Lenses that offer "better shadow detail"

<p>Posting a note about member comments concerning lenses that offer "better shadow detail".<br>

I believe the science is as follows. Film has a 'threshold' exposure value below which no image will record, no latent image will be recorded and developed. Shadows will hold detail that can be seen in person and will send a sub-threshold amount of light to the film with no effect. This threshold value will determine the 'film speed' (density in developed film above base+fog).<br>

Shadow detail can be brought out better and recorded with a lens that has a certain amount of glare due to transmitting non-image light from scene to film. This small amount of non-image light adds to the little bit of image light from shadow areas and brings it over the threshold value; it is now recorded on the film. It is the 'fog' from the lens that helps it render this shadow detail. It also has the effect of "lowering contrast". This can be considered a flaw of the lens, this glare or fog. Lens makers worked hard and coated lenses to eliminate the fog. It makes the rendering more accurate. However, there is no fault in loving and embracing this characteristic of the lens.<br>

If what you like is shadow detail and lower contrast images but you also enjoy working with modern lenses for the more accurate images they are capable of and the more reliable shutters they are mounted in you can get that quality from them. One technique is the simple and basic method of overexposure and underdevelopment. The extra stop or two gives you excellent shadow detail and the underdevelopment will keep your highlights from blocking up.<br>

The other formerly common technique is called "flashing" your film. If you put your film into holders and expose it to a uniform sub-threshold amount of light (usually in the darkroom) it will be 'primed' to bring out detail from the shadows with even the tiniest amount of light coming from these dark areas. I believe there are many articles and book chapters explaining this practice.<br>

There is no fault in loving the old lenses. You should not think that there is any magic in them. It's not magic. Love them, collect them, enjoy them. Make beautiful images that make you happy. Sometimes these older, uncoated lenses are incredible bargains. Sometimes they are grossly over-valued for their 'character' which are properties easily achieved with any newer lens by easily changing your exposure and processing practices.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the summary. Does anyone have any examples?</p>

 

<p>Try that essay over at the Large Format Photography Forum. I bet you won't get too far with that last sentence! :-)</p>

<p>Peter, I would love to see you achieve the quality of work that Ansel Adams did from his work done in the 1940's with today's coated lens. Even he hasn't been able to do that. None of his modern images even came close.<br>

The need to make profits, make photography accessible to more people, and the need for speed, have been some of the causes why the latent image, which was so obvious in turn-of-century prints has diminished. No modern photographic paper can bring out the details of a platinum/palladium print. An expensive scanner will show more detail than a cheap one. Undiluted developer will render an image different than a highly diluted one. The photographic process is a multitude of factors. No one factor determines it. If you change any part of it, you gain on one end, and lose on the other. I'm sure many photographers look at some of the older images, done by our icons, and want to capture the same look or feel, coming to the conclusion that it's the glass, or the film, or the chemistry.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why people, especially Americans, need to label everything "better". It doesn't seem to be enough to just enjoy it. We have to sell it. I choose the word "different", not better.</p>

I didn't read "better" into the OP as much as I read

that the same magic may be possible using

multiple methods. But why bash Americans when

you just said (no matter how correct you may be)

that platinum-palladium is better than...

 

A bit ironic, dontcha think? �

That weird symbol was supposed to be a face with

winking eye

<p>Well Brian, while you're doing all that winking, why don't you read what I said. I never said that platinum prints were better. I said they bring out more detail than silver prints. Many people are totally satisfied with the range of the gelatin silver process. Nor do most people want to take the time required to do alternative processes, which were common a century ago.</p>

<p>The threads with the most post on Photo.net alone, have been over what is better. Film vs digital, megapixels, Nikon vs Canon, etc., and the majority of those posters are Americans. I'm sorry if that offends you -:). Peter wrote, "Shadow detail can be brought out <strong>better</strong> and recorded with a lens that has a certain amount of glare, etc." My point was that the printing process is as much a factor.</p>

<p>Charles, when you speak of Ansel Adams in the present tense you do realize he passed away some time ago, yes?<br>

