SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Most of the times, the shots done with a Leica and Summicron or any other kind of Leica lenses have this eerie, hard to pin down contrast. Even if it's harsh lighting and the contrast is very sharp, it looks good and, I was wondering, would this be the effect of the lens or the skill of the photographer at developing and printing his/her prints?
Just wondering... while I wait for my Summicron 50/2 to come.
Just wondering... while I wait for my Summicron 50/2 to come.
S
Summitar
Guest
Combo
Combo
I believe it's truly a combo of having great contrast from the lenses (thru Leica design and clarity) but development and enlarging factors contribute just as much to overall image qualtiy.
A sharp, well exposed negative, developed accrdingly and well printed usually yield the intended results. Skip one of these steps and you end up with a minilab printed 4X6 from a Koday Disc Camera, circa 1980.
Combo
I believe it's truly a combo of having great contrast from the lenses (thru Leica design and clarity) but development and enlarging factors contribute just as much to overall image qualtiy.
A sharp, well exposed negative, developed accrdingly and well printed usually yield the intended results. Skip one of these steps and you end up with a minilab printed 4X6 from a Koday Disc Camera, circa 1980.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
well, Summitar, you didn't break ground with that reply... Now, for photogs like us, who are still learning, what does the trick, the lens or the fact that you develop your film and have absolute control over the image, from the instant it's created in film until it's turned into print...?
Tough, huh?
Tough, huh?
L
lars
Guest
Since you've now got a Summicron and will soon have an M body with which to use it, why don't you tell us?SolaresLarrave said:
Shoot some pics on the same roll of film; half with your Summicron, half with another good, 50mm lens. Have them film processed and let us know what you think. I'd be interested in the results.
...lars
Its really hard to tell. Attached are two pictures I took when I first started using a rangefinder. Keep in mind these are just experimental pictures that I scanned and I still had not mastered focusing But there is something about the contrast that stands out.
35 mm 2.0 summicron with Tmax
35 mm 2.0 summicron with Tmax
On this one, I actually boosted the contrast a bit with the software
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
lars, it'll take a while before I can do that kind of switcheroo... but it should be an interesting experiment. In fact, it's a pretty interesting idea!!!
Now, I have a Summicron, as you-all know. Anyone willing to lend me, say, a Konica or a Voigtlander to run a comparative test?
Please, lars, don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of your idea. In fact, I like it! Thanks for the tip! Inquiring minds will look into the legend of Leica's contrasty glass...
Now, I have a Summicron, as you-all know. Anyone willing to lend me, say, a Konica or a Voigtlander to run a comparative test?
Please, lars, don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of your idea. In fact, I like it! Thanks for the tip!
Inquiring minds will look into the legend of Leica's contrasty glass...
L
lars
Guest
Actually, my friend's brother recently bought an M4P and a 50 (I think it's a Summicron although I don't know what year). FWIW, I could probably convince him to let me shoot a few rolls on it, and then shoot the same scene with my Minolta 50/1.7. I can also test with a non-AI Nikkor 50/1.4.
What scenes should I shoot that would best bring out the supposed 3D effect of the Summicron?
...lars
What scenes should I shoot that would best bring out the supposed 3D effect of the Summicron?
...lars
back alley
IMAGES
it could be the lens.
but my guess is it's in the processing/printing phase of the photo.
i know a guy who shoots nikon, along with many others. but he is a consumate (sp?) printer. and his stuff looks way better than others using the same film/camera/lens.
now, i know 'better' is subjective, but his prints regularly get the oohh! response.
but my guess is it's in the processing/printing phase of the photo.
i know a guy who shoots nikon, along with many others. but he is a consumate (sp?) printer. and his stuff looks way better than others using the same film/camera/lens.
now, i know 'better' is subjective, but his prints regularly get the oohh! response.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I'm sure a lot has to do with dodging and burning... and I'm not talking about the famed PS tools!
Now, regarding tests, I thought about doing a "mano a mano" of the Leica M6 and the Canonet. After all, both are metered bodies with legendary lenses. However, as lars, I am confounded as to what to shoot. People would be the lithmus test, but what? Portrait, street, candid? Let's think...
Now, regarding tests, I thought about doing a "mano a mano" of the Leica M6 and the Canonet. After all, both are metered bodies with legendary lenses. However, as lars, I am confounded as to what to shoot. People would be the lithmus test, but what? Portrait, street, candid? Let's think...
L
lars
Guest
Well, I haven't seen any pics which exemplify this 3D quality so I'm not a good person to come up with suggestions.SolaresLarrave said:
...lars
People talk of the "Leica glow" and this seems to be centered more on older lenses than the newer ones with aspheric elements. Like my 8-element version 1 Summicron 35, which does seem to have a certain character.
But I think the special nature of lenses is not at all limited to Leica, as of course Zeiss is reknown for character in lenses as well. And of all the Japanese makers, Pentax deserves inclusion in this too as an equal.
I doubt anyone can pick out the Leica-shot pictures among the Zeiss and Pentax shots, though I think it's possible to winnow out SOME of the "lesser" lenses or even some of the best used not at their best.
Then, it seems many makers have copied the famous designs of the past, so if well-done, these efforts may approach or equal the Biogons, Summicrons, Sonnars, and Symmars, and take on somewhat of their personalities.
But I agree with the suggestion that this comes through only (or most clearly) when other elements of the workflow allow these qualities to appear.
