would the lens be responsible for this look?

[rangefinderlove123]

Hello RFF,

I've printed these images a few days ago and cannot really explain what is it that I'm seeing but there is something quite special about, especially the one where he's handing a pair of glasses.

I can only thing that the lens is giving this particular look, would it be the famous "glow" (flare) that people often talk about? The lens is a 50mm elmar 2.8 with dual scale, which unfortunately doesn't work quite so well for me in terms of ergonomics. I've seen similar results coming from the lenses of my Pen SLR.

Cheers.

 

[zuikologist]

The Pen lenses should be super sharp. This looks like old film and a low contrast lens - what were the shooting and developing conditions?

 

[sepiareverb]

Paper looks fogged perhaps? Or an overly strong pre-exposure flash.

 

[xayraa33]

I suspect the lighting and the lens and the film and film developer you used ended up giving you that "Last Year at Marienbad movie still look".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdSQ-Hsukk

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I recommend to get scans of those negatives, to exclude DR possible specialties.
I have seen prints like these. It was not related to lens, film.

 

[Dwig]

...
I can only thing that the lens is giving this particular look, would it be the famous "glow" (flare) that people often talk about? The lens is a 50mm elmar 2.8 with dual scale, ...

That's only 1/2 the equation. These are darkroom enlargements so there are 2 lenses at play, not one.


Judging from the bleed of the dark areas around the edge of the frame, I suspect the dominant factors are:
1. The negatives are rather dense, overexposed and/or overdeveloped by "normal" standards.
2. The enlarging lens is creating some flare, either due to design and coatings or due to condition (haze, dusts, ...).


Dense negative lead to longer exposures and more overexposure of the black borders visible due to the filed out negative carrier. This can aggravate any flare problems with the enlarging lens. Unlike in camera flare, which is light or "white", flare when printing negatives is dark or black.



The light veiling haze we see with in-camera flare is a dark shadowy veil when it occurs when printing negatives. You very often see it when watching old B&W movies that have be duped from second or third generation negative "mothers".

 

[ptpdprinter]

The images look like they were taken with an old cheap plastic lens (or a Holga) and poor exposure. Perhaps the Elmar wasn't fully extended. What camera are you using?

 

[x-ray]

Due to the lack of shadow detail I'd say the negs are seriously under exposed or its very old film. If the negs we're simply over exposed there would be tons of shadow detail. Also the film is very over developed causing the skin in number two to be blown out. There could have been a touch of dffusion at the time of printing. I've done this with a plastic film sleeve under the lens during printing. It could also be soft from a badly damaged or cheap lens.

 

[rfaspen]

It really does look like overdevelopment at play here.

Lens? Not sure, but these don't look similar to images I get with the 2.8 Elmar. I think the Holga comparison above is valid.

 

[RichC]

I also don’t think it’s the lens. The Elmar 50/2.8 is a fine lens and holds its own even today. It’s sharp and controls flare well, albeit it has lower contrast compared with modern lenses. If it is the lens, it has a problem, or, as mentioned, it was accidentally not extended fully (I’ve done that!)

 

[Huss]

When the pics are out of focus, that rules out the lens giving the image its own signature.
The rest of the look has to do with exposure and/or the development process.

 

[Steve M.]

That certainly ain't Leica glow. Hard to say what it is w/o seeing the negs.