Some things are indeed "better" if they better enable us to express ourselves. A hammer made of steel is better than a hammer made of styrofoam if the job is driving a nail. We are talking about tools and about trying to achieve a result that pleases us; a result that we (for whatever reason) want. There can be a "better" and there can be a "different". A hammer is not a wrench. A claw hammer for one job and a sledge hammer for another.<br>

There is no photographer I can think of whose technical skills and proficiency would have made photos worth a damn if there was no artistic vision expressed within those photos. If you say what you want to say with an old lens, good for you. "None of his modern images even came close"? His work in the 1940's had quality and his later work did not? Uh. OK. <br>

Tools. It's just tools. You and I are the artists; we are the craftsmen. We have all seen countless images created with technical mastery that were completely worthless because they contained no creative expression. Might as well have been made on a Xerox machine. But, if what you create makes you happy, it does not matter one bit what I think of it. I have created a thousand failed images for every one of mine which succeeds, in my eyes. Some of the near misses are pretty cool, though.</p><div></div>

<p>A rather down-to-earth solution - but more controllable than a lens with flare:<br />When in difficulty without adequate fill, I lay a white card inside on the floor of the bellows. The card catches some extraneous light from above the scene and pre-flashes in proportion to the exposure. Been doing it for a long time with Ektachrome and such - there’s no need with B&W because development takes care of shadow detail.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm mistaken, but the zone system is the zone system and applicable regardless of the lens , but also subject to the capabilities of the lens and film. However the principals still apply, if you want tonal latitude greater than the film or the current lens offers, you will need to push or pull as needed to the degree that is possible with lens/film. Was it Adams that coined the phrase, expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights? But pre-flashing is interesting and I haven't heard of that prior to exposing. Though I'm by no means an expert. Is this theoretical or something you have done? I would think that pre-flashing would have just the opposite effect, that of darkening the base tone and thus covering the shadows more but I do need to look for those articles you mentioned. When I was in school and we were using Large Format, or more likely 35 or med. format where it was difficult to develop for a single frame, when we had sky that was too bright, we would sometimes pre-flash the print paper to start off with a bit darker sky, but it never was used to raise detail in the shadows. Just wondering.</p>

<p>Fear not Chas, not offended at all. Those kind of comment though seem quite unnecessary for someone with otherwise good writing skills. If that is an important part of your message I support your right to state it though. I totally agree that photography has many variables that can be exploited and often there are many ways yo achieve same or similar end product. For shadow detail I'd be attending to film choice and exposure, and as you point out - printing, long befor worrying about lens coatings</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>Brian, I'd love to buy you a beer, and swap war stories. My point in a nutshell is that the words better and best are subjective.</p>

<p>Peter, I know that Ansel passed away some time ago. My point was that the work he's done that has received the majority of his acclaim, was produced during that time period with uncoated lens, silver rich films, thicker emulsions, toxic pyro developers, and more printing processes. In other words, there was more than one factor for him to achieve his objective. If you are now saying there is a "better" as well as a, "different", then you have contradicted your own conclusion. The analogy of the two hammers doesn't work for me. An uncoated lens and a coated lens are basically the same. A better analogy would be a power nail driver and a hammer. Is one better than the other? Can you accomplish your objective with either?</p>

<p>Putting all semantics aside, I like your work, and celebrate your joy in achieving it. Hell, there are people creating art with a Diana camera (plastic lens)....</p>

<div></div>

<p>Shadow detail is far from the only attribute of a lens!</p>

<p>Maybe I am too old to understand how a specific lens can offer better shadow detail.</p>

<p>Do you have any samples?</p>

<p>100% black is 100% black. 100% white is 100% white. A lab can push or pull in the development process. But a 8.0/90mm at f=11 will render the same image on the same film with the same density absolutely identical to a 5.6/90mm lens at f=11. None of them will turn the 100% black to a 95% or 50% black (=grey). </p>

<p>Did I miss something over the last 40 years? Any fundamental change in the physics behind optics?</p>

<p>Maybe I am too old to understand how a specific lens can offer better shadow detail.</p>

<p>Do you have any samples?</p>

<p>100% black is 100% black. 100% white is 100% white. A lab can push or pull in the development process. But a 8.0/90mm at f=11 will render the same image on the same film with the same density absolutely identical to a 5.6/90mm lens at f=11. None of them will turn the 100% black to a 95% or 50% black (=grey). </p>

<p>Did I miss something over the last 40 years? Any fundamental change in the physics behind optics?</p>

Jens,<br><i>"I believe the science is as follows. Film has a 'threshold' exposure value below which no image will record, no latent image will be recorded and developed. Shadows will hold detail that can be seen in person and will send a sub-threshold amount of light to the film with no effect. This threshold value will determine the 'film speed' (density in developed film above base+fog).<br>

Shadow detail can be brought out better and recorded with a lens that has a certain amount of glare due to transmitting non-image light from scene to film. This small amount of non-image light adds to the little bit of image light from shadow areas and brings it over the threshold value; it is now recorded on the film. It is the 'fog' from the lens that helps it render this shadow detail."</i><br>Which is something known for a quite a lot over 40 years. ;-)

<p>Q.G.,<br>

I am well aware of the effect Mr. Adams used by pre-exposing some film sheets.</p>

<p>What I don't understand is 'non-image' light. Everything in front of the lens is 'image light', which comes from the scene. So where does the flare or glow or fog or whatever esoteric expression someone might use come from? Is it predictable? Is it controllable? Is it reproducible? Can I calculate it? How do I measure it? Can I see it? Can an exposure meter record it? Can anybody show me the same scene with A. a normal lens and B. with a shadow enhanced lens, developed side by side with the identical developer in the same tank?</p>

<p>BTW, I've searched for 'shadow enhanced lens' at Rodenstock, Schneider, Cooke, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus. Result: Zero.<br>

I've searched for other combinations of the terms as well. Result: Zero.</p>

<p>When I breathe onto the front lens element (artificial fog!) and expose the film, I get a soft image, but not enhanced shadows. When I pull some nylon gauze/mesh over the lens (thousands of tiny flares!), I get a soft image, but not enhanced shadows. When I point the camera to the sunset, I get a large flare with some lenses, but no enhanced shadows.</p>

<p>As long as nobody can show a sample as mentioned above, it's smoke and puff. Something esoteric, negligible, and coincidental which only some enhanced people with enhanced eyesight will be able to notice at full moon. </p>

Jens,<br>Every (no exception) lens (and camera between lens and film) produces flare, mainly by reflecting light between elements. There always is a percentage of non-image forming light. Coating helped reduce that percentage, so uncoated lenses have more of this than coated ones. Lenses with many elements have more of this than those with fewer elements. The shape and position of the vertices too make a difference.<br> The result is higher contrast, i.e. less stray light. Less stray light means less light to help lift low light levels above the threshold.<br>Also something known for ages. ;-)<br>Do they advertise this, how poorly or uncoated lenses produce lower contrast in images? Of course not. Or do they?: they do advertise the opposite, how their magical formulae of lens coatings reduce the effect.<br>Look for advertisements that show how coated lenses (and filters - anything transparent put into th eoptical path) reduce flare and increase contrast. Deeper blacks. "Smoke and puff"?

<p>Samples please.</p>

Look in lens and filter maker's brochures.

<p>If you guys talk about shadow enhanced lenses, you should at least be able to show some samples.</p>

<p>As long as this won't happen, you are chasing a totally transparent unicorn. Smoke and puff.</p>

<p>Maybe we should suggest the administrators to add the topic 'esoteric phenomena - no proof required' and have them move this thread to that section.</p>

<p>If you guys talk about shadow enhanced lenses, you should at least be able to show some samples.</p>

<p>As long as this won't happen, you are chasing a totally transparent unicorn. Smoke and puff.</p>

<p>Maybe we should suggest the administrators to add the topic 'esoteric phenomena - no proof required' and have them move this thread to that section.</p>

You want to argue against decades of sensitometry and optics? Just because you don't like the description "shadow enhanced lenses" you yourself came up with? Should be interesting. So please do. ;-)

<blockquote>

<p>Decades of densitometry and optics experience with 'better shadow detail lenses'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So there must be hundreds if not thousands of samples somewhere!</p>

<p>I just want <strong>ONE SINGLE SAMPLE</strong> and comparison - which obvious nobody can or will present. Not even a link! That's hilarious.</p>