"Denizen of the Dark."

Considering all the recent debates about the Noctilux, I was

wondering if a different perspective might "shed some light" on

this truely unique lens. Admittedly, this is a kind of romantic POV,

which may rankle the sensibilities of our more scientific forum

members. Yet, not all of photography is science. There is a little

magic at play here too. I'll start by repeating a little post I put on

one of the threads below:

 

DENIZEN OF THE DARK.

 

" The sun melts it's way to the horizon. Inky shadows lengthen,

and spread ever wider until swallowing half of the world. Wide

eyed children pull up the blankets in hiding, straining to see what

lurks in the distance.

 

A relentless nothingness has come, and it's name is Night . A

time when lesser searchers retire to their warmly lit abodes.

Suddenly, a stirring of this Noire scenario...the Light Drinker itself

has awaken to roam. Hide your women and children, the

Noctilux is up and about in the land".

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but it gets dark here once every

day. So dark all but a few lenses are rended useless. IMO, of

those still capable all bow in submission to the light drinking

Noctilux.

 

The different perspective comes when you consider this lens as

rendering darks not lights. Think of it as a superior D-max lens. It

sees into the blacks better than any other lens in the world. The

Canon f/1.0 doesn't even come close in it's rendering of darks

(or the points of hot light).

 

All the other aspects of this lens have been covered quite well.

It is a demanding lens to focus. It's not designed to do close up

work, especially at f/1.0. I disagree that it is big. The Canon f/1.0

is BIG! It vignettes when used in brighter situations. In the dark

the vignetting is usually lost in with-in the setting. For night-time

environmental shots and portraits it is truely unique.

 

Just a thought for those who consider this lens "Junk". It's junk to

those who can't see it's dark hearted charms...or can't master it's

use. As ever, one mans' junk is another mans' treasure.<div></div>

Marc interesting picture.

 

When you say "it gets too dark it renders most lenses useless...", I have 2 questions in mind.

 

1) How dark is too dark? Not even a single light source? No reflective light on the subject at all? How does one define dark? Is there a density chart for some qualitative measurement of "Darkness" besides the camera's meter?

 

2) How about pushing film with other lenses besides the Noct under these "dark" conditions? They should come out well right? Maybe a little grain added as a result.

 

I do not have the Noct apparently...;) Im just pondering.

 

 

thx for sharing.

I don't know Marc, I've preferred to shoot in the dark - at night and indoors - for years without anything faster than f2. I think it comes down to technique and film processing. Given how I tend to use depth of field, I rarely shoot at f2, it doesn't give me the backgrounds I usually like. A faster lens wouldn't help at all...<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/thewall/06580de0.jpg"><br>

<i>Ready, Copyright 2002 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

Sirs - may I remind you that it is also permitted to use the Noctilux with pushed films. You are one f-stop ahead in any case.

...that means compared to a 1.4 lens...

Travis, I think it has to do with situations where the light is so low

that it difficult to hold a 50mm still enough to be reasonably

sharp...IF that's what your intention is. I can and do shoot other

lenses at smaller apertures in very low light, but the results of

unsteadyness have to be accepted...as many are. With the

sample I posted this time, I wanted the martini glass to be

reasonably sharp.

 

Jeff, few can argue with your results. I would just say that given

all things you mentioned being equal, then the Nocti will work

nicely at a higher shutter speed. But if you have a preference for

backgrounds as you describe, then It seems you do not have a

preference for the characteristics of this lens, nor need of it.<div></div>

Here's an example of a lighting situation I shot with a 35/2 ASPH.

Now some may find it okay and atmospheric. But I tried really

hard to hold steady, and would have prefered a crisper rendition

like from a 35/1.4 ASPH (to maintain the slightly distorted

perspective). Yes I could've pushed the film, but there were 20

shots already on the roll shot in different light.<div></div>

Marc, here's what I always do.

 

I set out with 2 bodies if I can. One at ei 320 and one at 1600. After 6pm, I use the ei1600 body solely.

 

I believe the Noct is a unique lens, I can see by the bokeh and the way the darks are preserved without much need to push, all from your samples here.

 

As I cannot now afford the Noct, I go around the low light problem with what Jeff said, film pushing and proper low light hand-holding techniques....But of course my low light pics are always grainy compared to the Noct's ;)

 

 

here's one handheld at 1/15th (slr). Im using a lot of bracing here to get a sharp one..<div></div>

I guess I agreee with Jeff. Within reason, the speed of the lens is less important than what the desired end result is. Film speed and a steady hand are always important. Having said that, Marc your shot does have a very nice tonal richness which perhaps couldn't have been captured with a lesser lens.

 

I shot the attached with a 35mm 1.4 ASPH. The area was lit only by a single kerosene lantern and by ambient florencent light from a nearby ferris wheel. I used T-Max400 pushed 2 stops.

