Lens/film combinations

[Rafael]

We write a great deal about lens signatures on this forum. We also write about the characteristics of different films. I'm wondering about the relationships between the two.

Which lenses do you regularly use with which specific films? Are there any combinations that you have found to give results that you find unsatisfactory or undesirable? Please explain your answers?

By the way, I am thinking of lenses for Leica M cameras here.

 

[shadowfox]

I think the lens affects the details and contrast captured from the scene and the film affects how the scene is recorded based on their characteristic silver-halide crystal behavior.

In other words, when I look at a photograph, I attribute the details (sharpness) to the lens, and the tonality (from light to dark) and grain to the film.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[vrgard]

I think the lens affects the details and contrast captured from the scene and the film affects how the scene is recorded based on their characteristic silver-halide crystal behavior.

In other words, when I look at a photograph, I attribute the details (sharpness) to the lens, and the tonality (from light to dark) and grain to the film.

Hope this makes sense.

Shadowfox, can you elaborate on this? I was under the impression that the lens greatly affects the resulting tonality. I don't disagree that the film is a (likely significant) contributor to tonality, but isn't the lens also heavily involved? I'm thinking, for example, of all the discussion of the rigid 50 Cron and it's supposed great tonality. Please understand that I'm not challenging your statement, but rather, merely seeking clarification and/or elaboration.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[ferider]

So far I only know about color, Marc, and I know that both lens and film
play a role.

In theory it's all about contrast and color rendition. There is absolute contrast (one large
area of a negative is different from another large area) and contrast
gradient. The ability to transmit high contrast gradient is called micro-contrast,
and equ. to resolution or "sharpness". A software PS unsharp mask for instance,
increases pixel-to-pixel contrast. A software PS contrast filter
changes absolute contrast. A software PS saturation change changes
color rendition.

So for instance, Reala will behave more contrasty to Superia which is
less contrasty to underexposed, over-developed Superia. Mostly wrt
to absolute contrast.

My CV 28/3.5 has higher absolute contrast than my CV 28/1.9 at f3.5. But
the microcontrast feels the same.

I pick lens and film according to subject. This implies that I pick
pairs of lens/film for certain subjects, but not intentionally so.

I pick more absolute contrast for landscapes, less for portraits (I try to).

Roland.

 

[EmilGil]

The lens should be an important part in tonality; older lenses are noticeably lower in contrast compared to modern, aspherical lenses. Some people say that these are too sharp and contrasty ("clinical"), whereas other like it and will appreciate every extra grain of sharpness.

Another very important part of tonality control is the development, a change of only a few per cent in time or agitation can make a huge difference with sensitive films.

 

[Rafael]

This implies that I pick
pairs of lens/film for certain subjects, but not intentionally so.

OK, at least I'm not alone! The reason for the initial question was precisely my realisation that, while I do think about the signatures of different lenses and the looks of different films, I don't consciously pair certain lenses with certain films. I have particular films that I like for particular applications. And I think very consciously about my lens choices for different situations. But, for some reason, the two thought processes are distinct in my mind.

 

[Rafael]

Another very important part of tonality control is the development, a change of only a few per cent in time or agitation can make a huge difference with sensitive films.

Very good point! This is an additional layer of complexity.

 

[NickTrop]

Lynx 14 - Tri-X Diafine (fast fill camera)
Yashica Electro GSN - HIE or other Infrared (lately)
Konica Auto S3 - ,

 

[x-ray]

Shadowfox, can you elaborate on this? I was under the impression that the lens greatly affects the resulting tonality. I don't disagree that the film is a (likely significant) contributor to tonality, but isn't the lens also heavily involved? I'm thinking, for example, of all the discussion of the rigid 50 Cron and it's supposed great tonality. Please understand that I'm not challenging your statement, but rather, merely seeking clarification and/or elaboration.

Thanks,
Randy

95% of a prints tonality is dictated by the subject contrast, film, processing, light falling on the subject, developer, printing paper, grade of paper, developer for paper, type of enlarger (condensor, point source or diffusion) and or scanner type and profiles. The lens itself is the least contributor to the tonality process.

Each film / developer combo has a particular rendition and each films look will change with different development / exposure / processing combinations. Grain, acutance, tonal curves and color sensitometry all play a big part in what a film does in rendering an image. Even the light source that the image is shot under changes the rendition. Contrasty point sources vs soft light and tungsten vs daylight. Many films have a slightly greater sensitivity to daylight vs tungsten. Grainy films greak up tonality vs smooth fine grain films give the appearance of smoother tonality.

Lenses contribute their own contrast through design and flare supression from design and coatings. Also sharpness is a big part of the lens through design characteristics. Don't forget the printing or scanner lens also plays a part here.

