Image Characteristics: Development vs Lens

[brothernature]

Hi all,

I'm going through the, familiar to many of you I'm sure, distraction of "should I change lenses". I have one of the newer Leica lenses and while contemplating switching to something older and reading comparisons, I can't help but wonder if every lens "review" is somewhat meaningless when talking about image characteristics. There are so many factors that come into play like what film stock, how was it processed, how was it scanned, did they edit after, did they shake the camera, etc, that unless the comparisons are extremely controlled, most seem useless (outside talking about build quality/physical differences).

My question is, can the "look" of older lenses be achieved through changing how you develop your film?

If my goal is to get a low contrast negative, with as much shadow detail as possible, and later control contrast through printing, will I hit a limitation using a newer ASPH lens?

Thanks,

 

[charjohncarter]

I suppose you could reduce the straight line portion of the H&D curve (Gamma) by reducing your development time. Thereby reducing mid-tone contrast. Shadow detail may be only slightly diminished as shadows fully develop more completely quicker, but it you feel you are losing shadow detail you could increase exposure.

Also, if you feel your blue sky photos aren't developing completely you could change your film stock to Tmax 400 (-2). This is what Kodak Alaris has to say about Tmax blue sensitivity:

The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX
Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak panchromatic
black-and-white films. This enables the response of this
film to be closer to the response of the human eye.
Therefore, blues may be recorded as slightly darker tones
with this film—a more natural rendition.

 

[Ronald M]

Years ago I took the same forest scene with a single coated and multicoated Leica lens. Same F #, same shutter, same roll of medium speed film, same time.

Single had very slightly less shadow detail and much less contrast in the shadows. Overall contrast was similar.

Go totally uncoated to get the effect you want.

Before changing lenses at all, use split grade printing. Dodge the shadows a little with #5 exposure or use 0 and 4.

Try cutting development time 10%, maybe print 0-3.5. and just a touch with 4 or 5. 4x6 prints are enough to see what happens.

My opinion is you can not get the look of an uncoated lens by chang developer time or type.

 

[retinax]

Other characteristics of a lens can't be simply imitated, but these parameters are easily influenced. You can get the contrast pretty much as low as you want with less development, and as much shadow detail as you want with more exposure.

 

[Ambro51]

Get yourself a Summar. Nothing beats a Summar when it comes to getting a Vintage today look. Use flare and reflections in your favor, without fighting them. If you want a film that gives strong dark details try Burgger 400 Pan.

 

[jawarden]

My question is, can the "look" of older lenses be achieved through changing how you develop your film?

Not really. You can reduce or increase contrast with exposure and developing techniques regardless of the lens used whether vintage or modern, so if your goal is less contrast and more shadow detail you can get there from here with your current lens. But changing contrast alone does not make a modern lens look vintage because vintage lenses have a different aesthetic that relates to more than simply contrast. There is also distortion, flare, uncoated lenses, unsharpness, scratches or fungus, etc that all have an impact on the negative.

I don't think you need a new lens just yet though. I'd suggest experimenting with exposure and developing techniques first and see if you can get closer to your goal. If you prove to yourself that you need vintage glass then go for it.

 

[brothernature]

Thanks everyone. What I'm interested in is preserving shadow detail, and capturing as much information as possible in the negative (à la Henry Wessel). I have been told that this is easier with older lenses because they are less contrasty. Now I might be confused as to what the "look" of an older lens really is, if it's not contrast. I have heard people describe it as a softer transition between areas in focus and areas out, does anyone have a good/close-to-scientific comparison of the two?

 

[charjohncarter]

I can't tell the difference between my lenses from 1953 and my newest lens which is about 6 years old. I'm very much like you, Henry Wessel is one of favorites. I especially like his rendition in his images from LA on sun filled days. He used Trix and a Cannon 28mm lens from the 50s. He also, stated once that his secret for shadows was to give lots of exposure.

I took this to heart, I use Trix but have found the Tmax films give me a little more shadow detail than Trix; I shoot them at half the recommended speed.

