Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I just bought a nice Dagor lens for large format--never had one (sadly), and I am not sure about using the front or rear cells alone. Can I just take off the front and shoot through the back, or do I move the back to the front, or what?

The cells are symmetrical, so I don't suppose it matters which one, for about double the focal length and two stops smaller than shown on aperture. Taking off the front is easiest, but taking off the back adds to bellows extension. The Schneider Symmar symmetricals (perhaps inspired by Dagos) were not quite symmetrical, so I think you were supposed to use the rear cell.

I am a bit wary of using one cell in terms of image quality, but I read that Ansel Adams used one cell of this very model (8.25 inch) for a famous print.

So now all I need is his sense of vision to make masterpieces. Well, that and his darkroom skills and art, and tickets to The West.

I can shoot through it with my Canon digital attached to camera back for instant test and for through-the-lens metering... or for digital panorama, stitched.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

When not using the front and back cells together, mount whichever single cell you've chosen on the back, or film/sensor side of the shutter. Never mated a digital body onto a large format back, so I couldn't guess at results, but on film, I never saw any sort of image degradation while using a single cell. Instead, they were blisteringly sharp. (Used --and still have-- Zeiss triple-convertible Protars and Turner Reich triple-convertibles of various focal lengths.) Whichever of the convertible Goerz Dagors you have should produce similarly. For a long time, they were highly sought-after 'classics.'

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Many years ago at a museum for copy work I used a 12" Goertz Dagor Red Dot or Gold Dot Convertible Lens (forget details from 1980). I never tried it with a cell removed. I was using it at near a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Cany, the adapter for 4x5 backs to Canon or Nikon is available on eBay and I have used it a number of times. My avatar here, the rex begonia above, was shot with 8x10 using a Zeiss Tessar 360mm monster f4.5 lens, on Canon digital. I have a Claron lens that should be as good as the Dagor, but the Claron is f9, and designed for close focus. The Dagor is f6.3 and should get very sharp at f11 or more.

So you are saying I can just remove the front cell and shoot?

I am very partial to that Tessar look, but I am sure I will like Dagor. I still have one view camera, a 4x5 Toyo, which can use the Dagor at 210mm or 420; or use it whole on a Speed Graphic I still have. I also have a split back that fits either one (two shots on one 4x5 negative, which doubles the effective magnification optically (like a cropped sensor does).

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

lamiaceae, That is good to know about close focusing, but that might have been a Goerz Red Dot Artar, made for close-up. Though not commonly considered convertible, the front and back of Artar are identical with two elements air spaced, each cell; the result might be good, but would probably have aberrations... Still, many people use Artars for regular distances, if stopped down to f22 or more.

Most good view camera lenses can do close work. Schneider brags about it if a regular lens can do 3:1 at demanding requirements.

User ID

I needed a lens for 8x10 (had none) so I took halves of a few 4x5 lenses and tested them. Lucked out big time !

Try your luck. If you find a winner, just measure the new back focus to estimate your aperture correction. (Somehow it’s almost always about two stops.)

Hope you’ve got enough extension to handle the situation. Infinity is usually no problem but getting ~360mm non-tele lenses focused to 10 to 15 feet eats up a lotta bed length.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

UserID, you are right about checking extension. I always consider that with view cameras. I have a TeleXenar 360 for the Speed Graphic, which is supposed to work because of the tele-design, but it barely can do 10 ft (never stretch out the bellows). But my Toyo can do 18" with normal bellows, and I can add the bag bellows for another foot easy, using a connecting middle standard.

At some point I bought a miraculous attachment. It is a 4x5 reflex back. Made for the Linhof vertical macro/micro Aristophot camera, it fits the Linhof/Graflok universal back for 4x5, and it adds about 6 inches of extension to the back of a 4x5 camera. It also allows me to compose in the ground glass via a super-fine mirror, which then lifts for exposing the film. The ground glass has aerial focus as well as ground glass. On the Speed Graphic, it gives me plenty of bellows for that 360 Tele.

