The concept of micro-contrast

[Erik van Straten]

There is a big difference in the kind of sharpness between digital and analog photography. In digital photography there are many possibilities of changing the effects of sharpness, but these are optical effects only. There is, of course, no real increase of sharpness of a lens possible.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

If one's digital image needs to be improved by applying some sharpness hocus pocus perhaps it's time to delete that image and try to do better next time.

If there is no next time, oh well, live and learn. 🙂

All the best,
Mike

 

[Freakscene]

There is a big difference in the kind of sharpness between digital and analog photography. In digital photography there are many possibilities of changing the effects of sharpness, but these are optical effects only. There is, of course, no real increase of sharpness of a lens possible.

Physical unsharp masking works on negatives and increases sharpness on prints markedly. It is mostly done with large format negatives but it can be done with 35mm.

 

[skahde]

If one's digital image needs to be improved by applying some sharpness hocus pocus perhaps it's time to delete that image and try to do better next time.

Sounds a bit purstic if you ask me. That sharpness hocus pocus is exactly what chemists have been implementing with edge-effects in film and developing for decades in color as well as b&w. Even nature does it in our retina does with one activated receptor inhibiting its neighbours. Unsharp masking in software just mimics well established methods from the analog realm.

 

[raydm6]

My pinheaded understanding is that microcontrast describes the subtle gradations of color and shape in the image. Is there a band of colors in the change or does it seem like just a few? Now if I am off base here please tell me. And it is the good coupling of lens and sensor. A great lens with a lousy sensor or the other way around just does not work.

I could be wrong but as regards subtle gradations of color (or tone for that matter), I believe that would be micro-tonality - but I'll let others more knowledgeable chime in.

 

[valdas]

So what happened with “Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept”? 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

So what happened with “Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept”? 🙂

We Sonnar Fans live by it.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

So what happened with “Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept”? 🙂

I'm all for images that are out-of-focus if they have some artistic merit. Also, if they are a one-of-a-kind image that can never be shot again but are of some significance. Such as if a UFO space ship landed in front of me and the occupant opened the hatch and posed for a picture and then took off never to be seen again. If that picture was out-of-focus, I wouldn't say "oh well" and delete it. Or a more realistic situation like one's child hit's a homerun and that picture is a bit out-of-focus; it's still a keeper.

I also embrace out-of-focus as an applied technique. And, I like ICM (intentional camera movement) photography too!

All the best, 🙂
Mike

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

What do you guys think of this article on microcontrast?

Micro-Contrast, the biggest optical luxury of the world — YANNICK KHONG

The author has several other articles on his blog regarding the same topic. Basically, he equates microcontrast to the elusive "3D POP." I can sort of see what he means in his examples in several of his articles. He identifies the primary lens characteristics that leads to high microcontrast and 3D pop as low element count. If I squint hard enough, I think I can see this in my own images, where, for example, the images from my five-element 35mm f/3.5 Super Takumar lens seem to have more of a 3D look than comparable images from my eight-element 35mm f/2 Nikkor AI-S. I think certain lenses seem to have this characteristic "3D pop" in nearly every image I see posted online (Sonnars in particular, also the 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon and the 105mm f/2.4 Takumar for the Pentax 67, to cite a few examples). But I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm imagining that.

 

[pgk]

I would consider microcontrast to be the ability to distinguish small spatial frequencies in images. In MTF terms this means that the line on the graph should be above 10% for these (ie very fine detail) and at the point where it dips below 10%, microcontrast will effectively be indistinguishable. The best way to appreciate this is to use a very poor lens which cannot resolve microcontrast and then a modern, high quality lens. Both are probably capable of producing images which look superficially acceptable, from a distance, but the older lens will fail to have any fine detail as microcontrast is low whereas the modern lens will show fine detail until pixelation breaks it up. As ever though, there are many factors which make up the performance of a lens so its not as simple as it may sound. I'm not sure that it equates to any concept of '3D POP' at all because yet more factors may well be at play.

 

[boojum]

I am a LibArts major and a simple-minded one at that. I understand micro-contrast to be the ability of the camera to describe in an image the very subtle differences in color of real life. It ain't easy. But go back and look at that night shot of the Oregon Responder. It runs from pitch black to blinding white. OK, most cameras can do that. But go to the Flickr image and double-click it and peer into some of the really bright white parts, like the stairs ascending. The railing almost, almost disappears into the surrounding whiteness but can still be discerned. It does not fade into the overall whiteness. And this is 8-bit imaging, really good 8-bit imaging. When I first noticed this in that image I was amazed. I still am. This is such a nice camera.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I've been following a discussion on the book-of-faces regarding micro-contrast. There seems to be some anxiety regarding the optical performance of lenses in that area - which ones are better, which ones not so good etc...

I've never heard of this concept before I joined some Facebook groups some years back. Never came across it in any of the magazines I was reading on the 80s and 90s and I don't see it being discussed in this forum either. I am not aware of any micro-contrast test comparison.

If I believe AI, first one who planted this idea was E. Puts in his discussion regarding Leica lenses.

I just wanted to get your views about it - to me sounds like an elusive concept that never came across it and never cared about it either.

I can't remember what exactly Puts was able to see. He is film time personality, if I'm not mistaken.

This is where I'm able to see miscro-contrast.
Film, darkroom prints to be exact. Scans will not show much. Nor it is significant for color.

