MCTuomey
Veteran
I don't think beer is ever off-topic, in my limited way of seeing things.
Turtle
Veteran
Erik, I do print and am also a firm devotee of the wet print. I commented, not to be critical, but to determine whether it was an artifact of the scanning process or deliberate. We all have our aesthetic choices and yours is at the extreme end of the low contrast look, even more so than some of H C-B's very soft images. A few of the images posted don't have blacks or whites, only middle greys, but that could once again be the scanning. Master printers can produce a full scale from luscious blacks to scintillating whites, but with a very smooth greyscale in between i.e. they dont have to compromise at the extremes to get the smooth mid tones and avoid harshness. Thats what I aim for and dont always achieve it of course. I was just curious. Worked for H C-B.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Hi Turtle, thanks for your reaction. It is also a matter of screen calibration, I think.
In fact I like HCB's pictures in books often better than the real prints. I've seen a lot of both.
My uploded pictures do just look fine on one of my screens, on another I do not like them that much. Can't please everyone.
I make prints for 40 years now, I just like them and when I don't I throw them away. My prints have another look than my uploaded pictures.
Maybe you can advice me about a good scanner. Most scanners have difficulty withe the rich tonal scale of a silver gelatine print. They are better feed with a special very soft print, without deep blacks. The full tonal scale can be obtained later, in PS.
What do you mean with "worked for H C-B"?
Regards,
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Hi Turtle, thanks for your reaction. It is also a matter of screen calibration, I think.
In fact I like HCB's pictures in books often better than the real prints. I've seen a lot of both.
My uploaded pictures do just look fine on one of my screens, on another I do not like them that much. Can't please everyone.
I make prints for 40 years now, I just like them and when I don't I throw them away. My prints have another look than my uploaded pictures.
Maybe you can advice me about a good scanner. Most scanners have difficulty with the rich tonal scale of a silver gelatine print. They are better feed with a special very soft print, without deep blacks. The full tonal scale can be obtained later, in PS.
What do you mean with "worked for H C-B"?
Regards,
Erik.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I think he means that, using low contrast as the normal way on his prints, made Cartier-Bresson's shots on magazines and books have a nice tonal range...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
martin s
Well-known
I find your scans / prints lack both deep blacks and whites on my (calibrated) screen as well. I attached the histogram of this image, where it's visible why the images are this flat. It's easily corrected, especially if it's only the scan and not the actual print.
martin
martin
Attachments
Brad Maestas
Established
I know nothing but my v4. It came with my M6. I have tried the Lux Asph, a Lux pre-Asph and a Cron Asph and while I did consider the pre-Asph Lux, I have stayed with my v4 mainly because of cost. It took me a while to get used to its perspective distortion but my copy has proven to be a formidable photon transmitter. 
On the topic of Erik's prints, yes, I would assume that the scans straight off the machine will be lower in contrast than ones tweaked in PS. However, I find them to be just fine on my monitor. Martin, I compared my histogram with yours and yours seems to be missing a few bumps in the upper range. The reflection of the Audi's hood, upper left center, approaches 237/255 when I checked with a densitometer. The first image proved to be just about ideal in my mind with blacks as low as 3 and highs in the windows at 254. That doesn't sound (or look) like a particularly low-contrast image to me.
On the topic of Erik's prints, yes, I would assume that the scans straight off the machine will be lower in contrast than ones tweaked in PS. However, I find them to be just fine on my monitor. Martin, I compared my histogram with yours and yours seems to be missing a few bumps in the upper range. The reflection of the Audi's hood, upper left center, approaches 237/255 when I checked with a densitometer. The first image proved to be just about ideal in my mind with blacks as low as 3 and highs in the windows at 254. That doesn't sound (or look) like a particularly low-contrast image to me.
Turtle
Veteran
Erik,
I was suggesting that low contrast prints worked fine for H C-B as his career was hardly stalled!
On the OP, a lot comes down to whether you need F2. if you dont, consider the summarit 35. if you do, the 35 asph is a lot sharper at F2. If you want bite at this aperture, you only have the asp f2 and lux asph from Leice to choose from. If you are prepared to accept a softer lens at f2 then there are lots to choose from!
I was suggesting that low contrast prints worked fine for H C-B as his career was hardly stalled!
On the OP, a lot comes down to whether you need F2. if you dont, consider the summarit 35. if you do, the 35 asph is a lot sharper at F2. If you want bite at this aperture, you only have the asp f2 and lux asph from Leice to choose from. If you are prepared to accept a softer lens at f2 then there are lots to choose from!
Freakscene
Obscure member
>decent wide-open
The 35 Summicron version IV is a great lens, but wide open it has very low contrast, doesn't display its best out-of-focus rendition (okay, it's not even good) and the aforementions coma is most obvious. In fact, none of the pre-asph 35 Summicrons are great wide open. For $2K get a nice M6 and a Zeiss ZM 35/2 and have some change for film. The Zeiss is affordable, and better than the Cosina-Voigtlander 35/1.7 or 35/1.4.
Marty
The 35 Summicron version IV is a great lens, but wide open it has very low contrast, doesn't display its best out-of-focus rendition (okay, it's not even good) and the aforementions coma is most obvious. In fact, none of the pre-asph 35 Summicrons are great wide open. For $2K get a nice M6 and a Zeiss ZM 35/2 and have some change for film. The Zeiss is affordable, and better than the Cosina-Voigtlander 35/1.7 or 35/1.4.
Marty
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Thanks Brad and Martin for your efforts. The picture of the guys with the Audi was taken on a very dark, cloudy and rainy day in Amsterdam. I wanted to keep that mood in the picture. Maybe a little too much.
Erik.
Erik.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Interesting viewpoint. The ZM 35/2 is my choice also after spending some time with a CV 35/1.7, M-Hex 35/2, UC-Hex 35/2, Leitz 35/2 v4, and the ZM 35/2. Won't bore you with my various impressions and preferences, but as to the ZM 35 vs v4 Cron i believe that the leitz is actually a bit sharper on center wide open vs the ZM 35/2 (not enough to make a difference to me). zeiss corner performance wide open was superior, and stopped down too. i prefer the ZM's stronger contrast and "look" wide open, but that is just my taste.
i've become a zeiss fan this year after trying out several ZMs, no small reason is value, as Martin points out, and for the ZM series all-round performance that many cite: flare resistance, color response, lack of coma, etc.
as an aside, if sharpness on center wide open is really one's thing, i think the CV 35/1.7 at f2 is surprisingly the best of the lenses i mention above.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Mauro Scacco: that summaron shot is OUTSTANDING....
the darks, the sharpness, the glow...I LOVE IT !!
the darks, the sharpness, the glow...I LOVE IT !!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Summicron 35mm f/2 (first type, 8 elements), Leica M2, Tmax400, printed on Ilford MGIV fb.
Erik.
Erik.