jordi_rosales Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 So many things have an influence on a given photography that it seems to me impossible or without significance (insignificant) to define it only by giving the kind of lens and a couple of data.There are among others: Film, paper, shooting time, distance, tripod or free hand, light, air transparency or opacity, chemical development (many other factors here)/digital handling� Hence and consequently: the mere indication for instance �m3, collapsible so and so�� means to me nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 You are quite correct, but it's a start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I specifically mention the above combination because (a) I'm trying to keep the Leica content of my postings as high as possible, esp., now that there is an Olympus forum that I can post on, (b) the collapsible 50 gets dissed as the least of the 50 'crons, [maybe corectly], but like to point out how well it performs for me, and © I am also happy with the results of my 75 VC Heliar and like to show it (see the cemetery pix thread I started a few days ago. You're quite right about the other factors mentioned of course, but lenses do have "signatures", some are better, some are worse, some are distinctive, and I like to point out as well as observe this in others.The other factors I mention if asked anyway. But when you say "...means nothing to me at all." , you are closing yourself off to a significant bit of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_de_la_rua Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Actually for those of us who are Leica rookies,the equipment info. is very helpful. It has given me examples as to perspectives of the different lenses and there signatures. It helps me in my ideas as to purchases of future lenses. Love the info. and hope everyone would do it so more learning can take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 You're right, but. . .so what? Actually, to some extent the "signiture" of a lens comes through to some extent regardless of the above mentioned processes. At least that's my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 <<Hence and consequently: the mere indication for instance �m3, collapsible so and so�� means to me nothing at all.>> Yes but to some people it means the difference between an HCB-esque masterpiece and a boring tyro snapshot, when speaking of an uploaded image actually shot with a 3 megapixel Olympus P&S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Jordi, ??? Should we start listing the Barometric Pressure and Smog Index with our photos now?? I think that the PHOTOGRAPHER has the most influence on a Photograph...however, I still want to know what the Lens was. Then I want to know what the Film was....then MAYBE the Developer. After that...who cares? I have alot of Lo Fi (by this forum's standards) leica lenses and they have VERY distinct looks to them. Sumaron, Summar, Collapsible Cron, Rigid Cron.... jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 By the time the actual negative gets scanned, decimated, "photoshopped", JPeg'd, and displayed on your computer rather than the one that it was scanned on, about the only useful information that can be provided is the Camera, Lens, and maybe film used for "Polling" information only. Too much information is lost to really see the quality of the lens. Sometimes I will include a "Detail" shot , a small segment of the image scanned at max res, but it is not the same as using a loupe.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 But this is closer to the detail that I see in a 5x7.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now