Denton
Established
I often hear the suggestion here that a low contrast lens will bring up shadow detail better than a high-contrast lens.
I'm having trouble with that logic. Low contrast to me means flare, which is noise. This seems to mean your image may have a higher background luminance in the shadows, but I don't see how it will contain more detail (information). By analogy, astronomers rate optics by the level of contrast obtained. High contrast means more detail, for example, in planetary viewing. Low contrast is never desirable in astronomical viewing.
Seems like a better strategy in high-contrast situations is to expose for the shadows and pull the development, use compensating developer or stand-development technique. Of course, you have to treat the whole roll that way and not all images may be suited to this.
Do I have it wrong?
Denton
I'm having trouble with that logic. Low contrast to me means flare, which is noise. This seems to mean your image may have a higher background luminance in the shadows, but I don't see how it will contain more detail (information). By analogy, astronomers rate optics by the level of contrast obtained. High contrast means more detail, for example, in planetary viewing. Low contrast is never desirable in astronomical viewing.
Seems like a better strategy in high-contrast situations is to expose for the shadows and pull the development, use compensating developer or stand-development technique. Of course, you have to treat the whole roll that way and not all images may be suited to this.
Do I have it wrong?
Denton
jschrader
Well-known
no
no
I think You have it right.
no
I think You have it right.
ferider
Veteran
You have it right.
It gets more complicated when you pick some older lenses that have higher resolution when compared to their more modern counterparts, since they were optimized differently (for example comparing a Summicron from the 50s with one from the 80s).
Roland.
It gets more complicated when you pick some older lenses that have higher resolution when compared to their more modern counterparts, since they were optimized differently (for example comparing a Summicron from the 50s with one from the 80s).
Roland.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I think your logic is correct, but in practice using Diafine, a two part compensating developer, the single coated low contrast retro glass will have this wonderful rich midrange in 135 that looks like a larger format.
When I use modern ASPH glass like a 28 Cron or a 50 Lux ASPH that has higher contrast I see mucho shadow detail, but I think a big part of this is due to the compensating effect of Diafine.
I have been told by a large format photographer, when I showed him some of my 6x9 negatives, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."
Cal
When I use modern ASPH glass like a 28 Cron or a 50 Lux ASPH that has higher contrast I see mucho shadow detail, but I think a big part of this is due to the compensating effect of Diafine.
I have been told by a large format photographer, when I showed him some of my 6x9 negatives, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."
Cal