This upload is the first of 3 new test shots featuring the 'Upon Reflection' subject matter w/a reworked lighting scheme which made it possible for the inclusion of the Pinkham & Smith Semi-Achromatic Doublet Series III, No III into these tests.

The Pinkham Series III has a Studio #6 shutter which is larger than the 6 1/4 inche toyo board it's mounted on, and it has been impossible, for me at least, to crank this shutter by hand to anywhere close to the shutter speeds of my Universal #5 shutter I used in exposing the previous 'Upon Reflection' tests.

Those original tests were exposed w/each lens used w/the #5 shutter,  and the shutter was set 1/3 of the way past the 1/25 mark toward 1/50.   Now on a good day, at maximum, I can crank up the Pinkham Series III, and its #6 shutter to around 1/10-1/15 of a sec, meaning I couldn't get my shutter time down to where it should be to properly expose the image w/the original lightscheme.

The only way of including the Series III in a test w/the other lenses, since I couldn't shorten the shutter time of the Series III, was to bring the intensity of the illumination down, and compensating by slowing down the shutter times of the lenses using the #5 shutter to where they now match the fastest speed at which I could crank the #6 Studio shutter.

I brought the intensity of the light hitting the lightbulbs down to where the longer 1/10 shutter times of the Studio shutter would now give the right exposure and matched that shutter time on shots used w/my Universal #5 shutter  w/the speed of the Studio shutter.  The only way to knock down the illumination was to double/fold up cloth silk several times and place it over the glass magnifier supporting the bulbs, and the result was a reduction in illumination of 2-3 stops.

I always dread dis-assembling a still life or breaking up a portrait session to adjust the lighting, you never seem  duplicate the original shot exactly once you break it up.  I went ahead and did it because I was only going to do it once if I was lucky to get it about right the second time.

A lighting scheme has balance just like a composition, knock down the light in one place, often as not, you have to boost it up somewhere else.  So this point I decided to rework the complete lighting scheme of the original shot.  I eliminated any frontal light hitting the reflector, boosted up the background/ambient light so the subject matter no longer looked like it was in a black hole, and angled some photons so they would hit the top rim of the reflector for some highlights.

The new tests w/reworked lighting evolved into submitting new considerations above and beyond what came from the original tests........as a comparison of three de facto pinkhams............how knocking down the illumination can give you the choice of eliminating the flare/halation usually assoc. w/these lenses as you compare these new tests to the original tests............and the fact that this lighting scheme simply looks better.

This first shot is w/the Pinkham Visual Quality, shot at F4.5, 1/10th of a sec. shutter time w/the Universal #5 shutter.

Same shot, same SM, by the Visual Quality.  There's true diversity w/this series, there's the Tessar w/diff contro alias the Wolly Velostigmat II,  and Kodak's version of the Pinkham Semi-Achromatic w/a coating, and as Jim Galli has mentioned, the Pinkham VQ, nee a modified rectilinear.

I'd mention what struck me about the Visual Quality version considering that  the Kodak Portrait has a coating and the VQ Doesn't, which is there's less flare/halation/a glow from the VQ versus the Kodak.  Both shots w/these lenses were w/my Universal #5 shutter, same exp., same shutter time.   The Pinkham exhibits very little glow compared to the Kodak Portrait, I was surprised.

Again, I love shooting clear lightbulbs w/this type of lens because I think this type of SM magnifies the nuance/differences of these lenses.   

I've been surprised by the similarities between these images from three very different lenses construction wise.   I haven't done anything/corrected the colors in any way, and there isn't a lick of difference colorwise between these 3 shots.

Take care

I shot this version first w/the Kodak Portrait lens, and since the set-up was already there, and the Kodak and Velostigmat are roughly the same focal length, and I wouldn't have to move the camera, I slapped on the Velostigmat II. 

For some reason, I honestly expected to be disappointed by what I thought the Velostigmat was going to do in comparison to the Kodak, and was startled and then excited by what I saw after I slapped on the Velo.  Both lenses 'takin care of business', made this a good shoot.

Both lenses handle what is a very difficult set-up for a soft focus lens beautifully, although looking at these shots, I know folks will have a preference.  You like it softer, that's the way the Velostigmat II rendered it, you like it 'crisp', 'clearer', or 'sharper' or whatever you want to call the difference, you'll get turned on by the Kodak Portrait.  Me.........I'm glad I've got 'em both.

What is absolutely incredible is the difference in cost between these two lenses and a couple of my other 'big ticket' lenses.   Both lenses are 1/4 and 1/5 the cost of my most expensive SF glass, and there's a greater difference in price than there is in the quality of the look between these lenses and the Verito/Struss/Semi-Achromatics/Visual Quality et al.

Having said all this, seeing what the Kodak Portrait would do was what got me to shooting this, and so to the folks who're interested in what the Kodak can do, I think this shows how a Semi-Achromatic rig w/just the right kind of coating can make a shot 'talk'.  

There's absolutely no mush ANYWHERE in this shot, it's crisp, clear, and sparkles.