Frankly I do not think extreme long or short lenses are ideal for large format. But no doubt part of the Dagor popularity from the start was that it is a wide angle lens to start, and then a medium tele length converted. This 210mm Dagor is a longish normal for 4x5, for studio distances, portraits, with losts of image size for camera adjustments, then serves as two lenses in the field for landscapes, etc. All the while it is quite small and light compared to similar sizes in Tessar or Plasmat lenses.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

The easy answer is: yes; just remove the front cell and shoot.

Before researching them out just now, I wasn't aware that the t-c Dagors were symmetrical in the sense that the front and rear cells were the same focal length. I unknowingly assumed your Goerz was like the t-c Protars and Turner~Reichs I have, and that each cell (or more accurately, each cell group) produced different focal lengths. One of my Zeiss t-c Protars, for example, is 6 1/8" [or 155mm] using front & rear cells together; 8 3/4" [or 222mm] using just the front cell (group); and 13 3/4" [or 349mm] using only the rear cell (group). My Turner~Reichs are similar in that both cells used together produce the shortest focal length while the front group produces a mid length focal length, and the rear group produces the longest focal length. In the field, I sort of considered these lenses somewhat like 'zoom' lenses in the sense that one lens/shutter combo could, depending on their configuration at the time, produce three separate focal lengths.

While I was about it, I took a look at what was available in terms of view cam/dSLR adaptors. Figured stuff like that would be around, but hadn't looked into it before now. Couple hundred bucks, and off you go, dragging your (or my, as the case would be) 4x5 Speed or my 5x7 Deardorf (with its 20" of bellows draw and its 4x5 reducing back) around like back in the old days. Except rather than having to carry some film holders, I could increase the weight/bulk by a factor of.... oh, I dunno, maybe 2 or 3 X... with hauling the above AND an FX body Nikon (and assorted other stuff, though I suppose I could leave the dark cloth at home). If I were 30-40 years younger, or lived in flatter land, I'd maybe spring for the couple hundred bucks. Now, I'll take a pass.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Cany, the simple adapter I have is a bit over $100, but some are more elegant--with their own ground glass, and some rotate around to take 4 shots that can then be stitched up. But the simple one is fine, and you do compose and shoot through the digital camera in the usual way once you focus the bellows and set the aperture of the big lens.

Imagine--we used to think nothing of making a big production setting up for large format. I have only used the adapter to digital around the house and porch, but I have little doubt that all the time and effort that goes into view camera photography plays a significant role in the quality of our product in the end--not to mention looking at the subject upside down sideways, which I think makes us see the balance and proportions as such, better.

But I do have some time on my hands this summer, and plan on shooting some b/w 4x5 again. I have a daylight processor that is simple and easy to use (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1488476-REG/stearman_press_445100_sp_445_4x5_developing_tank.html). Then I can scan the negatives and proceed with PhotoShop. The files will be huge, yes?

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Don't even begin to get me going on the Act and Practice of using a view camera, or the manifold ways that doing so could benefit photogs --regardless their age-- today. Large format isn't 'taking a picture' - its learning to meditate.

I've scanned and/or shot L/F negs/transparencies using a high MP camera, a macro lens, and a light box, and either has its advantages, depending. Scans might be better if you plan on doing billboards, while camera-shot dupes are just fine for regular mortals. Still have everything I'd need to shoot and process L/F, down to and including the chemicals, but no way do I figure on setting up a darkroom again. There's WAY too many black widow spiders out in my shed where my enlargers are, and as much as a real, genuine silver print can blow an inkjet print out of the water, I simply don't have that much of a death wish..

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I used to love all night in the darkroom, but I agree with you on all points, so far. I have not tried making PhotoShop prints from film negatives, but I am hoping the results are good. I left my 5x7 enlarger behind 15 years ago, and don't want to excavate my mummified medium format one from its tomb in the shed.

The problem today (or one of them) is that we no longer judge photos by the paper print--rather, we look at them on screens or monitors, which do not begin to demand or even allow the look of handmade enlargements. No screen image compares with the richest blacks of a silver print, so we don't even think about missing them; we expect only what is possible. That may be why the large formats today are limited to either artists or amateur enthusiasts and experimenters--not commercial photographers, journalists, or even tourists.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I take it your pack mule has passed away too...