Some "Classic Camera" Shots (4)

One last one:

 

This is Piazza Navona in Rome, and with the "Befana" around the

corner the Cotton Candy tastes better than in the US. He wasn't

impressed by the Bernini statues much but the cotton candy got a

thumbs up.

 

Taken with an Early Post-war Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B with an

uncoated Tessar on Ilford FP4 (in ID-11). Printed on RC paper 8x10.<div></div>

Phew! Great tones out of that Tessar. The Ikontas are awkward to shoot with, but the results are top-drawer.

Very nice shot. Does show that special Tessar character.

You're doing some impressive work here Marco, and these four posts show it well. Thanks.

Ray: You don't get 'tones' out of a Tessar, they come from the film. The Tessar lens merely focusses the light on the film. A lens has little or no effect on tones.

<i>Ray: You don't get 'tones' out of a Tessar, they come from the film. The Tessar lens merely focusses the light on the film. A lens has little or no effect on tones.</i><br><br>That doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation of the difference between lenses. When you compare images from a 1930's German lens and a 1970's Japanese lens, there is not likely to be any confusion about which is which, and the differences don't seem to be in how they focus. Rather, one can see differences in contrast, flare, tonality, and perhaps other characteristics for which we may not have a very good descriptive vocabulary.

I agree with Mike C. Interestingly, there is a book called "Shooting Stars." Photos taken by celebs, including Alfred Hitchcock (not that great, surprisingly) to Tony Curtis, Elvis and the Duke-last 3 good stuff. Many of the celebs were using Rolleiflexes in those days-and the tonalities and overall image quality were just striking-even with small size reproductions. Or take a Contaflex I or II, it can look and work in a clunky manner-but the image quality is superb-what used to be called Pictorial, before sharpness/contrast/acuity/resolution ruled the day. Maybe, as so many on this great forum demonstrate, we should care less about numbers and more about results.

David M.,

on the contrary - the lens has GREAT influence on the tonal range that gets on the film: try to shoot the same scene on the same film, with different lenses, e.g. a modern multicoated Nikkor, a modern Leica lens, an old uncoated Sonnar type lens and an old uncoated Tessar, mybe throw in a triplet as well - you'll see a lot of difference in the way contrast is handled, in the way highlights are rendered, and in the way shadow elments are seperated! Even with one lens type, the fact whetehr it is coated or not, or what kinds of glass are used, makes a lot of difference - try shooting the same scene on the same film with a Russian LTM Industar-26m (Tessar-type, probably single-coated) and an Industar-61L/D (also a Tessar-type, but with lanthanum glass) - HUGE difference!

Actually, David M has raised a very interesting point about comparing lenses. I suppose lens designers have a very precise vocabulary for describing lens performance, but I don't have that kind of knowledge at my disposal. I think we are all aware of the differences that can result from lens coatings and sophisticated design corrections, but sorting it out and talking about it is a difficult thing for people like me without a real technical background. Also, putting the lens into the context of an actual, working camera system introduces a vast number of variables which makes photography more an art than a science, I think. For these reasons, I think it is particularly helpful when people post examples of images made with their classic cameras.

I believe that tonal range is most influenced by negative size. 6x6 has something more than 35mm and 4x5 reigns supreme. Of the only 20 large format prints i have taken in my life, the tonal range is superb, but then again lugging around film pack, graflex and large tripod is not an everyday thing.

I would venture to say that it's a combination of lens and negative size. The larger negatives gives you superior tonality over 35mm, but the lens being used also should be considered. I would say negative size first followed by lens.<P>

Marco, I want to congratulate you for the excellent images (1,2,3,4). Excellent contrast and composition.

 

David M. Yes, there is a difference between older x newer lenses. The newer ones are "too clinical" geared towards color film.

 

I just do B&W and my Hasselblad 80/2.8 C (chrome single coated) gives me much better images than my multicoated 80/2.8 Planar CF. I should also mention my Tessars for medium format as well as Dagors, and Protar for 4x5 and or 8x10.