Canon LTM Is this the "Glow"? if not, what?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
A

alexnotalex

Well-known
Local time
4:33 PM
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
446
Hi Folks

i've always been really enchanted with how my Summar renders people and gentle colour with pleasing depth and separation. I guess this is the glow I read about ...

Anyway, I just got my hands on a Nikkor-H.C 5cm f2 and shot a test roll. The results are similarly enchanting, but a little less gently violent in the separation.

So, dear RFF fans,
1. is this really the fabled "glow"? (if not, what?)
2. which lenses do you find gives this effect?
3. which of the below do you prefer?

Many thanks, I'm learning every day... thanks to RFF

Alex

Nikkor-HC, Fuji C200, 5pm August England
4860450527_a25eef0bdd.jpg


Summar Fuji Supera ISO200, near sunset, Tenerife, good light
4861304194_ce2fd18c1a.jpg
 
I once heard "glow" described as nothing more than a bunch of uncorrected lens aberrations.

I really don't see any "glow" in your picture. Looks sharp and contrasty to me.

Jim B.
 
Thanks for the info. I thought glow was a good thing to have...

What words then do we use to describe the wonderful separation of my daughter from the background?

is this the 3D effect... plastic effect??

much thanks
 
alexnotalex said:
Thanks for the info. I thought glow was a good thing to have...

What words then do we use to describe the wonderful separation of my daughter from the background?

is this the 3D effect... plastic effect??

much thanks
Click to expand...

It can be a good thing to have, when used right.
Yes, it may be uncorrected lens abrasions... by design, or by lack of know how, or it may be corrected by design also.. It depends on what the maker wanted.

Zeiss makes two designs for 50mm lenses... Sonnar: is a little soft wide open, or the Planar: which is sharp wide open. Giving you the choice of the effect you want by picking one design over another.

I think this 3D effect, is more a DOF effect. Depending on how lens treats OOF areas.
 
I had a nice copy of a Summar that I sold... Wonderful lens with a very unique distinctive and pleasing signature. Your 1st picture is showing up unavailable but your second is classic Summar. Gentle, pleasing color rendition, sharp "enough", very low contrast wide open, and a more dimensional quality than any other lens I've ever used. And - yes, most definitely a glow.
 
It's not the "glow" that people often say about old Leica glasses, but Nikkor-HC 50/2 is one damn good lens for portrait. And very compact, too!

4847461065_fc898283c4_z.jpg
 
Three shots with the Summar that typify, for me, "the glow."

To me it almost looks like the reflected highlights are causing a slight flare. I imagine this has something to do with the lack of coating. I don't know enough about optics to speculate further.

0024100_0024100-R2-075-36.jpg


U31545I1260674546.SEQ.0.jpg


U31545I1276230857.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Hey, what's up with Flickr? They've made some changes and I can't seem to link any more...
 
Last edited:
Glow, to me, is veiling flare. Your shot in your first post (below the one that's blank) shows classic Leica 3D effect. In my experience, only some of the Leica lenses and all of the Heliar lenses consistently give this effect. I like it a lot.
 
Here's another shot, same subject, shallow DOF, with my Nikon D40 kit lens. Nice result, but the Summar and the Nikkor HC are nicer in my humble opinion (this is rangefinder forum after all)
4864372224_d7025fa0f3.jpg


why? with the old glass
- the out of focus areas are more pleasing
- the colours are more luminous... cooler?
- lower contrast and more detail
- i'm tempted to say the nikkor HC (swing) pic is sharper than the D40 above but unsure

there's another effect where the subject seems to pop out more with the old glass but I'm not sure of the words to use. For me they all have DOF.

Interesting thread, thanks for all of your contributions and patience with a reborn rangefinder fan.

Alex
 
What I see in the Nikkor-HC shots is very high contrast and micro-contrast what makes anything in focus stand out. This effect can be boosted in post processing ...
 
Matus said:
What I see in the Nikkor-HC shots is very high contrast and micro-contrast what makes anything in focus stand out. This effect can be boosted in post processing ...
Click to expand...

ah now those are interesting words, I'll try to use them correctly.
many thanks!
 
The Summar and Nikkor-HC results look like what I see in my mind when I close my eyes. The D40 Nikkor, what I see with my eyes open.
 
Breathe on the front element of your lens and then quickly take a picture. You'll have your glow right there.
 
Last edited:
alexnotalex said:
Here's another shot, same subject, shallow DOF, with my Nikon D40 kit lens. Nice result, but the Summar and the Nikkor HC are nicer in my humble opinion (this is rangefinder forum after all)
4864372224_d7025fa0f3.jpg


why? with the old glass
- the out of focus areas are more pleasing
- the colours are more luminous... cooler?
- lower contrast and more detail
- i'm tempted to say the nikkor HC (swing) pic is sharper than the D40 above but unsure

there's another effect where the subject seems to pop out more with the old glass but I'm not sure of the words to use. For me they all have DOF.

Interesting thread, thanks for all of your contributions and patience with a reborn rangefinder fan.

Alex
Click to expand...

What you see here is mostly just a lack of postprocessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom