Uncoated lens and BW film development

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Dali, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. Dali

    Dali Subscriber

    Messages:
    817
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi there,

    For those who use uncoated and coated lenses, do you develop your films the same way whatever lens you use or do you adjust your process when you use an uncoated lens (assuming that your standard lab process is for a coated lens)?

    Too, do you expose your film the same way (= same ISO) regardless the lens you use?

    Thanks for your input.
     
  2. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,737
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    yes... same way.
     
  3. R.Gould

    R.Gould Member

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Jersey Chann
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Yes same exposure and development, makes no difference
     
  4. Jim Noel

    Jim Noel Member

    Messages:
    2,165
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    It can make a difference because of the light bouncing around between the uncoated elements.
    I expose a little, maybe 1/6 stop, less and develop a little more, about 10%, with the old lenses, of which I have a good many. Development is usually by inspection so I don't always record times.
     
  5. pgomena

    pgomena Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, Or
    I use the same exposure and development as for pictures with modern lenses. There is more flare in highlights and bright areas, but I just accept it as characteristic of the lens I used (old RR or anastigmat.) It does lend a bit of a different look, which is the point, after all. I don't see so much flare bleeding into the shadows that I adjust for it.

    Peter Gomena
     
  6. Jeff Searust

    Jeff Searust Member

    Messages:
    361
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    Shooter:
    Med. Format Pan
    Good Lord.... a sixth of a stop... I cannot even fathom a sixth of a stop shooting. I figure any entire image will encompass seven or eight stops from white to black so that would be something on the order of 1/40 or 1/50 of the total of an image--- we are getting into differences so miniscule I doubt if the average eye can tell the difference.
     
  7. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,121
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Modern films and uncoated lenses together with modern papers (or scans) need no different exposure.

    However in the past with older thick emulsion films it was quite different. Pre the early 1960's films speeds were half todays speeds for the same emulsion, dev times were much longer but the papers of the day had characteristics that matched the negatives. This along with uncoated lenses gave that old fashioned feel.

    Ian
     
  8. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,254
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I notice a higher film speed with older lenses. Probably due to flare. If I shoot with my Voigtlander Nokton on the Leica, or my Hasselblad, I shoot Tri-X at 200. When I use the Summitar on the Leica, I get a full EI 400 out of Tri-X and in my prints I get a similar amount of shadow detail this way. I'm not sure that this is scientifically correct, but it sure helps for consistency from print to print.

    Naturally I also develop the Summitar negatives longer, due to lower contrast overall and to compensate for the exposure.

    - Thomas
     
  9. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,804
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    No change, or it negates the reason for using an uncoated lens in the first place.
     
  10. albada

    albada Member

    Messages:
    742
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Location:
    Escondido, C
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Thomas, I suspect that the flare from the uncoated lens has the effect of pre-flashing your film. The extra light biases the shadow-exposure upwards a little, lifting the shadows out of the toe, which in effect boosts speed.

    Mark Overton
     
  11. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,121
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My experience is that some lenses 1930's/40's age badly they used newer optical glasses which suffers from aging. It affects mainly Zeiss and Leitz optics and only a few fast designs. So f2 Summars, f3.5 Tessars, Novars in my case but it's a wide spread issue.

    Ian
     
  12. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,292
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    no adjustment! a typical exposure and development process has more variation than the difference in lens coating accounts for. Therefore,there is nothing that warrants an adjustment, because, it would be like chasing wind mills!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2012
  13. Dali

    Dali Subscriber

    Messages:
    817
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    This is what I suspected looking at my negatives... Shadows are not deep as they should and the contrast is not so dynamic. So increasing slightly the IE and developing a little longer would make sense.
     
  14. Newt_on_Swings

    Newt_on_Swings Member

    Messages:
    2,132
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Location:
    NYC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Never understood the deal with buying the newer lenses that were uncoated. Aren't most contrast filters coated anyway?
     
  15. Harold33

    Harold33 Member

    Messages:
    80
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In addition, I think it's more a matter of contrast than a matter of coating: the contrast of two recent multi-coated lenses by the same manufacturer such as Zeiss Sonnar 1.5 and Planar f/2 may be quite different. Also the contrast of old uncoated lenses such as Hektor and Elmar.

    As a matter of fact, I wonder if the differences of contrast are only differences of contrast: with my low-contrast uncoated Summar of 1935 there is an obvious additionnal exposure in the shadows compared to my Summicron of 1982 (internal diffraction, I guess). As a result, there is something like a 1/3-1/2 stop increase in speed with the Summar. Sometimes (not always), I see the same difference between my "old" Nikkkor 1.4/58mm (single-coated) of 1959 and the recent and very contrasty Nikkor 1.8/50mm. It's not a real speed increase because there is no additionnal exposure in flat overcast light, but it can make a real difference when I use alernatively old and recent lenses on the same film.
     
  16. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,511
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If you are using a lens with a lot of flare and don't increase your film development time or print on a harder contrast paper, you will have dark-gray blacks and light-gray whites. However, maybe that is what you want.
     
  17. pierods

    pierods Member

    Messages:
    311
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Shooter:
    35mm

    I also do 1/6 th of a stop less. Unfortunately, my exposure time must then be of 1 day, so that I can dial in 1/6th of a stop on my camera....:whistling:
     
  18. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,292
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    in addition, more contrst is a subjective preference, because, it increases apparent sharpness.
     
  19. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,254
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's my experience too. Just judging visually from my prints.