Also, was double whole plate the biggest lens they made? It appears, according to my research, that most of the lenses were made for smaller sizes 7 inches and smaller in back focus. Was this because dag plates tended to be smaller? With my six inch back focus, what could I cover? Im guessing it would be a quarter plate full cover and I would get vignetting with anything bigger. What's your experience with it? I am trying to plan my strategies before I take pictures (get some theory knocked in there). I know all lenses could produce different results.

I

Your lens may cover half plate. Check the size of the circle it projects. Im not sure how big Harrison went. I had an 8x10 Harrison at one time. I really didnt like it. It didnt look anything like my half plate lens. It had a sweet spot in the middle and then went completely out of focus outside the sweet spot. If you know these Petzvals you might be thinking the elements were put together wrong but they werent. It was put together wrong when I got it and after putting them in correctly it got better but not by much. My half plate Harrison falls off but it does it gradually.

I think I remember seeing a 24" CCH at some point. As you have correctly noted, most dags were quite small so 1/4 plate lenses are probably the easiest upon which to stumble. Early lenses are bit unpredictable so their IQ's can differ between examples. I would say that a 6" lens would cover a 4 x 5 plate at most distances, but not much more than that.

I have personally seen a huge CC H. We played with it on a buddy's 20x24 I built.

www.guillorycameras.com

All the earliest Petzvals had more falloff towards the edges, due to a more curved field. They were fast, so that also brings in swirls, usually.

Here is a shot from my 6" (about 4.5" back focus) on halfplate. Your 8" lens will definately cover halfplate. I like CC Harrisons a lot.



And I just found a halfplate I took with my 8":





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2012 01:25PM by goamules.

Those are some nice pics!!!! Was Harrison the best of the American makers? how did the others stack up?

Thanks,

I

I think there were many good lens makers and many from New York. There are a lot of NY Makers that arent as well known as Harrison and HB&H but they were very good too. Hard to give an answer to a question like this. Its kind of like is Ferrari better than Lamborghini.

Also... Ive been told by others that can afford to try different lenses that they are not all the same. You can get a bad Harrison. Or so Ive been told.

I have a theory about the New York lenses. I have messed with quite a few of them, and some at the same time. I think HBH and CC had optics made by the different makers, but I swear the brass was made by the same maker. My theory is that HBH and CC made their own optics and contracted out the brasswork. The other NY maker (Parker, I think) also looks the same.

Chapman seems to have made lenses for a few ny companies as well. Palmer & Longking and a supplier named E.A. Perry both sold what seems to be rebranded Chapmans. Other companies such as Willard, Fitz, Usner, and others seem to have such similar brass work that you have to wonder if they weren't all getting the barrels done by the same person/company. As far as glass goes, they are pretty comparable. Still, CCH had the best reputation back then and pretty much still does.

CCH learned lens grinding from one of the greats, I have to look at my notes to recall who. But CCH glass is made by CCH, under the direction of Richard Morrison, the shop foreman who went on to make his own lenses later. Harrison and Schnitzer also invented the Globe landscape lens. He also patented an early iris. Morrison went on after Harrison died and made a lot of great lenses too. I'd say CCH were the most skilled makers mid 1800s.

Usner was also an optician who ground glass for HBH and a couple others. The jury is still out on who made the glass for some of the other, more obscure makers. I've used a lot of these NY lenses, and haven't had a bad one. I have had a few bad Jamin/Darlots. By bad I mean not as sharp as they should be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2012 02:02PM by goamules.

CCH was Henry Fitz's shop foreman before he split to do his own thing, around 1849 IIRC.

I just wrote a CC Harrison blog post that may be of interest to readers here:

Antique & Classic Camera Blog


Thanks
Dan

Hi

I posted another blog entry on CC Harrison.

Thanks
Dan

Antique & Classic Camera Blog



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2012 07:38AM by ccharrison.