srtiwari
Daktari
I am always struck by the ease with which some people can pronounce a lens 'signature' as being Vintage or Modern from looking at an image. It would seem an impossible task, given the sheer number of variables (film/Developer/light conditions/scanning/contrast etc) involved that would affect the 'look'.
I am assuming there is more to it than just differences contrast, sharpness, and flare. Perhaps it is easier to see/show than describe !
I own several 50s and 35s, but have never done any formal testing to try and extract a certain look. Wonder if anyone can post 2 (or more) images and point out the specific look in an A/B comparison ? Something that would make it clearer what a Vintage vs a Modern look is ?
I am assuming there is more to it than just differences contrast, sharpness, and flare. Perhaps it is easier to see/show than describe !
I own several 50s and 35s, but have never done any formal testing to try and extract a certain look. Wonder if anyone can post 2 (or more) images and point out the specific look in an A/B comparison ? Something that would make it clearer what a Vintage vs a Modern look is ?
Pfreddee
Well-known
If it's labeled, it should be no problem...
Regards,
Pfreddee/Stephen
Regards,
Pfreddee/Stephen
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Mainly, it's flare. More light bounces around inside uncoated lenses and some of it ends up in the shadows, thereby reducing the brightness range of the projected image as compared with the subject brightness range. This is the flare factor. A perfect lens would have a flare factor of 1; I am told that good modern real-world lenses in miniature cameras are typically 1.5 to 2; I know that old lenses can exceed 4.
Even if the lens had a low flare factor when new, a few decades will not have made it less flary. Restoring contrast at the development stage may give the same brightness range, but obviously not the same tonality.
After that, it's a choice of sharpness, aberrations, field curvature, focus shift, poor manufacture, wear and tear, ancient repairs, and different manufacturers' priorities: historically (especially before coating) Leica tended to favour sharpness over contrast, while Zeiss went for contrast over sharpness. Today it's much easier to make lenses that are both sharp and contrasty, and some people see this as 'too clinical'.
And there's always a seasoning of 'received wisdom' (or lack of it); of people seeing what they want to see, and of people who haven't the faintest idea of what they're talking about.
Cheers,
R.
Even if the lens had a low flare factor when new, a few decades will not have made it less flary. Restoring contrast at the development stage may give the same brightness range, but obviously not the same tonality.
After that, it's a choice of sharpness, aberrations, field curvature, focus shift, poor manufacture, wear and tear, ancient repairs, and different manufacturers' priorities: historically (especially before coating) Leica tended to favour sharpness over contrast, while Zeiss went for contrast over sharpness. Today it's much easier to make lenses that are both sharp and contrasty, and some people see this as 'too clinical'.
And there's always a seasoning of 'received wisdom' (or lack of it); of people seeing what they want to see, and of people who haven't the faintest idea of what they're talking about.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
Have a look here, where Benny compared Canon 50/1.2, Noctilux 1.0 and Nokton 1.1:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferider/3682676506
You can see the original pictures, and in the transmission diagram exactly what Roger describes, where contrast of the oldest lens (Canon) is "muddied", due to coating, etc.
This is a technical analysis.
Then again, in a blind test, unless you have a controlled test scene, or unless the lens you are using is a very low performer, lens "signatures" are much less important than exposure, film, development, etc. And as Roger said, largely people see what they want to see, or worse, what they have read on the internet, "seen" in lowest resolution web shots and never seen in their own prints themselves.
Roland.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferider/3682676506
You can see the original pictures, and in the transmission diagram exactly what Roger describes, where contrast of the oldest lens (Canon) is "muddied", due to coating, etc.
This is a technical analysis.
Then again, in a blind test, unless you have a controlled test scene, or unless the lens you are using is a very low performer, lens "signatures" are much less important than exposure, film, development, etc. And as Roger said, largely people see what they want to see, or worse, what they have read on the internet, "seen" in lowest resolution web shots and never seen in their own prints themselves.
Roland.