This is Tmax 100 done as above:

Tmax100 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

Tmax100 at 50 HC110h by John Carter, on Flickr

I would be careful about trying to find a vintage look lens, like I said I can't tell the difference. Some of the people on RFF seem to think it is possible but I've never been tempted to get into the wild goose chase.

 

[brothernature]

I can't tell the difference between my lenses from 1953 and my newest lens which is about 6 years old. I'm very much like you, Henry Wessel is one of favorites. I especially like his rendition in his images from LA on sun filled days. He used Trix and a Cannon 28mm lens from the 50s. He also, stated once that his secret for shadows was to give lots of exposure.

I took this to heart, I use Trix but have found the Tmax films give me a little more shadow detail than Trix; I shoot them at half the recommended speed.

This is Tmax 100 done as above:
Tmax100 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr
Tmax100 at 50 HC110h by John Carter, on Flickr

I would be careful about trying to find a vintage look lens, like I said I can't tell the difference. Some of the people on RFF seem to think it is possible but I've never been tempted to get into the wild goode chase.

Thanks John. I have been experimenting with Bergger Pancro 400 shot at ~250 in HC-110. So far I'm having a hard time controlling the grain. I might be going back to HP5, but maybe I'll give Tmax a shot.

Shadow detail and tonal gradation are really all I'm after, I think I was confused by how people talk about the "classic look". I think I'll stick with the lens I have.

 

[Erik van Straten]

For a fifties-effect, nothing beats the first version of the Summilux 50mm f/1.4: lanthanum glass and a superb coating.

LeicaMP/Summilux50mmf/1.4v1blackpaint/TMY400/IlfordMGFB

Erik.

 

[charjohncarter]

Thanks John. I think I was confused by how people talk about the "classic look". I think I'll stick with the lens I have.

I agree, if you want anything from me, you can just PM me. I'm far from Henry Wessel, but you can get from me anything about development, agitation, temperature that you desire.

I have a Cannon lens from the same vintage that Henry used (mine is a 35mm), but I still don't see any perceived vintage look. And I didn't buy it to imitate our friend Henry. I just bought it. It is fine but I have never thought it had any advantage over my latest modern purchase.

As you say 'ala Henry Wessel' I like this one (for shadow detail):

Tmax400, I love this image, my wife's cousin; still lots of shadows in LA. I used a Rolleiflex from the 1960s, for me everything worked:

2006 Rolleiflex (645 mask) Tmax400 by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[SyPat]

Hi all,
My question is, can the "look" of older lenses be achieved through changing how you develop your film?

This is a very good question. In my opinion, the major change is not in lenses or developing technics, but in film composition. Modern films are better than older ones as far as resolution and contrast are concerned, but the are also less flexibles to expose and to develop.

 

[charjohncarter]

This is a very good question. In my opinion, the major change is not in lenses or developing technics, but in film composition. Modern films are better than older ones as far as resolution and contrast are concerned, but the are also less flexibles to expose and to develop.

This is true, but you can still 'shape' your H&D curve through development time, temp and agitation. The ability to 'compress' your range of stops has somewhat been lost. So, high contrast scenes are more difficult to calm down. A master of this technique is John Sexton, and it appears to me that he has to resort to extreme measures to achieve this level of compression.

One of his famous shots taken in a hangar with the space shuttle was one of these very high contrast challenges. Apparently, you could read the writing on the light bulbs along with having adequate shadow values. Here is his write up on this technique when using modern films:

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf

and the image to the right as it appeared in his newsletter:

https://www.google.com/search?q=joh...ECAwQAw&biw=1280&bih=881#imgrc=r_sLo9om-kOFPM

 

[SyPat]

In my opinion, one of the reasons for the big problems of the filmmaking industry (besides the appearance of electronic devices) is that all films (when they exist) tend to look the same. Today, who can tell the difference between HP5 + and Tri-X from a print? Decades ago, it was possible to visually recognize from the print whether the photo was taken on an APX-100, FP4 or Plus-X, but today?