Let's not forget the human element in this. Each of us have a different ideal and aim for that in our shooting, processing and printing.

Pick a lens, film and developer and learn to use them to their fullest. Don't get into the mode that equipment dictates the look. It's just not so, it's you and the other elements more than the lens.

 

[vrgard]

Wow, just wanted to say thanks, x-ray, for your thoughts on this subject. Much there to ponder.

-Randy

 

[shadowfox]

95% of a prints tonality is dictated by the subject contrast, film, processing, light falling on the subject, developer, printing paper, grade of paper, developer for paper, type of enlarger (condensor, point source or diffusion) and or scanner type and profiles. The lens itself is the least contributor to the tonality process.

Each film / developer combo has a particular rendition and each films look will change with different development / exposure / processing combinations. Grain, acutance, tonal curves and color sensitometry all play a big part in what a film does in rendering an image. Even the light source that the image is shot under changes the rendition. Contrasty point sources vs soft light and tungsten vs daylight. Many films have a slightly greater sensitivity to daylight vs tungsten. Grainy films greak up tonality vs smooth fine grain films give the appearance of smoother tonality.

Lenses contribute their own contrast through design and flare supression from design and coatings. Also sharpness is a big part of the lens through design characteristics. Don't forget the printing or scanner lens also plays a part here.

Let's not forget the human element in this. Each of us have a different ideal and aim for that in our shooting, processing and printing.

Pick a lens, film and developer and learn to use them to their fullest. Don't get into the mode that equipment dictates the look. It's just not so, it's you and the other elements more than the lens.

Exactly, although, the lens could *definitely* affect the contrast by being more/less flare-resistant.

It was not my intention to say that the lens has nothing to do with tonality. Rather, in typical light conditions, most decent modern lens should be able to deliver the lights necessary to get a good tonality. It's up to the film then, to record it.

The differences that I've seen when comparing lenses with superior construction/coatings against the others, mostly are manifested in the amount of detail/sharpness and bokeh rendering. Less so for tonality, unless flare is present.

 

[oscroft]

For b&w I tend to think more in terms of film/lighting/development then lens/film, but I definitely make lens/film associations with colour transparencies. Most of my colour shooting is done in colourful high contrast conditions (in SE Asia), and in the past I've used SLRs with zoom lenses and Velvia. But shooting Velvia with my CV rangefinder lenses, which provide considerably higher contrast than SLR zooms, gives results that are just too contrasty. With my CV lenses, I find Sensia gives much better results (including better overall colour - still rich and vibrant, but not the "over the top" colours that I see with CV/Velvia).

 

[pingle]

I went out the other day with HP5+ (the only film I really use) and an old Summicron DR 50mm with light scuffs on the front. I got some pictures I kinda like. Was it the lens? Was it the film? Was it my (somewhat haphazard) developing? Was it just that I have a pretty girlfriend? Who knows?

 

[x-ray]

Study the zone system and then you'll start to understand the relationship of film, exposure and processing as to the look of the image. Then look at the zone system in terms of how it appies in the darkroom. Understanding the basics of expose for the shadows and develope for the highlights and how film curves and developer characteristics alter the final results the forget the romantic notion that modern lenses are dramatically different. When you understand this then you understand it's more a scientific process and not a mystical romantic issue where leica is king and all others are trash. In the real world modern lenses are so clos in performance that they are almost not a factor in the final result. Granted not all lenses are as sharp as others and the OOF areas of some asph lenses are more harsh but given most lenses the differences play little part in the look of the final image. They psychological element plays a big part if you feel, Leica, Zeiss or whatever lens has a magical property or "glow". I guess I'm saying most of the differences are in the mind of the shooter.

 

[Rafael]

I really appreciate your input here Don. But, unless I am misreading you, I don't think that "performance" is the right measure of a lens. Obviously, one can talk about the performance of a lens in any particular area (e.g. resistance to flare). But I wonder whether the notion that modern lenses are extremely "close in performance" doesn't actually feed into the very idolisation of Leica, Zeiss, etc. that you are urging us to resist. The notion that lenses can be ranked according to performance suggests both that there is a single "best" lens in each focal length and that everyone out there - unless they strive for mediocrity - is actually after the same lenses. I have trouble believing that we all share the same artistic sensibilities. So, in resisting this classification according to performance, I am actually taking the argument that you are making one step further than you have here: The big name lenses are not always the best choices if we are making conscious choices towards achieving specific photographic results. I tend to agree with you that most modern lenses are very good performers. And I take your point that film, exposure, processing, paper, etc., will have a greater influence on the final look of a photograph than will lens choice. But modern lenses can rank very closely in terms of performance and yet perform very differently. And, while they may be minor compared to the differences that result from choices of film, developer, paper, etc., I do believe that the differences amongst lenses are still significant. I am interested in how people choose the best lens understood in terms of the photographic result they aim to produce rather than in some objective or universal sense. Because I agree with you that the notion of a "best" lens is pure fantasy and is probably the result of advertising and internet hype.

