x-ray
Veteran
One additional example of nice tonality. Each image in the original print are rich in tone and very crisp. By the way none were leica lenses.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
X-ray,
When you speak of BW, I'll shut up and listen. Great images.
When you speak of BW, I'll shut up and listen. Great images.
Ade-oh
Well-known
x-ray
Veteran
My father was a very good photographer and taught me many important things about B&W. Tonality comes down to two things after selecting a film.
1) expose for the shadows
2) process for the highlights
Then proper selection of printing paper and again correct printing grade, exposure and full processing.
Ade-oh --- nice shot.
Lens is minor in the equation.
1) expose for the shadows
2) process for the highlights
Then proper selection of printing paper and again correct printing grade, exposure and full processing.
Ade-oh --- nice shot.
Lens is minor in the equation.
x-ray
Veteran
I don't mean to sound like a know it all or smart a$$ but whether a lens is leica, Zeiss, CV, Canon, Nikon, Fuji or whatever makes little difference. I don't think I've run across a modern lens in the past 20 years that would'nt produce superb images. I honestly have no problem taking any good quality lens and camera and doing just as good an image with it as with Leicas and leica glass. I've been scorched over this before but the lens just isn't that important unless it had a major flaw in design or build. Any differences in one brand to another are very very slight and often over exagerated. I think often people use their equipment as an excuse for poor images and when they get lucky they think it's because of the equipment. I also see people convinced one brand is so superior to another that any image they take is automatically a winner.
Again I don't want to sound rude or like a know it all but rather than spending zillions of dollars searching for the magic bullet ones time and money would be better spent learning the process and aesthetics of photography. When the technique is mastered then search for the right equipment.
Unless I or anyone else can visually see what makes a quality image and print and unless that person can consistently produce fine images other than by luck then it's impossible to really make a sound decision based on results and particularly on results from people that might know less than they do.
Again I'm not trying to be a smart guy but just stating what I feel is good sound advice.
Again I don't want to sound rude or like a know it all but rather than spending zillions of dollars searching for the magic bullet ones time and money would be better spent learning the process and aesthetics of photography. When the technique is mastered then search for the right equipment.
Unless I or anyone else can visually see what makes a quality image and print and unless that person can consistently produce fine images other than by luck then it's impossible to really make a sound decision based on results and particularly on results from people that might know less than they do.
Again I'm not trying to be a smart guy but just stating what I feel is good sound advice.
oscroft
Veteran
Hi,
I have no photos to offer, unfortunately (I'm away from my negs and my scanner right now), but I think there has been a lot of good sense spoken in this thread so far - objectively, tonality (the range of densities produced on the negative, and the shape of the density curve) is largely due to the combination of film, exposure, development, and the contrast of the lens.
But then, totally subjectively, I have different lenses that really do seem to make a difference to the tonality of a photo, over and above sharpness, resolution and contrast (or perhaps it's a combination of the three) - my 28/3.5 CV lens, for example, is quite a contrasty lens, but photos from it do strike me as having better mid-tone resolution than others (ie better separation of the tones), but without having excessive contrast at the extreme light/dark ends of the spectrum.
And then there are different designs of lens that, used with the same film and development, produce something different that is not just down to sharpness, resolution and contrast - for example, there's a Tessar look (and it's a lens design that I'm really getting to like the results from) that I really don't know how to describe other than how nice its B&W tones look.
I have no photos to offer, unfortunately (I'm away from my negs and my scanner right now), but I think there has been a lot of good sense spoken in this thread so far - objectively, tonality (the range of densities produced on the negative, and the shape of the density curve) is largely due to the combination of film, exposure, development, and the contrast of the lens.
But then, totally subjectively, I have different lenses that really do seem to make a difference to the tonality of a photo, over and above sharpness, resolution and contrast (or perhaps it's a combination of the three) - my 28/3.5 CV lens, for example, is quite a contrasty lens, but photos from it do strike me as having better mid-tone resolution than others (ie better separation of the tones), but without having excessive contrast at the extreme light/dark ends of the spectrum.
And then there are different designs of lens that, used with the same film and development, produce something different that is not just down to sharpness, resolution and contrast - for example, there's a Tessar look (and it's a lens design that I'm really getting to like the results from) that I really don't know how to describe other than how nice its B&W tones look.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Finder said:
Nothing, but you never referred to it as an example... if you did, I missed it. Sorry!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I both agree and disagree. I agree that there is no lens maker that has or ever will produce the highest quality for every model everytime. But I disagree that there's only little difference. There *are* certain lens models from different makers that have been proven to give superior sharpness and contrast.x-ray said:
We have pretty much agreed, tonality is different, it doesn't depend so much on the lens, as it is on film type/speed/grain/etc. *And* post-processing. When I see X-ray's sample pictures, tonality-wise, I see a well-exposed film.
Little to do with the lens as he said.
This is part of what makes film photography so exciting for me, because the recording medium has so many variables. Until we can swap sensors in a digital camera like we do film type, I don't get this amazement from digital.
What do you guys think about this one?
The highlights are a little bit blown in some parts because of the agressive sharpening by flickr, but in print, it looks good.
x-ray
Veteran
Shadowfox, nice shot! Delicate tones and well done. You captured the personality.
No question all lenses aren't created equal in sharpness and contrast or in general. Tonality is the issue here and contrast plays a part here which relates to one of the big issues I rant about often, FLARE. Flare is a contrast killer and detail killer in the shadows. No you can't overcome this in development or printing. If shadow detail is masked by flare then no amount of processing or printing will add detail that's lost.