 

SOT: Check out Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lindon" where he had an f/1.0 lens specially designed for a scene lit only with candles. Admittedly a lot of candles, but no doubt a technical breakthrough for the movies and a very interesting look.<div></div>

Some of you are making my point for me (if there is a point?).

 

One M, one lens, one ND filter and I can shoot anywhere

anytime. I have 4 Ms. I don't want to carry 2 of them to dinner in

NYC. This thing can shoot a black cat at midnight in a coalmine,

if someone just lights a match...then produce grainless 11X14s

afterwards. Yet I know it ain't for everyone. It's not even for me all

of the time.<div></div>

Regarding the question of "why not just push the film a stop?":<P>

Sometimes that simply isn't an option because you are already pushing the film as far as it will effectively go, and you're using a shutter speed that is already marginal for handholding and "freezing" subject motion.<P>

In the photo below, I was shooting wide open (f1.4) at 1/25 with Delta 3200 at EI 6400. Shadow detail is easier to see on the print than in the scan, but the neg was still thin. Pushing the film an additional stop would have done nothing to improve the shadow detail, and that's where much of the story was. The extra stop that a Noctilux provides would have been useful. (Unfortunately, for what one costs, I'll just have to do without . . .)<P>

<center><img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/dwgirls01.jpg"></center>

jake,

 

i believe that stanley had a f 0.7 lens designed for barry lyndon. he had to have the rear mount modified to fit in a (arri bl? i think) which resulted in the rear element resting just milimetres from the film plane.

 

travis, as mike said, you can only push film so much and at that, you're losing whatever if any shadow detail when you get past 1600.

 

has anyone here ever pushed film to some obscene iso? ie. 12,800 or 25,600? i've always been curious...guess that'll be my next test.

Very cool Marc, I like the photo- especially the title, your point of view being given, her expression contrasting with the knowledge of you/your vampire, and the framing in that you're including some of the neat background lighting. Please shoot more with the Noct and share more. :D We need more undead converts muhahaha!

Personally, I like the subject matter of Mike's photo and I think that the grain helps the photo. Of course, we can only guess at what we're missing with a faster lens and less grain. I was fortunate to stumble on Salgado's exhibition in NYC a while back. Very large prints and when you moved close to the photos, plenty of grain. But again, the content--especially the light and human subjects--were not hurt at all by the extra grain. The grain added. This is purely a matter of taste, I suppose. The low shutter speed is probably the biggest problem.

Love this thread. Mark, I sent you two emails that came back yesterday. Did you get them?

Boy, what a great series of pictures. Really, very compelling reasons to want this lens. Especially considering I've shot exclusively with a 50 my entire life. With a trip to New York next month I'll have to just see...

 

By the way Jeff was your shot posed or just something that "happened" during a shoot?

<i>By the way Jeff was your shot posed or just something that "happened" during a shoot?</i><p>

 

I shot a San Francisco performance of The Wall, with full backstage access. This just happened backstage - people mostly ignored me completely, which created a great working situation. A photo-essay on the show can be found <a href="http://www.spirer.com/images/thewall/">here.</a>

Marc.

 

I've immune to Noctilust until just now--when I saw your martini photo.

<center>

<img src="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze4hbvk/night.jpg">

</center>

<br>

<br>

....its not about the speed of the lens....

Given how I tend to use depth of field, I rarely shoot at f2.

 

Neither do i. Very fast films, noctilux type lenses, just not my style. Rarely, i cannot find some support for my camera...so i really don't find the need for them.<div></div>

Now go and figure what is the best method. Loads of money, or commen sense. Super fast, super grainy film; or bags of money for a extra few stops. Lets not forget the monster lense. Use that thing between your ears! Find support...is that so hard.

The notion being presented was the ability to shoot

photographs in extremely low light, without resorting to grainy

push processing or accepting blur. I can do the latter two things

with any lens including the Noctilux. Conversely, I can't

spontaneously shoot a normal, grain free, or unblurry shot with a

f/2 lens in the kind of light demonstrated in a couple of shots

posted here. It's just a matter of choice, not a personal

philosophical debate concerning photographic styles.

 

Hey Allen, was your example photo a handheld shot at night? If

not, I'm curious as to your point in relation to this thread?

Well, try taking a shot on the London underground, without using some sort of support, even the noct, and 3200 pushed will struggle.( i've failed even using flash) Don,t forget the motion! Using a available tripod Marc, that is the key.<div></div>

I'm making a very simple point....why, handhold?

A few simple reasons to handhold:

 

1) Motion blur of subjects will degrade sharpness anyway at long shutter speeds.

 

2) It's difficult to keep up with the activities surrounding you when you're futzing around with a tripod.

 

3) Most bars/clubs/parties/etc. are not "tripod friendly."

 

4) Carrying around a tripod is a pain in the ass.