 

[x-ray]

What I'm saying is, in modern RF lenses for comparison only, the appearance of the final print is much more influenced by all other factors more than the lens itself. The artistic vision of the photographer, printer, film, exposure, developemnt and etc. ate the biggest factors in the final image. Lenses differ slightly in optical results usuallty. There exceptions like the Noctilux with 2 stops fall off at f1 at the outer zones and lower res. The Zeiss lenses are more flare resistant but not bys a big degree from other makes. No there is no one best. I select a lens on flare resistance, over all resolution, ergonomics (hate tabs) and speed of lens for a particular application. These are my main peramiters.

 

[shadowfox]

What I'm saying is, in modern RF lenses for comparison only, the appearance of the final print is much more influenced by all other factors more than the lens itself. The artistic vision of the photographer, printer, film, exposure, developemnt and etc. ate the biggest factors in the final image. Lenses differ slightly in optical results usuallty. There exceptions like the Noctilux with 2 stops fall off at f1 at the outer zones and lower res. The Zeiss lenses are more flare resistant but not bys a big degree from other makes. No there is no one best. I select a lens on flare resistance, over all resolution, ergonomics (hate tabs) and speed of lens for a particular application. These are my main peramiters.

I just want to point out that the fact that you can name some parameters by which you select a lens, indicates that you acknowledge that lenses are made differently and there is "one best lens" at least for the specific application that you're faced with.

Maybe what you're telling us is that there is no one best Brand or Series, to which I agree wholeheartedly. 🙂

 

[x-ray]

I have preferences but I can make comperable photographs with a variety of lens designs and makes. I'm not married to a brand, formula or some mystical look of a lens. I don't get all fuzzy feeling about Zeiss, CV or Leica but rather look at each realistically as to how they work for my likes and dislikes. I hate focusing tabs, ultra small lenses, flare and a few other things and I do have specific likes based on my style of shooting. It's not all based on optics.

 

[telenous]

There is lots of good sense in the replies above and, sure, there are many variables affecting the final image. However the combination of lens/film/developer dictates to a large extent the kind of work that you have to do later, be it in a wet or digital darkroom, in order to arrive at the desired result - not the other way round.

Εven if it is agreed (as I think it should) that all combinations of the various factors that influence the appearance of the final (printed or scanned) image can in some way lead to a satisfactory result, there's still room for preference, much more for choice, if some route to that result is shorter or easier.

Why, for instance, would one use a very contrasty film, with a very contrasty lens unless one really wanted a very contrasty look? And if one didn't, and strived later in the darkroom to subdue the contrast in the printing stage, wouldn't it be just easier to start with a combination of lens/film/developing that lead to less contrasty images to begin with?

Mark, to answer your question, I use particular films with particular lenses, and avoid some other combinations. To give an example, Neopan 1600 does not work well (for my taste) with the Summilux 50 Asph. There's probably some way to make it work (in this case by 'work' I mean for it to have a kind of contrast that is both pleasing to my eye and also the result of deliberate –and hence predictable- manipulation). There are some possible solutions (perhaps pulling one stop, using a compensating developer) but I am not holding my breath. I use instead TriX or Neopan 400 pushed up to 1600 with results that I like.

I use Neopan 1600 with either the Summilux 35 Asph or the Summarit 50. Ditto for HP5, pushed up to 1600.

Ultimately, these combinations work for me because I get what I want out of the box without too much post-processing work. Perhaps more trials will prove me one day wrong, but that's my take so far.

 

[x-ray]

In contrast to Telenous comment on film / lens combo, I basically use three films, 1600 Neopan, 400 Neopan and 100 Acros with one developer Ilford HC and one dilution and fairly standard times. I honestly can't tell which images are from my asph summilux 50 and which are from my Nokton 50 and Planar 50. The only way I can tell my older lenses like the 1937 uncoated elmar and 1946 summitar from the others is a slightly softer image wide open and slightly less detail in the shadows. Notice I say slightly. I actually have a hard time telling what I shot with when looking back at negs that I've shot over 40 years. The only way I can tell generally is from the date i shot them and remembering what equipment I owned and shot most at the time. It's not that I'm not critical because I am but it's because there's not much if any difference in every day shooting.