I honestly do believer almost any modern lens will do the job and do it well in competent hands. No lens will do the job in incompetent hands. There is no magic bullet or lens that will make any of our pictures better if we aren't competent and skilled photographers. Chasing the magic lens only fattens the pockets of the people selling them and does not improve the final photographic result.
Consider the quality of equipment at the turn of the 20th century or even go back to 1890. I think most of us would agree that lenses have drametically improved since then and so has film or emulsions. Now take a look at the stunning images that Timothy O'Sullivan, Mathew Brady, Edward Curtis and Julia Margaret Cameron made with the equipment of the time. Stone age technology produced timeless images of stunning quality. Go back and look at August Sander, Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Lewis Hine, Walker Evans and other photographers of the period and then think about what they had to shoot with in lenses and and film. It wasn't a magic lens that made them what they are it was their creativity and their technical skill. None of them ever thought of MTF curves, micro or macro contrast or would have even cared. There was no Erwin Puts to guide their decision either.
No question all lenses aren't created equal in sharpness and contrast or in general. Tonality is the issue here and contrast plays a part here which relates to one of the big issues I rant about often, FLARE. Flare is a contrast killer and detail killer in the shadows. No you can't overcome this in development or printing. If shadow detail is masked by flare then no amount of processing or printing will add detail that's lost.
I honestly do believer almost any modern lens will do the job and do it well in competent hands. No lens will do the job in incompetent hands. There is no magic bullet or lens that will make any of our pictures better if we aren't competent and skilled photographers. Chasing the magic lens only fattens the pockets of the people selling them and does not improve the final photographic result.
Consider the quality of equipment at the turn of the 20th century or even go back to 1890. I think most of us would agree that lenses have drametically improved since then and so has film or emulsions. Now take a look at the stunning images that Timothy O'Sullivan, Mathew Brady, Edward Curtis and Julia Margaret Cameron made with the equipment of the time. Stone age technology produced timeless images of stunning quality. Go back and look at August Sander, Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Lewis Hine, Walker Evans and other photographers of the period and then think about what they had to shoot with in lenses and and film. It wasn't a magic lens that made them what they are it was their creativity and their technical skill. None of them ever thought of MTF curves, micro or macro contrast or would have even cared. There was no Erwin Puts to guide their decision either.
x-ray
Veteran
oscroft said:
I don't question that you feel you can see a difference but I will wager that no one here can tell what I shot any image with. I shoot with a wide array of lenses and equipment and have never see anyone that can say this was a 50 summicron, 80mm planar or that was a 210 Symmar-S or 135 Xenar (tessar) or any other lens. The only way I know is from notes or remembering what equipment I was using at the time.
Sparrow
Veteran
x-ray said:
Xray do you think “good tonality” is necessary for a successful image? I‘m thinking of hat ubiquitous image of Chi Guevara; one of the most recognised photos
Ororaro
Well-known
x-ray said:
When I was 16 (all the way through 23 years old) I was a dark room freak. I knew exactly what lenses I used only by looking at the photos. The secret was always in the Boke. But I also learned to discern the sharpness differences.
By looking at my negs I knew exactly how to print, dodge and burn ala perfection without a single test strip.
Granted, I was a total freak but I liked being a darkroom Wiz.
x-ray
Veteran
Sparrow said:
No, absolute sharpness isn't either. I have an original print of Dorothia Langes migrant mother with her children and DL missed the focus but it's doesn't make the image any less a masterpiece.
NB23, stunning work and certainly a cut above. I wouldn't say I hit each print exactly without a test but I get close. It all comes cown to knowing your own negs and consistency in exposure and process.
Ororaro
Well-known
x-ray said:
Of course!
But that's more then 10 years ago now. I have to admit that at my present point I have to start it all over again... or almost. I know what I like and what I don't, but scanning negatives isn't exactly a good measurement device for judging negatives.
A loupe, a light table and a wet print is the only real way to look at tonality and to judge films. IMO.
x-ray
Veteran
NB23 said:
Exactly the way I feel. This is where 90% of the character comes from IMO.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
x-ray said:
You mean the loupe's lens?
awilder
Alan Wilder
Thanks for the posted images and explanations. What got me to asking the question is that when people now compare ZM lenses to current Leica M, some mention the superior tonality of some ZM lenses like the 50/2 Planar. I suppose what they are referring may be tied into contrast where the Leica lenses may have higher contrast at low spatial frequencies like 5 lp/mm giving greater macro-contrast. Correct me if I'm wrong.
colinh
Well-known
Since nobody has showed an example of BAD tonality, let me oblige
The lens is the current summicron 50, and the film Delta 100.
I must have messed up exposure and/or development drastically
colin
The lens is the current summicron 50, and the film Delta 100.
I must have messed up exposure and/or development drastically
colin
d_ross
Registered User
I agree xray
I agree xray
a thousand dollars spent on film and processing will always preduce better picture than a thousand dollars spent on another lens!
I agree xray
a thousand dollars spent on film and processing will always preduce better picture than a thousand dollars spent on another lens!
Samsam
Established
great gallery NB23, is it scanned negs or scanned prints from the darkroom ?
To answer the thread, i would say that tonality really depends on personal tastes. I mean there's no tonality in Ralph gibson work you only see BLACK and WHITE, but i find his pics so great, it gives a special character
I also have the impression that tonality depends more on the film chosen and how it's processed than the choice of lens.
To answer the thread, i would say that tonality really depends on personal tastes. I mean there's no tonality in Ralph gibson work you only see BLACK and WHITE, but i find his pics so great, it gives a special character
I also have the impression that tonality depends more on the film chosen and how it's processed than the choice of lens.