Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,861   Online: 1103
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,537
    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    skimmed through the responses, very good discussion.

    Just to clarify a few things.

    I scan my negatives and make wetprints in the darkroom. I care about my wetprints and negatives more than I care about my scans...
    I have no problems with the contrast levels of my current lenses but I have not tried anything modern. I would be interested in perhaps changing lenses mid-roll. Say for instance a 1950's 50mm Sonnar with a 2012 28mm Biogon. Things like that.
    In general, good quality single focal length lenses from the 50's such as a Sonnar should not have that much more flare than current lenses. They were coated, and that's a very important factor. For the most part I would say the differences in low value contrast between a 1950s 50mm Sonnar and current Biogon could be compensated for in printing/scanning/processing. One way to help even things out even more would be to use a good lens shade with the older lenses and do your best to shield the front element from extraneous light, particularly bright light sources just outside the frame.

  2. #22
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    Well for certain focal lengths/speeds modern lenses are more practical (Zeiss and CV mostly). The general agreement is that for b&w film low contrast is preferable, but does it really make that much of a difference?
    For black & white, contrast is not controlled by the taking lens. Contrast is controlled through film development and printing.

    How critical is an uncoated lens? Color photography was developed before lens coating. Take a look at old, well-preserved color photos, and see the effect of an uncoated lens. Do you actually see a problem?

    Contrast lost through lens flare is always a problem. Somebody posted a link to a test where a box with a test target in it was photographed against the sun. The test shots were made with and without a lens shade. The photographs with the lens shade showed much better shadow contrast and detail.

    What you need to do is make tests for yourself, and see what works for you.

  3. #23
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    For black & whiteis not controlleded by the taking lens. , contrast is not controllContrast is controlled through film development and printing.
    Contrast is controlled through film development and printing and the taking lens and lighting conditions
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  4. #24
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,210
    Images
    148
    Unfortunately film development can't compensate totally for the lack of contrast due to internal flare with older uncoated or poorly coated lenses, I include some Multicoated lenses in that statement.

    Michael R is right about many 1950's coated lenses being almost equal in terms of contrast to modern Multi-coated equivalents, there's also a misconception that lenses have a single coating, some do but others have more than one coating layer Zeiss used 2 quite early on and some pre- Multicoated lenses were not far different in terms of their coatings.

    Early coated lenses were problematic with colour films often giving quite a strong blue cast and warm up filters were introduced to compensate. Lens manufacturers overcame this in the 1960's with newer coatings and often these lenses were designated to reflect this, Color Skopar, Pancolor etc.

    My experience using an uncoated 1930's 135mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar, a mid 1950's 150mm T coated 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar, a late (2000/1) coated 150mm f5.6 Xenar and also various Multi-coated 135mm & 150mm Symmars & Sironars is that apart from the uncoated lens the results are almost indistinguishable in terms of contrast even shooting into the light. In any light there's a drop in micro-contrast with the uncoated Tessar and that's the same for my other uncoated lenses, there's a loss of detail in subtle highlights. The 50's Tessar is very heavily coated and visually give a blue cast but it's remarkable good for B&W work and micro contrast which is imprtant for fine detail is as good as a modern MC lens, and it's very flare resistant.

    The problem with discussions like this is not all manufacturers coated their lenses properly, they wouldn't coat every air glass surface or coatings were poor.

    A classic for poor Multicoating was the Hoya range of lenses in the late 1970's or early 80's launched with a lot of hype. They were very sharp lenses but Hoya skimped on the coatings and many suffered from severe flare, the result was Hoya dropped the entire range and went back to the drawing board, the new range was launched under their Tokina brand name.

    So the choice of lens does have an effect on the contrast and particulary micro contrast, highlight and shadow separation, varying exposure and film development time can only help to get the bst from the inherent contrast of the lens itself.

    Ian

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Peltigera View Post
    The Forum title is "35mm Cameras and Accessories". It is not "Darkroom Printing on Light Sensitive Paper". The opening poster was asking about using lenses on their 35mm film camera and so is quite appropriate here. The issue is whether he would end up with usable negatives. Quite what use he puts those negatives to is neither here nor there.
    Every photo displayed on this site was scanned. Try not to be so pedantic.

  6. #26
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Lens manufacturers overcame this in the 1960's with newer coatings and often these lenses were designated to reflect this, Color Skopar, Pancolor etc.
    So far I thought such "Color" designations reflected a better lens-design concerning spectral aberrations. Am I wrong?

  7. #27
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,210
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    So far I thought such "Color" designations reflected a better lens-design concerning spectral aberrations. Am I wrong?
    I was referring to overcoming the casts caused by early coatings, however improved coatings are an intregal part in improving lens designs alongside optical imporovements.

    Ian

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    295
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    So far I thought such "Color" designations reflected a better lens-design concerning spectral aberrations. Am I wrong?
    By spectral aberration, do you mean chromatic aberration? If it is the case, the lens coating does very little. You can't fix an optical aberration with coating as coating is not supposed to change the lens characteristics but only improve the light transmission and reduce flare which is some cases can improve color fidelity.

    Regarding different comments about visible improvement from coating, I also noticed that single coated lenses were good enough at least for the type of pictures I take.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,322
    Lens contrast is very important. You cannot compensate for missing detail in the darkroom, or by increasing development. Single coated lenses can be excellent, multicoating is better but shows it's virtues more in complex lenses such as zooms.

    One thing to keep in mind is the value of an efficient lens hood. I use lenses of all ages, from early 1900s to modern multicoated wonders. The hood helps them all. An uncoated Dagor with a compendium hood has better contast than a single coated Symmar without the hood. A multicoated Dagor with compendium has better contrast and more shadow detail than any lens I've ever seen, used, or heard of. My late 60s/early70s Nikkors 35mm lenses have all the contrast I or anyone needs, when used properly.

    Veiling flare can be printed through in B&W, but can cause color casts in the shadow areas on color film.
    Dirty lenses will show markedly less contrast than clean ones.

    So, keep the lens clean, use a hood, and don't obsess over contrast. Any modern coated lens that is clean and in good condition - and modern means post WWII - will give adequate contrast for any purpose if used properly.

  10. #30
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Any kind of light bouncing around the lens before reaching the film degrades image quality, some detail must be lost. You might like the effect, or not, you might even need it, but the lost "quality" (in the sense of information) is not something that can be recreated in the darkroom.

    High internal flare reduces both the contrast of the lens and the "micro-contrast" (acutance) which is one of the qualities that we perceive as sharpness.

    That is only of interest to those persons, or circumstances, when you value sharpness of course.

    So my answer is that it makes a difference, and that it is a difference that cannot really be compensated in the darkroom. But that said, using a low-contrast (high-flare) lens and raising contrast in the darkroom can give you the results you were looking for.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 11-13-2012 at 02:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin