Oranges to Oranges

[kevin m]

'Poorly corrected' for what? And which lenses had you in mind?

I think leicasniper was having a bit of fun, but his point isn't without some merit. Much of what we lovingly refer to as "glow," "three-dimensionality" and the like is a product of design compromises that have been corrected out of modern glass. Personally, I'd take the look of a pre-Asph. Summilux 50 or a pre-Asph. Summicron 90 over their modern counterparts. That Mandler guy knew his stuff. 😀

 

[Chris101]

... Now, can anyone recommend a printer for B&W? 🙂 ...

Hey Pete,

I have gotten very satisfying results by printing negatives scanned by a coolscan 5000 on an Epson R2400, as well as an Epson 7800. The 2400 is under a thousand bucks, while the 7800 is over 3 when you factor in the inks. If I were to buy a printer, it would either be the 2400 or whatever it's replacement will be.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Much of what we lovingly refer to as "glow," "three-dimensionality" and the like is a product of design compromises that have been corrected out of modern glass. Personally, I'd take the look of a pre-Asph. Summilux 50 or a pre-Asph. Summicron 90 over their modern counterparts. That Mandler guy knew his stuff. 😀

That, and lousy exposure in the days before meters. Overexposure helps create a 'glow'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[willie_901]

I think you should experiment with both methods (film--->digital--->desired look, digital--->desired look) and see which you find to be most aesthetically pleasing.

The important thing is the end result. You need to be able to reproducibly produce the image characteristics you feel best express your work.

Good luck.

 

[tmfabian]

Hey Pete,

I have gotten very satisfying results by printing negatives scanned by a coolscan 5000 on an Epson R2400, as well as an Epson 7800. The 2400 is under a thousand bucks, while the 7800 is over 3 when you factor in the inks. If I were to buy a printer, it would either be the 2400 or whatever it's replacement will be.

I'll second that recommendation on the 2400 and 7800. They produce some pretty remarkable prints when combined with the right paper. My only problem with them is that the ink cartridges are itty bitty and cost quite a bit.

 

[maddoc]

The "Leica look" is often the result of using poorly corrected early Leica lenses.

... at that time they were as well designed as possible and photographer knew how to use them. 😉

 

[Ben Z]

I have a 4000dpi film scanner and VueScan and I've done a lot of reading and picking the brains of people who know much more than I do, but I've never been able to get the same "look" from scanned film (any kind) as from wet printing. I have much better luck with film-simulation software on files from digital cameras. I sometimes look longingly at my M4 and Nikon F and Rolleiflex and get the urge to load in a roll of Tri-X and do it the old way, but when I think about mixing the chemicals and cleaning it all up afterward, the urge goes away. Sad to admit, but true.