RobGetz
Member
Hello again,
I've been posting often these past few days, but I do have a few questions I'd like to get off my chest.
I notice the images that come out of rangefinder users are much sharper and, in particular, much more contrasty than those with other cameras. Seems like highlights in particular are blown (not a bad thing, per say) in addition to general high contrast curve, grain visibility.
Is this because rangefinder lenses are, in general, coated for higher contrast?
Or is it because those who shoot with rangefinders tend, with development, film, and software, to chase an aesthetic that involves bolder contrast and accentuates grain? I see a lot of rodinal users here.
Thank you
I've been posting often these past few days, but I do have a few questions I'd like to get off my chest.
I notice the images that come out of rangefinder users are much sharper and, in particular, much more contrasty than those with other cameras. Seems like highlights in particular are blown (not a bad thing, per say) in addition to general high contrast curve, grain visibility.
Is this because rangefinder lenses are, in general, coated for higher contrast?
Or is it because those who shoot with rangefinders tend, with development, film, and software, to chase an aesthetic that involves bolder contrast and accentuates grain? I see a lot of rodinal users here.
Thank you
goamules
Well-known
Those are some sweeping generalizations that I have not noticed. Some shots are sharp, but a lot are not. Some are flat, some contrasty. Some use uncoated lenses to get the former. Films, developers, and post processing differ. Scanning differs. You can get as many looks with rangefinders as you can with SLRs or Large Format.
ChrisN
Striving
Nothing you see in a web interface will necessarily be a true reflection of the image captured by the camera. There are just too many variables in capture format, post-capture processing, format and quality of the processed image, the way different browsers draw an image, and finally the monitor you are looking at (and probably another dozen variables I haven't named). You'd need to study negatives, or RAW files, to make any defensible conclusions.
DamenS
Well-known
"I notice the images that come out of rangefinder users are much sharper and, in particular, much more contrasty than those with other cameras. Seems like highlights in particular are blown (not a bad thing, per say) in addition to general high contrast curve, grain visibility."
I do not notice this. I have never (to the best of my recollection) heard anyone else make a generalisation of this order or magnitude. I suspect your sample size is too small or that there is some other problem with your comparison basis.
I do not notice this. I have never (to the best of my recollection) heard anyone else make a generalisation of this order or magnitude. I suspect your sample size is too small or that there is some other problem with your comparison basis.
wolves3012
Veteran
Possibly RF users are a bit more artistic and tend to go for something less conventional in some aspect of a shot but otherwise I can't see any evidence for this. Sweeping generalisations, before anyone takes me to task.
No. There's only one fundamental difference between an RF and an SLR - you don't compose via the taking lens on an RF. As a side-effect of not having the constraints of a mirror-box, the lens designer does have a bit more freedom for some lenses but that's about it. Why would the designer of an RF lens strive for some superior quality, particularly as RF lenses are likely to be lower volume in sales?
Again, I don't see it as particularly so. You may have just not seen enough shots from both "breeds" to make a fair comparison. RFs lend themselves better to some types of photography (such as street etc) and SLRs are vastly superior for other things (like macro and micro, for instance). Maybe you're seeing that effect?
I wouldn't confuse processing choices with lens signature.
With digital B&W, I find that I use a lot more contrast vs. film simply because digital B&W images at low contrast can be dull and boring. Perhaps it's the lack of that glowing silver?
With digital B&W, I find that I use a lot more contrast vs. film simply because digital B&W images at low contrast can be dull and boring. Perhaps it's the lack of that glowing silver?
mfogiel
Veteran
Unless you are talking about digital B&W, which is often looking like pushed film, and is generally all sharpness and little tonality, then I would disagree. There might be a slight edge in sharpness due to less vibrations, better lens designs, and mainly high quality lenses as opposed to average lenses, but that's it.
This should be a typical RF shot: street, Summicron 35mm v3, Tri X
20113505 by mfogiel, on Flickr
This should be a typical RF shot: street, Summicron 35mm v3, Tri X
20113505 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Ronald M
Veteran
I get almost the same image from digital or film Leica RF compared to Leica R film or nikon dslr. Certainly there are subtle differences in that tele lenses are better for reflex cameras and wide lenses are better for RF cameras , but they are more technical and not aesthetic and you certainly will not see them on the web. As a stand alone image, I could not tell them apart.
Any differences you see will be from using older lens designs such as uncoated glass or the result of unskilled scanning or photoshop processing. Photoshop processing/scanning is a skilled not mastered in a year or two unless you are a full time professional. There has to be a vision in your head about how a photo is lacking or how it can be changed for the better. Ansel Adams refereed to it as visualization. It is a skill that must be developed over time. I am learning to paint in water color and oil and the process is much the same. Darkroom work is exactly the same.
So what you see on the net is people with various levels of talent and skill.
Any differences you see will be from using older lens designs such as uncoated glass or the result of unskilled scanning or photoshop processing. Photoshop processing/scanning is a skilled not mastered in a year or two unless you are a full time professional. There has to be a vision in your head about how a photo is lacking or how it can be changed for the better. Ansel Adams refereed to it as visualization. It is a skill that must be developed over time. I am learning to paint in water color and oil and the process is much the same. Darkroom work is exactly the same.
So what you see on the net is people with various levels of talent and skill.
RobGetz
Member
Wow, glad I didn't use my real name when I registered, because you would think I stole a baby or something.
I'll think about the responses here. But I'm surprised not a single person agrees with me. Especially about whether or not those who use rangefinders are drawn to a particular aesthetic that is on average different than those who use other formats.
I'll think about the responses here. But I'm surprised not a single person agrees with me. Especially about whether or not those who use rangefinders are drawn to a particular aesthetic that is on average different than those who use other formats.
DamenS
Well-known
No baby stealing. You asked a question and got honest answers. It may disappoint you that no-one agreed with you, but don't take it personally; unless you are intimately and intractably beholden to the ideas you currently hold and will brook no dissent - in which case, I guess it IS personal. I was actually surprised to find that you were surprised that no-one agreed with you given the sweeping nature of your assertions/questions.
Perhaps it may offer slight mollification if I were to agree in part; I do believe that people who ENTIRELY use a rangefinder (not just primarily use one), may be seeking a different aesthetic from SOME other camera users, in both a compositional and subject matter sense. This is true in that macro, fish-eye and extreme telephoto shots will not be part of their chosen compositional aesthetic and fast moving, long distance events (sports/wildlife) will not GENERALLY be the subject matter to which they are primarily attracted. As regards the actual aesthetics of rangefinder users' photos being different (on average) from all other camera users in any other way, I still just don't see it.
Given this has surprised you, and you have a very clear and definitive viewpoint on the issue, perhaps it would be interesting to hear your further elucidation on what you believe this aesthetic difference to be (which you certainly touched on in your original post), and perhaps a postulation on why you believe this aesthetic difference might exist. I would certainly find that interesting whether I was to agree with you or not.