“m3, collapsible so and so…”

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by jordi_rosales, Feb 1, 2004.

  1. 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.
     
  2. Great.
     
  3. You are quite correct, but it's a start!
     
  4. 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 (c) 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. <<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.
     
  8. 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
     
  9. 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.
    007GJS-16442584.jpg
     
  10. But this is closer to the detail that I see in a 5x7.
    007GJV-16442684.jpg
     

Share This Page