Vintage35
Established
I want to get the proper terminology for a "contrasty" lens... does contrasty mean it (the lens) has good balance between shadow and highlights, ie. you can see detail in both shadows and highlights on a properly exposed negative making a Contrasty lens a good thing? or is it the opposite? ie dark shadows and washed out highlights, you need a almost flat scene on a cloudy day to get a good picture making a contrasty lens a bad thing...
In other words, when someone says "this is a real contrasty lens" what do they mean?
In other words, when someone says "this is a real contrasty lens" what do they mean?
benmacphoto
Well-known
I've used it, and have read others using it, in a positive way to describe a lens.
Meaning a lens "creates" a contrasty image, rather than a flat image.
Some may prefer the look, while others enjoy less contrast.
Meaning a lens "creates" a contrasty image, rather than a flat image.
Some may prefer the look, while others enjoy less contrast.
Richard G
Veteran
Lower contrast is a feature of older lenses. Some modern lenses are almost too contrasty, such as the Leica f2.8 Elmarit ASPH 28. Contrasty means, as you say, that the blacks might block, and the whites might blow. I could have one or the other, and can usually avoid both. I like that lens, but it is certainly a look, and many prefer the much more expensive 28 Summicron ASPH, as I do myself. The tonality from that lens is gorgeous. Older lenses compress the dynamic range as it were. I've noticed I am getting more cloud detail when I use a 1951 Summaron. Just now I've been looking at some Edward Steichen portraits. What genius with lighting he had. The one on the back cover of Conrad Viedt has a white shirt cuff and cigarette, but there is no black almost, just a lovely gradation through the various tones of grey. You don't want a very high contrast lens to get that look.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I don't think high contrast could ever be a lens fault, or that any lens could put more contrast into the light exiting the lens than there was entering it. If the light entering has 100% contrast, there could not be 101% exiting it. But some lenses reduce contrast when internal reflections infuse some of the light from highlight areas into shadow areas. For example, I get lighter shadows in the same scene, with my collapsible Summicron, than with my Summicron 11817, the one made from 1969 to 1979.
It's been said that high contrast lenses are great for color, while more moderate ones are just right for black and white. I doubt if that's always true, since when shooting slide film, a too-contrasty lens could blow the highlights in color film, or in a digital shot; but might make a black and white shot punchier.
So I suppose it boils down to what Ben said, and Richard said: It's all about what works best for a given shot, or a given film and developer combination, or the lighting. Or, about personal preference. Still, with both color digital and with black and white work, film or digital, it's easier to add contrast than to reduce it!
It's been said that high contrast lenses are great for color, while more moderate ones are just right for black and white. I doubt if that's always true, since when shooting slide film, a too-contrasty lens could blow the highlights in color film, or in a digital shot; but might make a black and white shot punchier.
So I suppose it boils down to what Ben said, and Richard said: It's all about what works best for a given shot, or a given film and developer combination, or the lighting. Or, about personal preference. Still, with both color digital and with black and white work, film or digital, it's easier to add contrast than to reduce it!
Sparrow
Veteran
... well, I think if we accept good and bad bokeh as a concept then contrast should also be good or bad, otherwise I won't know where I am
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Contrast reduction is a matter of veiling flare, i.e. light that bounces about inside the lens and camera body and ends up on the film/sensor. In the highlights it's irrelevant, because it's a small percentage of illumination, but it lightens the shadows and thereby reduces contrast.
Go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps choosing lenses 1.html and scroll about half way down for "Is it contrasty" where as I point out "In fact, in the 1950s many people preferred uncoated lenses for colour, too, as it helped to control what was then seen as the excessive contrast of Kodachrome."
Cheers,
R.
Go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps choosing lenses 1.html and scroll about half way down for "Is it contrasty" where as I point out "In fact, in the 1950s many people preferred uncoated lenses for colour, too, as it helped to control what was then seen as the excessive contrast of Kodachrome."
Cheers,
R.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Dralowid
Michael
Simple.
Contrasty = not like a Summar
Contrasty = not like a Summar
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
A lens does not transmit darkness, so a contrasty lens would not make one any more likely to lose shadow detail than a low contrast lens. Indeed it would be the opposite, more contrast = more detail.
A lens with low contrast "fills" the shadows with stray light. If one then prints those shadows as black the result is less apparent detail because the shadows have been "washed" with light making them brighter overall in the camera.
