Lens contrast: does is many any difference?

[Gabriel M.A.]

For those of us that are only interested in the final output and consider histograms no more than one of the tools to get there, what is the difference in lens contrast?

It's the SISO (cr@p in, cr@p out) rule: if you use a high-contrast lens where you want to register all details in the shadows and highlights in a very low-contrast scene, then you preserve all those details. If that is not your goal, you use any lens you'd like. If that is your goal, but change your mind later, you can then turn up the contrast for the final image.

Like you said: tools, final image...etc. If ultimately one doesn't care, then one shouldn't care, and why should one care that others care if one doesn't care in the first place?

Who's got the Cheetos?

 

[Turtle]

I think it is more of an issue with digital for reasons already mentioned, but if I shoot with an old Summaron and then a Biogon the difference is fairly substantial if the shots are on the same roll. This can be more than one paper grade and if you are already knocking on the high of low ends of what your enlarger can manage in terms of contrast then it is an issue.

I have a very low contrast 8x10 enlarger and generally print up and around G3.5. If I plonk on a 35 summaron and shoot and develop the film as I would with a modern Zeiss lens then my negs will be flat as a pancake and I will have problems generating contrast, especially if low contrast scenes have been shot on the low contrast lens. For this reason I prefer to use lenses reasonably close together in terms of contrast when shooting on a given roll of film. My ZM and modern Leica lenses are all close enough that this is fine.

 

[rogerzilla]

Erwin hit the nail on the head with this one. If you have insufficient micro-contrast you lose detail in highlight areas (it's many times worse with a digital sensor, of course). Contrast is good as long as it's not at the expense of resolution; video lenses are specifically designed not to exceed the resolution of the sensor and to boost contrast to give a more punchy image.

 

[Steve M.]

I don't understand it either. To me, it was always about TOO MUCH contrast, or NOT ENOUGH contrast. Both, as you said, are fixable (up to a point). The real issue I've run into is whenever I'm using what is already a too-much contrast lens, then adding a yellow filter to gain an extra stop. This comes up now and then on older cameras that don't have high shutter speeds when I use Tri-X. From now on I'll have to go to a ND filter instead of a yellow one, because that combination put my contrast so over the top it wasn't that easy to fix later.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Just a quick note to mention how much I've enjoyed this thread.As a newbie with b&w film and the darkroom,this has given me many tidbits to consider .Using the Mockba-5 kinda puts a date stamp to the experience.It's made some nice negatives too!

Peter

 

[loneranger]

Just one question, can the muted colors obtained with a low contrast lens, become saturated in Photoshop? Or is it better to start with a contrasty lens, if one really wants saturated colors. Not sure if I am making any sense

 

[Shade]

Given the digital age, I'd rather have a lens with lower contrast so that nothing blows over or under too much and I can always adjust it later if I needed more contrast. But getting less contrast is not as easy.

 

[Brian Legge]

loneranger - I don't have a solid answer but I would point at Kodak collapsing the VC and NC Portra films into a lower contrast, closer to NC sort of film. I believe it was specifically stated that the wider range made sense because most people were scanning and could change the saturation in post processing.