I live by examples I was able to see. Absolutely no micro-contrast lens on darkroom bw prints is CV Color Skopar 35 2.5.
It just absent. Switch to Ultron 35 1.7 LTM ASHP or first version of VM 50 1.5 ASPH Nokton and microcontrast is present. Not overkilled by too much of the contrast.

This is where Leitz/Leica lenses are hard to beat. Microcontrast on bw darkroom prints. Some Mandler's lenses were golden for it. After it is overburnt with ASPH, but still. Elmar-M 50 2.8 is so microcontrast. And Summarit-M 35 2.5.

Color film, digital color/bw - you won't be able to see it much. Digital is about resolution, can't render microcontast much.

Again, you could see it or you can't.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

What do you guys think of this article on microcontrast?

Micro-Contrast, the biggest optical luxury of the world — YANNICK KHONG

The author has several other articles on his blog regarding the same topic. Basically, he equates microcontrast to the elusive "3D POP." I can sort of see what he means in his examples in several of his articles. He identifies the primary lens characteristics that leads to high microcontrast and 3D pop as low element count. If I squint hard enough, I think I can see this in my own images, where, for example, the images from my five-element 35mm f/3.5 Super Takumar lens seem to have more of a 3D look than comparable images from my eight-element 35mm f/2 Nikkor AI-S. I think certain lenses seem to have this characteristic "3D pop" in nearly every image I see posted online (Sonnars in particular, also the 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon and the 105mm f/2.4 Takumar for the Pentax 67, to cite a few examples). But I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm imagining that.

If someone is mixing 3DPOP and MC, he is cluelessly blind.
Sorry.
3DPOP is just an object in focus separation.
Nothing to do with lens capabilities to render micro contrast for entire objects in focus.

 

[skahde]

I could be wrong but as regards subtle gradations of color (or tone for that matter), I believe that would be micro-tonality - but I'll let others more knowledgeable chime in.

But this needs high enough contrast at high spatial frequencies to be perceived.

 

[skahde]

I can't remember what exactly Puts was able to see. He is film time personality, if I'm not mistaken.

This is where I'm able to see miscro-contrast.
Film, darkroom prints to be exact. Scans will not show much. Nor it is significant for color.

With scans and digital files all depends on the quality and treatment of the raw data. After many years of optimizing my analog-process I knew what I wanted and after understanding the digital tools, replicating the analogue result was a breeze. Not pushing things too far and make it look "digital" was the much greater challenge.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

With scans and digital files all depends on the quality and treatment of the raw data. After many years of optimizing my analog-process I knew what I wanted and after understanding the digital tools, replicating the analogue result was a breeze. Not pushing things too far and make it look "digital" was the much greater challenge.

Could be. I liked prints from scans where microcontrast still present.

 

[boojum]

KoFe mentioned the old CV Ultron LTM 35mm 1.7 as a champion of micro-contrast. I have one which just fell into my lap. And while I had been advised that this was a very good lens I had never seen it talked about much. Well, the advice has outweighed the talk. Better one wise man than a myriad of fools. I have been pleasantly impressed by this lens and consider it a true "sleeper" in the lens world. It does very well at night which is good for me as I shoot a lot in the harbor at night. Here is one small example. No jagged edges of color and light, the smooth transition. Sleeper lens on a sleeper camera, the M240.

M2419847 by West Phalia, on Flickr

​

 

[boojum]

as a fellow rocker, yes pls share lol
(edit, I also have 90/3.2 is butter-smooth also wide open you might like, rented mine before buying)

You brought this on yourself. Small venue, 30 or <30. Dark, and those variable lights which change color and intensity. Everything was shot at ISO 25,600 and moderate shutter speeds, mostly at f/8.0 on the HB 120 3.5 macro. The venue was so small and the "stage" floor level I could not stand without blocking folks' view so I sat on my butt and shot. This is one of what resulted. They were carding the audience as they came in. No one was admitted without a SS card. LMAO It was like watching our parents at a Glenn Miller revival concert. The hair was gray or dyed. What can I say? Fun time.

B0002390 by West Phalia, on Flickr​

 

[peterm1]

All I know is there are some lenses which produce consistently outstanding images and some which are a bit more "ho-hum" than others. Probably my best performers are the Zeiss Z series (Mine are ZE (i.e. in Canon mount not that this affects its optics) - a 35mm f1.4, a 50mm Makro in f2, an 85mm f1.4 and a 135mm APO f2.). And these same lenses are said by some (who know or claim to know more than me) to have excellent micro contrast and that this is a feature, too, of other Zeiss glass. I do not really know what their secret sauce is - all I know is I like how they render and that's probably good enough for me. But I will certainly admit that gradations of tone in particular are important to me in my images- I often seek this in my photos and if it is not presence will try to enhance what there is, in post. (I am sure many here will claim this to be impossible but there are tools available that can produce a reasonable facsimile if applied correctly - though admittedly I sometimes over do it.)

 

[boojum]

^^^^^ Agreed, some lenses have some magic in them in how they resolve. These are the lenses I prefer and seek out. HB is the easy way, but costs. OTOH we can get lucky with inexpensive lenses. It is kind of like horse racing, follow the bloodlines. I am fond of Sonnars and have had luck with them. And I have had good luck with some recent Chinese retro lenses, reasonably priced. So for people with eyes sharp enough to see the micro-contrast there are bargains around. Even the occasional US$100 Jupiter can be great. To quote Fats Waller, "One never knows, do one?"

What comes next is the question of degree of micro-contrast. I'll sidestep those discussions and be grateful for those lenses I have stumbled across.