This is the second version of this shot which I shot last and which I'll show first to show what the Velostigmat II can do, w/its diffusion ring unscrewed quite a ways out of the barrel.  I've used metal tape to keep the diff ring of my lens at this exact position, I just like what the lens does at this diffusion setting.  

I've shot this SM w/both the Velostigmat II and the 305mm Kodak Portrait lens and I think the Velostigmat holds up its end magnificently, rendering a version of this shot w/a moist, 'dreamy' and very soft pallette that is at least as interesting as the Verito and many of the other big name soft focus lenses.

Here I've mated a reflector w/my Kodak safelight, placed a magnifier into the refector, and placed clear lightbulbs on the magnifier to get the effect you see here.  What turned out interesting after I set up the shot was noticing that the reflections of the lightbulb illuminating the other bulbs was being reflected from the inside of the bulbs and not bounced off the outside of the bulbs surface.

This was at the Velostigmats widest aperture which is F4.5 w/the shutter at about a third of the way from 1/50 to 1/100 of a sec.,  I really ignore what the Betax shutter has engraved on it, it's an ancient shutter, and no telling what the real shutter speeds are at these settings, so I just go up/down until I get the 'look' what I want.

The look I wanted was to approx. the same exposure I got w/the Kodak Portrait lens which is about the same focal length as the Velostigmat, and whose Universal #5 shutter is obviously listening to the tune of a different drummer versus the Betax.  

I think I've gotten the shots fairly close in terms exposure, to show the other differences between the two lenses, but ultimately, I think a comparison of how these two lenses handle this shot is a tribute to how great both these lenses are as opposed to any consideration of which lens is better or preferable.  One is better for one SM, the other better in another direction.

I don't like the Wollensak Velostigmat II w/the original diffusion setting of 1-5 which just made everything(to me), look 'murky' and freeing up the diffusion ring to where there's no stop and no limit to how much you can screw it out, makes this lens 'SING'.

This is the biggest, thickest, heaviest vase I've got in the house.   Like all cheap glass, and a lot of expensive crystal, it's cockeyed, skewed, crooked, twisted, and the glass itself is imperfect, the opposite of glass you find in a good lens as it was never intended for light to go through a glass vase like you want it to go through a lens.   This fact is a plus when you in fact want the light to bounce around in the glass to produce all kinds of surprises.

  Trying to line this stuff up, up/down/right/left as crooked as it all is, was always an eternal chore, but then there's the beauty of glass that keeps me coming back, particularly since it's going to be an arduous process of tracking down the right faces for my 'Black Mask' project.

Here I've laid the vase almost on its side, placed a light bulb behind the vase, w/light going throuh the bottom, reflecting off the insides of the vase, and going through the glass itself and all it's imperfections.  This is one time when the imperfections are giving me something interesting instead of a headache, and I'm loving that about this shot.

I've intersected the 'horizon with the corners of the vase because placing them anywhere else didn't look right to me because of the geometrical nature of the SM.  I did it on purpose, it wasn't a mistake.

I knew as soon as I set up the lighting and looked through the viewfinder that this lens was going to give an elegant 'touch' to what I'd set up.   Maybe it is 'projection' on my part, but a Pinkham Semi-Achromatic seemed like it was always whispering.........'You're going to have to work your ass off to get me to do anything'............................The Kodak Portrait seems to say......'We're in this together, I'll help as much as I can.  

There are some pretty bright highlights in this set-up coming 'straight down the pike', straight down the lens axis, and they don't look garish, although I must admit that a great help is that I focused on the front lip of the vase, so the highlights are behind of the best plane of focus, and are not only softened by the Kodak, but are oof.   

I don't know to what degree you call the way the illumination dispersion/refraction/reflection the way it's acting in this shot, so I discretion called for a more vague and lyrical moniker, thus the title of 'A luminous Dance'.

Take care

Postscript:  After uploading this image on Paowang, the Chinese website I'm a member of, the first comment made about it is that it looked like it was Photoshopped.   I'm uploading an additional image which is the studio set-up of the vase I used in this shot.

I cut a 'V' shape into a section of packing styro foam to hold the vase in its final orientation, and in order to keep the styrofoam toward the rear of the vase, so you could only see it's shadow, and also keep the front end of the vase off the floor, I used an 'A' clamp to weigh down the rear of the vase.  

I have a more powerful light turned on for this shot, instead of the smaller light bulb you see behind the vase which was the only light on for the final image.   Just in front of the bulb, and in between the handles of the 'A' clamp are a couple of sheets of lens cleaning cotting I used to diffuse the illumination of the lightbulb for the final image.

The front of the vase is larger than the rear area so looking through the viewfinder you can't see any of this stuff at the rear. 

As you walk around to the front of the vase, even w/this different illumination on, you can see lines/waves forming in the walls of the vase forming every few centimeters.   I believe this to be a result of the imperfect glass used in this vase causing reflections/refractions that you wouldn't see in a sheet of optically correct Schott glass.   

Anyway............it ain't me, it was the glass, just the way I Schott it.