I have to admit that in the past I have not been particularly aware of lens qualities coming through in the print. Just that the sum of all factors from lighting and exposure to freshness of the developer has added up to something special. I will have to go back and look at enlargements in view of the lenses used. Just off hand, I can say the Minolta CLE's 40mm f/2 Rokkor M is associated with a lot of my successful pictures!
As for comparison shots, how about a still life, a bowl of fruit perhaps, or green peppers?
But I think the special nature of lenses is not at all limited to Leica, as of course Zeiss is reknown for character in lenses as well. And of all the Japanese makers, Pentax deserves inclusion in this too as an equal.
I doubt anyone can pick out the Leica-shot pictures among the Zeiss and Pentax shots, though I think it's possible to winnow out SOME of the "lesser" lenses or even some of the best used not at their best.
Then, it seems many makers have copied the famous designs of the past, so if well-done, these efforts may approach or equal the Biogons, Summicrons, Sonnars, and Symmars, and take on somewhat of their personalities.
But I agree with the suggestion that this comes through only (or most clearly) when other elements of the workflow allow these qualities to appear.
I have to admit that in the past I have not been particularly aware of lens qualities coming through in the print. Just that the sum of all factors from lighting and exposure to freshness of the developer has added up to something special. I will have to go back and look at enlargements in view of the lenses used. Just off hand, I can say the Minolta CLE's 40mm f/2 Rokkor M is associated with a lot of my successful pictures!
As for comparison shots, how about a still life, a bowl of fruit perhaps, or green peppers?
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I guess the test should see how the lenses perform at wide apertures. Doug, your suggestions are most appreciated.
I'm still thinking of portrait, though.
Lars, maybe the 3D quality (which I didn't mention; I spoke about contrast) is the result of "good" bokeh. And the way to get "bokeh" is... wide apertures!!
Well, I'll start setting this test up. I just happen to be curious, that's all.
I'm still thinking of portrait, though.
Lars, maybe the 3D quality (which I didn't mention; I spoke about contrast) is the result of "good" bokeh. And the way to get "bokeh" is... wide apertures!!
Well, I'll start setting this test up. I just happen to be curious, that's all.
L
lars
Guest
Sorry, you are correct, you only spoke of contrast.SolaresLarrave said:
...lars
kajabbi
Member
When we discuss contrast and different brands of lenses, we run into a variable not easily dismissed. Years agi I could control contrast in the darkroom, first with a selection of contrast papers, later with one paper and the use of filters. Now, we have photoshop, or a competing program and contrast is easily controlled. To make a valid comparison, we need to expose the same film and imulsion number, take to a automatic lab, get them to use fresh chemicals, and run them through. Then and only then, will a discussion on lens contrast be valid(somewhat) .
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
kajabbi, I already bought similar film (albeit cheap, will have to do: the BW + from Kodak). After exposing both rolls using different cameras and lenses, I'll take them to a one-hour lab and have them developed. After that, I'll scan the prints, turn them into jpgs and post them here. Of course, no histogram fix or anything that favors midtones over darktones will be done. If I add light to the digital file, it'll be all over the spectrum.
Will that do?
Will that do?
L
lars
Guest
To be properly rigorous about this, you should shoot, say, 10 shots on the roll with the Leica and then rewind the film (leaving the leader sticking out) and then load that same roll into the other camera, cover the lens and advance to frame 12 and shoot the same 10 scenes again. Hopefully the lighting hasn't changed much.SolaresLarrave said:
...lars
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Lars, I'd do it, but I'm really lousy at midroll rewinds with the Canonet. I was planning on carrying both cameras (a heavy load, it seems) and shoot alternatively, but, on the other hand, it seems fairer to do it as you say.
Let's see what I can come up with. It'd be cheaper if I follow your suggestion, so that may settle this one.
Let's see what I can come up with. It'd be cheaper if I follow your suggestion, so that may settle this one.
L
lars
Guest
You can always rewind the film completely into the cartridge and then:SolaresLarrave said:
- Buy a leader extraction tool (Kodak makes one and it's easily less than USD$10).
- Or take it to a one-hour lab and ask them to pull out the leader. They have a leader retrieve tool that they use all the time and will probably do it for free.
...lars
S
Summitar
Guest
Easy
Easy
Answer: All of the above. You can use "tricks" in development (thru selective developer use, certain ones for certain contrast ratios, etc) and tricks in printing, recomposition thru cropping in enlargement, multi grade filtration or paper selection, and also invaribly control contrast and print density by paper developer selection there as well. Quite allot of choices available. But lens variations and proper exposure on the original negative is what is crucial, all else pales in total value to actually getting a proper exposure.
Best quote I ever heard from a cinematographer that I learned from in college (good friend who is now deceased and used to shoot for ABC News in Vietnam) was this. "99% of the job is being there to take the shot, the other 1% is what you do with the exposed film after you've shot it"
.
Easy
SolaresLarrave said:
Answer: All of the above. You can use "tricks" in development (thru selective developer use, certain ones for certain contrast ratios, etc) and tricks in printing, recomposition thru cropping in enlargement, multi grade filtration or paper selection, and also invaribly control contrast and print density by paper developer selection there as well. Quite allot of choices available. But lens variations and proper exposure on the original negative is what is crucial, all else pales in total value to actually getting a proper exposure.
Best quote I ever heard from a cinematographer that I learned from in college (good friend who is now deceased and used to shoot for ABC News in Vietnam) was this. "99% of the job is being there to take the shot, the other 1% is what you do with the exposed film after you've shot it"
.