Lenses that offer "better shadow detail"

<p>i think the thing is that some people know how to finesse what they want out of a lens, out of their film and into their print, and it really doens't matter what lens<br>

camera, film, or arcane process they use. there are plenty of images made with modern multi coated lenses that have no shadow detail because the user didn't expose the film that way, just like there are plenty of images made with arcane processes and 15,000.00 rare brass lenses that have no atmosphere because ther didn't use it that way. in the end if someone knows what they are doing they can pretty much do as they please ( no densitometry or sensitometric testing needed ).</p>

<p>+1</p>

<p>OK, here's my attempt of showing this effect:<br>

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00d9ad-555267584.jpg<br>

If you look at the underside of these roadways you see excellent shadow detail despite the fact that there is not all that much light falling directly onto the bottom of a road. However, there is a large amount of sky included in the photo. The lens is an old uncoated Optar.<br>

The flare or "non-image light" from the large amount of sky is added to the entire amount of film surface equally - highlights, mid-tones and shadows. The modest amount of light has little effect on highlights and midtones, being a smaller percentage of the total light in this area. This 'flare' or 'fog' makes a significant addition to the light in the shadow areas and thus brings areas where the light is too small to record up into recordable range. I hope this explanation helps.</p>

<p>I've made this one with a modern multicoated EBC Fujinon lens. Kodak T-Max, 400 ISO, lab development (I don't develop any film, the people at the lab need some support):</p>

<p><img src="https://beefoto.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/scan-090214-0001__02.jpg?w=1008" alt="" /></p>

<p>Lots of details in the shadows. Many highlights. Sky. White walls.</p>

<p>I believe the only demonstration of "proof" would be to shoot the same, exact scene with two different lenses. Second best would be to measure the light from the shadow area and then the highlight and compute the dynamic range. Expose for what we know would not record shadow detail and then, voila, get shadow detail. So, what I offer as proof can be considered anecdotal. I concede that it is. There is actual science, however, and I can see it demonstrated in my results. Maybe you can too. Maybe not. It's all OK.</p>

<p>there really is no demonstration of proof on the internet<br>

everyone's monitor is profiled ( if at all ) a different way, its a 72dpi image and impossible to discern reality from a jpg. besides, even with film + paper when one scans it, it alters the image from what it actually was, it can be manipulated to death to prove or disprove any point in an argument. i guess the only thing to do is to shrug one's shoulders and say: maybe. </p>

 

<p>@Peter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe the only demonstration of "proof" would be to shoot the same, exact scene with two different lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's exactly what I had asked for. But obviously nobody can or will do it. And as long as I actually don't see a direct comparison, I will stick to my statement and say it's all smoke and puff.</p>

Can you prove that it is all smoke and puff, Jens?

<p>Yes: Until today there are only words. Weird explanations. Hot air.<br>

As long as I don't see what Peter Lerman described, there is absolutely no evidence to believe it:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe the only demonstration of "proof" would be to shoot the same, exact scene with two different lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I want a scientific proof. No more, no less.</p>

First those "weird explanations". If they appear that to you, you do have some catching up to do. Those are all described and explained in scientific literature dating all the way back to when people began to examine the proces scientifically (i.e. all the way back).<br>There are plenty samples - as mentioned before - in commercial literature extolling the virtues of anti reflection coatings.<br>And all you have contributed to this topic has been "smoke and puff", "hot air", "no evidence", no "explanations". Right?

<p>There are those that cannot see and those that will not see. Says me.<br>

I didn't invent any of those concepts and phenomena I was trying to explain. As stated above, they are explained and defined by real scientists in actual scientific texts. When I read posts based on magic properties of mythical lenses I cringe. There's no magic in the glass. Zero. It is so much more about vision, creativity and technique.</p>

<p>In fact, it's all about vision, creativity and technique. The emperor has no clothes. Actually, I am pretty sure he is not even really the emperor.</p>

<p>Jens: Here is comparisation from Tiffen http://www.tiffen.com/hi-res/UltraContrast3_Effects.jpg<br>

more here: http://www.tiffen.com/literature/Contrast_FactSheet_Lo.pdf</p>