Last edited:
srtiwari
Daktari
To me this suggests (oversimplifying somewhat , of course) that low contrast and poor resistance to flare represents much of the Vintage 'signature' of the lens. In that case, a) why pay big Bucks to own these flaws ? And b) couldn't one duplicate these by owning a Modern Lens and post-processing these "signatures" into images later?
(I understand that this is an over simplification of what a lens 'draws', but I am curious to get a bit closer to what might be the essence of what a vintage look is)
back alley
IMAGES
i generally see it as lower contrast, good resolution for older lenses while modern lenses have mid to high contrast with high resolution.
ferider
Veteran
First order, I think you are right, if exposure is picked right. Never understood why people go on and on about a lens having too high contrast, etc. This mostly shows wrong exposure, IMO.
Aberations, distortions, field curvature, focus shift, etc, are impossible to emulate in PS of course. But then again, for a good lens, they have little effect, IMO. At least much less than what the internet might make believe.
And, again, IMHO, big bucks for a lens has nothing to do with any of this ....
srtiwari
Daktari
ferider
Veteran
I live in contrasty California and avoid shooting between 11am and 3pm ....
What you can do in PS post processing depends a lot on the dynamic range your flow has. For example digital gives you 11-14 bits or so, depending on the camera you have, while Reala 100 can give you up to 17 if exposed right. I'm pretty new to B+W and cann't really comment, but maybe Roger can advise which film/developer combo to pick for maximum dynamic range.
Proper lens choice might help a little. What focal length are you looking for ?
Roland.
What you can do in PS post processing depends a lot on the dynamic range your flow has. For example digital gives you 11-14 bits or so, depending on the camera you have, while Reala 100 can give you up to 17 if exposed right. I'm pretty new to B+W and cann't really comment, but maybe Roger can advise which film/developer combo to pick for maximum dynamic range.
Proper lens choice might help a little. What focal length are you looking for ?
Roland.
R
ruben
Guest
I have always asked the same, even protested and of course ignored within the same technical thread, as I suppose it will happen here again, when a small image is shown or celebrated as depicting a great lens.
I have proposed a different method for giving a sense of the lens: show the full frame image, and afterwards a little crop, enlarged to the size of the former depicted full frame image.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that so far no one answered the challenge but me only in a test of an Iskra camera. The big enlargement of the small crop looks much less elegant - perhaps this being the reason for the people reluctance. Of course, 99% of us may have not read my rant, nor this one, but those a little bit knowledgeable about optics know very well what they are doing at the technical lens threads.
B'cause Mom, if there is something more forgiving by far and large than Tri-X, it is the computer screen. And besides the computer screen there is the photoshop washing machine, which makes wonders acccording to the knowledge of the operator.
Another reason why lens tests are never shown this way, not to speak about small crops of an image shot at widest apertures, seems to me to be that many folks rather love to abuse technical threads about lenses for picture gallery purposes. Well we all are just humans.
What's the technical value of depicting an astonishing composed image of a lens as proof of its technical qualities ? Absolute zero. The better the aesthetics the more it distracts from what we are supposed to see. Even if the images are shown at widest aperture. They may speak on behalf of the compositional qualities of the photographer, but not at the propper thread. Notice that I mention the images in plural, since most often we are presented not with a single indulgence, but with a series. Too much ego around.
If all these weren't enough, there is in fact a good source for lots of technical excif data and it is flickr. What a paradox that a site supposed to be for picture gallery is by far a great source of technical info, while we here, that talk so much about techs, and are held as too much tech speaking, and even some of us have repeatedly expressed their opinion that RFF should limit itself to tech talk, tik tak, rf tech talk, have such poor a record in lens performance info.
Cheers,
Ruben
Post Mortum:
For a stunning effect and example of many things I have said here, you can go to this flickr image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ysjjhfox/4473359889/in/pool-1084614@N23
and start to enlarge at the good manners enabled by the photographer.
Then go to the exif data and start learning more things about the image.
Last edited by a moderator:
srtiwari
Daktari
Since you ask, I am looking for (relatively) grain-free, sharp(ish) images from a low Contrast Lens/film/developer combo for 35mm and 50-100 ISO, please !
Roger Hicks
Veteran
FP4 in Perceptol at EI 50-80 is reasonably sharp (not as sharp as Delta 100), relatively low-grain (again, not as good as Delta 100) and with 15% off the Ilford dev time for EI 125 it is pretty low-contrast. The important thing is that it is a lot more forgiving than a monosize-crystal film, both with exposure and development.
It's also worth pointing out that normally you can handle long negative density ranges much easier in a wet darkroom than with a scanner, because many scanners can't handle a realistic Dmax, and because the Callier effect places scanners at a disadvantage (unless you're scanning LF with a big, soft light source).
Of course the easiest bet is XP2 Super, with no Callier effect, but a lot of purists reject it because they can't mess around with silly developers, stand development, the Zone System and all the other things that novices try to run with before they can walk.
Cheers,
R.
It's also worth pointing out that normally you can handle long negative density ranges much easier in a wet darkroom than with a scanner, because many scanners can't handle a realistic Dmax, and because the Callier effect places scanners at a disadvantage (unless you're scanning LF with a big, soft light source).
Of course the easiest bet is XP2 Super, with no Callier effect, but a lot of purists reject it because they can't mess around with silly developers, stand development, the Zone System and all the other things that novices try to run with before they can walk.
Cheers,
R.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well, a) is a misconception, as a lot of old lenses with distinctive signatures are quite a lot cheaper than their modern counterparts, e.g., the Summar, or of comparable price, e.g., the collapsible 'cron. (Compared to, say, the f/2 Heliar.) And there is more to a lens than the image--there's the handling, which is really important to me, and even the appearance of the lens itself, which can give some people a lot of pleasure.
It may not be hard to approximate the qualities of a certain lens on a particular photo, but over many shots, particular old lenses give a particular variety of results. I know that when i go out with, say, my fifties Sonnar, I am going to get a bunch of pictures that make me feel a certain way...and sometimes the lens's behavior is unpredictable and unreproduceable, and this is a real delight.
jmcd
Well-known
I make prints in the darkroom, and the difference between a print made with a Summitar and a print made with modern Elmar M is profound and obvious. By the time I scan the print and see it on the screen the differences are much less obvious, but that is of course a comment on my inability and lack of motivation to make great scans of prints, if that is even possible.
R
ruben
Guest
In my opinion, substantial differences seen in the prints of the same printer, i.e. you jmcd, these differences must be in the negatives too. So scanning the negatives directly, and even if you make basic changes in photoshop, provided you say what you did, must be of great use for all. But this requires a film scanner.
However, being you a printer of your negs, avoiding any scan and you just giving or describing your feelings about the differences as you perceive them - this may be even more enligthening than anythng else.
The human brain is the best gadget. When used, in the right direction, excluding political implications.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
ferider
Veteran
Roger answered the film question. WRT lens, I recommend the 35/1.7 Ultron as sharp, and a little lower on the contrast side. Or, if slower is OK, a Canon 35/2.8, Summaron 35/2.8, Komura 35/2.8, Nikkor 35/2.5 or similar.
Best,
Roland.
I agree... this is how I can tell generally. I'm one of the weird ones that prefers new voigtlander lenses to old Leica lenses.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
So do I, quite honestly. Of course there are exceptions -- NOTHING does what a Thambar does -- but I've used a lot of Leica lenses old and new, and (for example) I genuinely can't see why anyone would prefer a Summaron over a more modern 35mm. Same with a 28mm Summaron or 21 Super-Angulon, and although the first-version 90 Summicron has a certain soft-focus charm at full aperture, I prefer the 90 Apo-Lanthar.
I have no problem with the fact that some people do prefer older Leica lenses -- some people like Holgas, after all -- and there's no doubt that if you find a lens that's 'magic' for you, the 'magic' can come from almost anywhere, in any lens, old or new, in perfect condition or half-wrecked. But by and large I agree with you, and prefer newer lenses; certainly, post-1950s in most cases.
Cheers,
R.