Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,420   Online: 1032
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Most of the pictures I've studied across most makes, models and films are rich in grain and, with rare exception, print natural light flat.

    These qualities have more to do with format, lighting, exposure, film choice, and printing, than a particular camera or lens.

  2. #22
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I am lost, and dumbfounded by your post. It seems to me that you are technically obsessing over extremely basic concepts, and putting the burden on your equipment and supplies, when it needs to be put on yourself – your own understanding of basic concepts of photography.

    You need to just learn light. That is all photography is. All the other stuffs (cameras, films, etc.) are secondary. If you cannot learn light, you are not going to get what you want, period, with any camera.

    I suggest enrolling at a community college and taking a basic photography class...and holding onto your money until you learn how to work with light and control your negatives and prints. And for God's sake, quit making general statements about things such as natural light and rangefinders! The "signatures" and characteristics you are generally and aphoristically attributing to natural light and to rangefinders are very far off the mark.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #23
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,221
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Most of the pictures I've studied across most makes, models and films are rich in grain and, with rare exception, print natural light flat.

    These qualities have more to do with format, lighting, exposure, film choice, and printing, than a particular camera or lens.

    So far in this thread only Clayne is on the mark.

    There's camera lenses and there's German camera lenses, it' subtle, but Leica lenses are not built to the same optical design criteria as Nikons, Canons etc.

    I guess an anolgy is it's like the differences between Tmaxr Delta films and conventional emulsions like FP4, Plus X or Tri X and HP5.

    I never believed the hype about Leica lenses, then I used a Summicron and saw it for myself, later I shot a wedding with one and when I handed over the prints was asked what new camear had I just bought That was late 1980's and the camera and lens were both early 50's

    It's not just Leica, Zeiss designs have the same feel, so do Schneider & Rodenstock.

    However most of the the very best lens designs can only be made for Rangefinder & LF cameras because the mirror on SLR's gets in the way so designs are compromised to allow some retro focus on SLR's.

    Ian

  4. #24
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    So far in this thread only Clayne is on the mark.

    There's camera lenses and there's German camera lenses, it' subtle, but Leica lenses are not built to the same optical design criteria as Nikons, Canons etc.

    I guess an anolgy is it's like the differences between Tmaxr Delta films and conventional emulsions like FP4, Plus X or Tri X and HP5.

    I never believed the hype about Leica lenses, then I used a Summicron and saw it for myself, later I shot a wedding with one and when I handed over the prints was asked what new camear had I just bought That was late 1980's and the camera and lens were both early 50's

    It's not just Leica, Zeiss designs have the same feel, so do Schneider & Rodenstock.

    However most of the the very best lens designs can only be made for Rangefinder & LF cameras because the mirror on SLR's gets in the way so designs are compromised to allow some retro focus on SLR's.

    Ian
    IMO I disagree, (not not about the quality of rangefinder lenses or that there are very subtle differences between lenses from certain manufacturers) But I'd bet you a print that I can match the "look" on a print as far as a rangefinder beyond minor signatures that few would notice, using my Canon or Exacta SLR. The "look" the OP describes is in my opinion mostly film, focal length, aperture, and circumstance. Of course lens construction and coatings contribute qualities, but the idea that someone could look at a print and say categorically that it came from rangefinder is hooey.

    That's just my opinion. The only thing I think that is really off the mark here is saying everyone else is wrong. It generally isn't smart to speak in absolutes when discussing qualities that carry as much subjectivity as a "look".

    There are great reasons to use a rangefinder and it sounds like the OP has discovered them, but ascribing skin tones to a particular kind of camera isn't something that I personally consider valid beyond the most nuanced of nuance.
    Last edited by JBrunner; 10-18-2010 at 04:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    stevebrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    113
    Here are a few from my ca 1962 Yashica Lynx 1000 (Yashinon 45/1.8) that are not particularly grainy, have good contrast, and are sharp enough for a cheap camera (less than $100 new)...













    All using Rollei Retro 100 rated at EI 160 and souped in Edwal FG-7 1:15 w/o sulphite.

    As noted above, much depends on technique, film, processing, quality of light, and yes, the lens used. All-in-all, I got the image I was after without a heavy outlay for equipment. Yes, medium format might have yielded less apparent grain and better tonality, but that is the trade-off for the convenience of a smaller and lighter camera. So, the answer might be (as suggested above) a medium format folder or rangefinder kit. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, a Bessa II might be just your cup of tea.


    Steve

    BTW...the apparent grain on these scans is artifact of the scanning process. The negatives have very fine grain when examined directly.

  6. #26
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    My opinion...forget about the gear. I shoot street with my Leica M3 and I have a full arsenal of lenses BUT, I can do just the same with a Contax T2 or a Rollei 35T...and very few notice. Get yourself a beat up but working camera (yes, you can find a good, clean, old Leica with lens for $800 if that's your choice), load it with Tri-X, forget the meter, sunny 16 all the way and learn the light and how to compose. Pick a developer or two and fine tune your style. Some people say that there is a Leica/rangefinder look and I say it's all about the photographer. Rangefinders do bring one to shoot a little differently and, while certain lenses do have a unique signature, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

  7. #27
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    The "look" the OP describes is in my opinion mostly film, focal length, aperture, and circumstance. Of course lens construction and coatings contribute qualities, but the idea that someone could look at a print and say categorically that it came from rangefinder is hooey.
    J is totally on the money here. While I do agree with Ian that Leica glass is special, it won't make or break said "look" here. It'll add to it, but it's only a 5% thing.

    The majority of it is Tri-X, light, and moment.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #28
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Nicholas, the light falloff of the noctilux is what makes it not that great a lens in my opinion.
    Pretty much all lenses have light fall-off problems wide open. It increases the price of a lens to over-size the elements so there is no fall off, and with a lens that is already as huge and expensive as a Noctilux the cost of mitigating fall off is likely prohibitive.

    But, hey, people buy Dianas for the funky fall off -- why shouldn't a $12,000 Noct share the same great look?
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  9. #29
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    Pretty much all lenses have light fall-off problems wide open. It increases the price of a lens to over-size the elements so there is no fall off, and with a lens that is already as huge and expensive as a Noctilux the cost of mitigating fall off is likely prohibitive.

    But, hey, people buy Dianas for the funky fall off -- why shouldn't a $12,000 Noct share the same great look?
    ...the Noctilux..the most misunderstood Leica lens. I don't have a .95 since I need a new car instead but I do have a f1. It's hard to justify a lens that is basically the same as a Summicron passed f1.4 but let me tell you, it's not called the NOCTIlux for nothing. All I see is people shoot that lens wide open at every chance they get just because it's cool, when in effect, the widest aperture with low light/no light is what the lens was born to do. I load my camera with TMZ or Delta 3200 and @ f1...let there be light!! Most people don't realize how powerful f1 is and for it's intended use, light fall off or vignetting is a total non-issue.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,960
    I think of the Noctilux as a specialty lens, although it certain can be used as the "normal" everyday lens. I think the price puts it into the specialty category.
    Other specialty lenses include some of the superwide optics, as well as fisheye lenses,

    But hey, we're not the Taliban, so you're free to combo any lens with any matching body. Whatever works for you.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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