A lens with low contrast "fills" the shadows with stray light. If one then prints those shadows as black the result is less apparent detail because the shadows have been "washed" with light making them brighter overall in the camera.
daveleo
what?
Since we are detailing terminology here . . . .
Is "color contrast" a reality different from "contrast" ?
For example, a polarizer reduces glare, separates colors, but I don't think that it blocks up shadows or burns out highlights, so I don't think that it changes overall image contrast. (Do I ?
)
Is "color contrast" a reality different from "contrast" ?
For example, a polarizer reduces glare, separates colors, but I don't think that it blocks up shadows or burns out highlights, so I don't think that it changes overall image contrast. (Do I ?
)
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think when people talk about "color" contrast in photography what they really mean is saturation rather than actual color contrast which would depend on the colors in the scene being photographed.
mfogiel
Veteran
Then there is also the micro contrast, which is a capacity to "etch out" details in fine textures. This is directly related to the resolution, but also the coatings play a role. For example, I never could quite understand, why most Japanese lenses, even when sharp at the first glance, are unable to generate this high micro contrast, typical of Zeiss glass. Going back to the issue of macro contrast, Roger is obviously right - in a way, most low contrast lenses re simply "bad lenses" - with lots of stray light inside the barrel. But again, I am quite puzzled with the performance of Bronica RF glass, which I find pretty sharp and up to modern standards, yet it has extremely good shadow detail compared to, e.g. Contax 645 Zeiss lenses.
Contax 645
MF20145306 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Bronica RF 645
MF20144710 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Contax 645
MF20145306 by mfogiel, on FlickrBronica RF 645
MF20144710 by mfogiel, on Flickr
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
dave,
you can't compare the effect of a polarizer to the properties of a high contrast lens. looking at the lens alone, contrast and colour contrast are related, but not exactly the same. if a lens is contrasty over the full range of the spectrum, it will seperate colours nicely, yielding colour contrast.
but the polarizer does something different: it takes away half of the light, the part where the light waves are oriented differently than the polarizer's orientation. because in some cases, light comes in different orientation depending on the wavelength, this can lead to higher colour contrast. basically, the polarizer changes the way you (or the sensor or the film, respectively) see the scene, thus resulting in a different picture.
cheers,
sebastian
you can't compare the effect of a polarizer to the properties of a high contrast lens. looking at the lens alone, contrast and colour contrast are related, but not exactly the same. if a lens is contrasty over the full range of the spectrum, it will seperate colours nicely, yielding colour contrast.
but the polarizer does something different: it takes away half of the light, the part where the light waves are oriented differently than the polarizer's orientation. because in some cases, light comes in different orientation depending on the wavelength, this can lead to higher colour contrast. basically, the polarizer changes the way you (or the sensor or the film, respectively) see the scene, thus resulting in a different picture.
cheers,
sebastian
pgk
Well-known
Well put Roger. Can I just add that a no lens can deliver 100% contrast due to some (albeit small) degree of veiling flare and that 'low contrast lenses' supply less 'information' than 'high contrast ones'. So post precessing to boost contrast actually 'stretches' tonal information and adjusts tonality.
Next,can I just say that there appears to be some confusion (isn't there always?) between overall lens contrast and micro-contrast (as shown in MTF data). This causes no end of muddle from the discussions that I have seen and the two should be kept separate!
Sparrow
Veteran
... is micro contract better than ordinary contrast then? I've always wondered about that
daveleo
what?
Opinions vary (what's new?) on that.
I generally do not like to make (I'll call them ) high micro-contrast images.
I love the look of Japanese lenses (referred to above by mfogiel) that are sharp, but have this softer feeling to them.
Minolta Rokkors are my best example. The Konica Hexar AF lens is (to my eye) another.
A Zeiss Softar filter has a similar, but stronger effect.
Most images I show people, I have softened to some extent. So, again, it's a personal choice.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thank'ee kindly.
Highlight: of course you're right. I'd love to know where people think the extra contrast comes from at 100%+. You can easily to lose contrast in post production but you can't add it: you can only, as you say, "stretch" it. I can't easily think of a better way of describing it.
And again as you say, although resolution and contrast are intimately related, they sure as hell ain't the same thing.
Cheers,
R.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
A lens with lower contrast does N O T increase level of details in the shadows or highlights.
That would mean a lens could add signal to a certain signal to noise ratio.
No.
A low contrast lens is low contrast generally because too much light is bouncing around inside the lens elements or between lens elements due to design, coating, damage on surfaces etc. This light will then increase exposure of areas that would normally be dark BUT it will increase exposure with a quite uniform light (over the whole frame). It's "useless light" as i'd call it.
It will NOT add extra details.
In case of lenses, high contrast is NOT the same as pushing the contrast slider up in Photoshop. Highest contrast of a lens theoretically would be actually transmitting the ideal image. An ideal lens with respect to the level of details in an image would be 100% transparent i.e. preserving the full contrast of the scene.
If someone likes lower contrast lens (i mean the images made by it), that is a subjective thing. It either means, his postprocessing (digital or wet) is not ideal, leading to perceived "better" image with the low contrast lens than with high contrast lens, or that he simply likes losing some shadow/highlight details (which is OK in many cases).
High/low contrast of a scene due to the LIGHT being of different nature (pointlike source vs diffuse source) is a different story. There a low contrast scene CAN give higher shadow or highlight details than a high contrast scene of course (independent of the lens).
Same for film, or processing; higher contrast can indeed suppress details.
That would mean a lens could add signal to a certain signal to noise ratio.
No.
A low contrast lens is low contrast generally because too much light is bouncing around inside the lens elements or between lens elements due to design, coating, damage on surfaces etc. This light will then increase exposure of areas that would normally be dark BUT it will increase exposure with a quite uniform light (over the whole frame). It's "useless light" as i'd call it.
It will NOT add extra details.
In case of lenses, high contrast is NOT the same as pushing the contrast slider up in Photoshop. Highest contrast of a lens theoretically would be actually transmitting the ideal image. An ideal lens with respect to the level of details in an image would be 100% transparent i.e. preserving the full contrast of the scene.
If someone likes lower contrast lens (i mean the images made by it), that is a subjective thing. It either means, his postprocessing (digital or wet) is not ideal, leading to perceived "better" image with the low contrast lens than with high contrast lens, or that he simply likes losing some shadow/highlight details (which is OK in many cases).
High/low contrast of a scene due to the LIGHT being of different nature (pointlike source vs diffuse source) is a different story. There a low contrast scene CAN give higher shadow or highlight details than a high contrast scene of course (independent of the lens).
Same for film, or processing; higher contrast can indeed suppress details.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
exactly as Rob wrote, sorry have not read all replies before i sent my own
There's one more aspect, namely the transmittivity of the lens vs. wavelength which CAN slightly change from lens to lens. In black and white this manifests as difference in "tonality". But this strongly depends on the scene (i.e. what colors you have in the scene that you photograph).
A lens that wold e.g. give slightly bluer color image, will make the blue sky a bit lighter on a BW photo of course.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
exactly. Therefore,
1. it does not add detail, only makes existing shadows lighter
2. it does not keep highlights from blocking - actually it even blocks highlights more, since it adds a tiny bit of extra unifom exposure to the highlights too, but this is tiny so it might not matter.
If you get less blown highlights with a less contrasty lens on the same scene, film, processing, postprocessing compared to a more contrasty lens, it only means your exposure is not the same. E.g. the metering got fooled. Or, even with full manual and therefore identically theoretical exposure, a lower contrast lens will let less light through (a tiny bit) which might help not blowing the highlight.
Take this example:
You have a street lamp on the black night background. The lamp produces an amount x of light that is captured buy a say f/2 lens.
A contrasty lens transmits some 99% of the light hitting its front surface and focuses all of this on the image of the lamp, keeping the background as black as it is.
A less contrasty lens, on the other hand, transmits say 90% of the light that hits its front surface and focuses this on the image of the lamp so it gives less exposure to the lamp. Additionally, from the thrown away 10% something like 5% will be reflected back towards the scene, 2% absorbed by the lens' edge or other camera parts painted black, and say 3% will be, after several internal reflections, hitting the film on a randpom spot (thus adding uniform exposure increase). So the lamp itself willl have only 93% of the full light compared to the 99% of the high contrast lens, while the background will have 3% extra.
If you were exposing EXACTLY for the highlights, i.e. to get the lamp the same brightness for both scenes, you'd need to increase the exposure time slightly to bump up the lamp highlight to the 99% but then you'd bump up the shadows' black even further. This way you change exposure - you DO get possibly more shadow details due to the longer exposure but you do need to change exposure time. (Or aperture.) If, however, you do NOT change the exposure, you do get some extra exposure in your black shadow but you do NOT get extra detail there, only a uniform greyness.