time with a lens hood, which is really a good idea. I custom made one, but it was too flexible. This one is a one-size-fits-all expandable rubber one that works reasonably well.

...


Camera white balance doesn't matter in RAW -- white balance is set by raw converter...


Rethinking, consistent white balance doesn't enable lens comparisons, for example a photo in shade with lots of skylighting will appear with blue cast using Daylight for white balance, whereas a photo in full sun will not have the blue cast using Daylight for white balance -- comparing the two doesn't mean one lens has a color cast, but that the white balance is incorrect.

I'm switching camera to AWB and shall include something white in the frame for setting WB in post processing, for a while, to teach myself some lessons. lol


PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
kymarto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
1l) Like 1 You definitely have skill with bokeh!

Daylight White Balance would enable color comparisons with other lens examples which use Daylight White Balance, which most do not unfortunately.

Doesn't adjusting exposure on images metered for highlights also adjust contrast?


Adjusting exposure does essentially the same thing that adjusting exposure does on the camera. It does not change the relationships on the gamma curve. I perfectly well understand why people would not want post processing performed on images that are not possible to duplicate via analog means (meaning what film shooters can do), such as sharpening and lifing shadows or dropping highlights, but even with film (unless you are shooting chromes), you have quite a few adjustments that can be made between the camera and the final image. In the darkroom you have the possiblity to adjust exposure in printing, plus choosing a paper grade, not even talking about dodging and burning and other local adjustments. It seems totally logical to optimize the image in the same way that every film shooter has done since day one. As to white balance, sorry, but I'm not taking the time to switch WB and lose shots when I am shooting raw.

Here is a pic of the lens mounted on a custom made 80mm to M65 adapter, screwed into an M65 extension with tripod collar, screwed into a M65 helicoid, with an adapter from M65 to M42 to Sony E. I had a hell of a time with a lens hood, which is really a good idea. I custom made one, but it was too flexible. This one is a one-size-fits-all expandable rubber one that works reasonably well.

...


Camera white balance doesn't matter in RAW -- white balance is set by raw converter...


Rethinking, consistent white balance doesn't enable lens comparisons, for example a photo in shade with lots of skylighting will appear with blue cast using Daylight for white balance, whereas a photo in full sun will not have the blue cast using Daylight for white balance -- comparing the two doesn't mean one lens has a color cast, but that the white balance is incorrect.

I'm switching camera to AWB and shall include something white in the frame for setting WB in post processing, for a while, to teach myself some lessons. lol


No, the hollywood toilet bowl plunger only records in D-Log from now on.

Might as well accidentally stop it down to f4 for some more inverse excitement.

I suggest that Kymarto work with Sony to make a special edition camera that uses his workflow and apply that into a camera profile called "standard". He can then take his camera jpeg photos and post them here freely as Straight Out Of Kymarto.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
kymarto wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
1l) Like 1 You definitely have skill with bokeh!

Daylight White Balance would enable color comparisons with other lens examples which use Daylight White Balance, which most do not unfortunately.

Doesn't adjusting exposure on images metered for highlights also adjust contrast?


Adjusting exposure does essentially the same thing that adjusting exposure does on the camera. It does not change the relationships on the gamma curve. I perfectly well understand why people would not want post processing performed on images that are not possible to duplicate via analog means (meaning what film shooters can do), such as sharpening and lifing shadows or dropping highlights, but even with film (unless you are shooting chromes), you have quite a few adjustments that can be made between the camera and the final image. In the darkroom you have the possiblity to adjust exposure in printing, plus choosing a paper grade, not even talking about dodging and burning and other local adjustments. It seems totally logical to optimize the image in the same way that every film shooter has done since day one. As to white balance, sorry, but I'm not taking the time to switch WB and lose shots when I am shooting raw.

Here is a pic of the lens mounted on a custom made 80mm to M65 adapter, screwed into an M65 extension with tripod collar, screwed into a M65 helicoid, with an adapter from M65 to M42 to Sony E. I had a hell of a time with a lens hood, which is really a good idea. I custom made one, but it was too flexible. This one is a one-size-fits-all expandable rubber one that works reasonably well.

...


Camera white balance doesn't matter in RAW -- white balance is set by raw converter...


Yeah, but I was told that I should shoot daylight WB in order to make images comparable with others shot daylight WB, but then of course I have three different daylight white balances on the camera just to confuse the issue Wink