Was he wrong?

[uli_mayer]

"FLARE: Everyone (except scientists) thinks of flare as devil. This is

nonsense; flare acts as a charitable angel for subjects of high

contrast. It does reduce dark tone separation, but this can be used to

enhance light tone separation. Many of this book's photographs

resulted from the conscious addition of a certain amount of of the

equivalent of flare."<p> This is quote from a book titled " A POINT OF

VIEW", written by the great American photographer RALPH STEINER.<p>Was

he wrong? What's your 'point of view'?<p

[jay_de_fehr]

I don't know wether he's right or wrong, but much of the "quality" admired in vintage, uncoated lenses is the result of flare. All things in moderation, I suppose.

 

Jay

[michael_gudzinowicz1]

I'd assume that he is correct in his description of the approach he used for some of the book's photographs. The "equivalent of flare" usually means pre-exposure to low levels of non-image light which tends to extend and flatten shadows. As a result, high value separation may be retained or enhanced (normal development of high contrast/long scale scenes or N+ development of "normal" scenes). Also, Steiner bleached prints after development to increase high value tone and separation. His methods are well known, and have been recapped by David Vestal.

[Troll]

Steiner was known to embellish the truth when it suited his purpose. I am lucky to have an excellent book of his photographs.

[david_m]

If you think he was right, buy an old uncoated lens and shoot into the sun. Oh, and don't use a lens shade no matter what. Have fun!

[noah]

My point of view is that the final product is what really matters. If you're looking for a

certain look and that involves some lens flare, then it can work really well. I, for one, once

in a while enjoy shooting pretty much directly into the sun and letting the lens flare out, it

can provide a soft dreamy look, especially in color. Other times I want a clean and sharp

look, in which case I'll try to block out any possible flare. Anyway, it can be fun to

experiment with. In my opinion, photography is an art form, and often there are no hard

and fast rules.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Andreas Feininger mourned the loss of halos no longer being captured on film after the addition of anti-halation coating, and shares some pre-anti-halation pictures that are incomparable in his 1950s books. Every step forward has a set backwards, I guess.

 

I think the anti-halation coating PLUS the advances in 35mm film derived from APS film developments and today's scanning enhancements are important, along with increased lens multi coating for DSLR sensor glare reduction, and then presenting your film to a good scanner so you can "fix it in photoshop" with it's HDR High Dynamic Range 32-bit mode, may resolve those ancient high contrast challenges.

 

Some tricks are antique only, but interesting to remember WHY we advanced what we advanced!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotogaphy.com/