I'm all Eyes- Let's see how Lens Signature affects Photographs

[ray .]

I sort of remember that slut comment, but at the time I thought it

was a joke, mimicking that old Saturday Night Live line "Jane,

you ignorant slut!"

[cd thacker]

This <i>is</i> the world's longest thread, or seems to be. On a pretty highspeed DSL connection, it's taking maybe 40 seconds for the whole thing to load. Feel sorry for people reading this on dialup.<p>

 

If you're a Robert Frank fan (or even if you're not, maybe), I still say that one of his best books is <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004x8l"><i>Black, White and Things</i></a>, if you can get hold of it.<p>

 

I recall reading somewhere that he worked throughout that period with a Leica body and a Contax lens. Don't remember if he chose that lens for its speed or for its price, but one thing is sure: Frank determined what equipment he needed and could afford - it wasn't much - and then he did the crucial thing - he <i>began</i>.

[dan_fromm1]

Ils sont fous, ces Leicaistes.

 

More seriously, I direct your attention to Bob Monaghan's blind "tell me which lens was used to make this shot" tests. He's a devil, that Bob.

[ilkka_nissila]

Come on people, those differences do show up in print but not in 100k 500 pixel wide web images.

[rj]

Ilkka,

Careful, with words like those you might just be considered a fondler, whatever that is. ;-)

[Brad_]

<I>Come on people, those differences do show up in print but not in 100k 500 pixel wide

web images.</I><P>

What specific differences are you referring to?

[EricM]

the ones that the enlarger lens is responsible for?

[Brad_]

Ah, OK, the more lenses the better...

[al_kaplan1]

Enlarging lens? What enlarging lens? Real photographers get the image on the silver gelatin coated photographic paper using pure psychic energy. The whole enlarger/lens thing is just a ruse to mislead the digital mavens trolling the Leica Forum. You really gotta hand it to the marketing boys At Leitz though! Way back before World War II, in the midst of the Great Depression, half a century before digital, they had no trouble selling vastly overpriced Valoy enlargers when everybody secretly knew that they were just useless window dressing for the darkroom.

[EricM]

oh yeah of course. probably printed through schneider as well cuz leica was...not first choice in the dark...

[akochanowski]

C'mon Brad, don't make me think you're just being a jerk. These Leica lenses ARE good, and wide open they're great. One thing the fondlers don't talk about is the color rendition you get from them. I own a pair of the most modern pieces of glass they sell, and as far as color goes it's phenomenal. In harsh sunlight where my Zuiko glass washes out a bit, the 50/1.4 keeps a better grip on color, so does the 35/2 (both aspherical). They're clinically sharp without being harsh. When you nail the focus right in a neg, you can tell the difference in prints at 13x19 or 16x24, my preferred sizes. Look, I am not a lens junkie, and have shot with a lot of different glass (in addition to Olympus OM stuff I shot with Canon FD, Canon EOS, and Contax G lenses, among others), and no it really doesn't make any difference what lens you use whether a shot succeeds or not, but there really is a bit of quality you can pick up on a print IF you focused and exposed right to begin with. Ignore the dopey fondlers around here and see if you can borrow an M and a prime-- with your eye and your interests I think you would be intrigued with the results if you shot 10 rolls with a 35 summicron.

[ray .]

Andy must be a new convert. A couple years ago he was

anti-Leica, a non-believer. What's next? Brad?

 

btw Andy, what'd ya do with your Canon DSLR?

[akochanowski]

Still have the 20D and still like it. What happened? I got a new printer that can go bigger than 13x19. No matter what you do, the 8MP Canon poops out any bigger than 13x19, at least to my taste. Also I had sold my Contax G a few years ago and was missing the 45mm prime. I also found I was shooting almost exclusively with the 40mm Zuiko pancake when I shot film, and that lens is only really good at f/4 and above.

 

So here's what happened. A local store had a tempting offer for a body and 35/2 Summicron, so on a whim I got it, mostly because I knew that guys like you and Beau were producing some mighty fine looking images with similar kit. I was never tempted to get an M body without AE, because I thought then and think now it's ridiculous to shoot in the street without it. So there is no Leica but the M7 that I would consider for serious shooting.

 

I took it out for an afternoon and shot six rolls in Detroit. I printed up a half dozen of the best looking ones and, as I said to Brad above, could definitely see something extra in those prints. I repeated the experience shooting the local Elvisfest the following week. Plus I ended up enjoying the feel of the body and found the focusing and loading to be a no-brainer. So, while in some ways the M is a goofy anachronism, it works just fine for me, much to my surprise. I've shot a lot of film with it over the past year and feel that I am getting pretty good results.

 

BTW, I don't think I was "anti-Leica". I thought that using 50 year old M3's without a meter to do any kind of serious photography was stupid. Still do. I thought much of the discussion here was gear fondler stupid talk. Still do. I am more convinced than ever that strapping any lens longer than 75mm to the M is stupid because you can't see what you're focusing on. And the thing is hopeless around any real kind of movement. But within its narrow little comfort zone it works real well. That's my take anyways.

[Brad_]

Thanks for the offer Andy, but I'm extremely happy with what I have and the results I get. I

never said there is no difference in lenses, just that content, nice light, and post

processing drive the result more than a "lens signature." Average content, average light,

and average post-processing snapped through a lens with pedigreed signature still yields

an average print. The power, flexibility, and expressive nature of digital for me <I>far

</I> outweigh any incremental improvement available through lens signature.

[al_kaplan1]

A built in meter is nice "just because it's there", but I'd rather work with incident readings, especially when I'm working close with shorter focal lengths. You still have to factor in light direction, lightness or darkness of the subject, the relationship to the background, etc. when choosing an exposure, and after you've been shooting long enough you get to the point where the meter mostly always agrees with what your eye and your brain already told your fingers to do when they set the aperture and shutter speed. Yet if somebody asked you your settings you'd have to stop and think a moment...

 

Brad is right about digital post processing allowing you to mimic a lot of what lens signature gives you. Still, bokeh in out of focus areas will vary with the optics. The movie guys are all too aware of that, and want smooth bokeh so cuts between lenses aren't jarring on screen. For the rest of us maybe it's just a gut feeling, maybe we just feel better about using a lens that worked well in that lighting the last time around. Of course those of us stubbornly clinging to wet processed silver gelatin prints from conventional negatives have less options in "post processing" than doing it all digital. Maybe if I was 23 instead of 63 I'd be jumping right in there, but I still spend a lot of time printing old images. I have all my negatives going back to 1961. Shooting film today doesn't feel in the least bit like it's restricting my crativity. For some reason people will pay a big premium over ink jet for those old fashioned silver prints, so why not sell them what they want? If anything, all this back-and-forth banter has only increased interest in silver prints. I mailed out seven more signed prints this morning.

[EricM]

"Brad is right about digital post processing allowing you to mimic a lot of what lens signature gives you."

 

this why you Al, are a first class poo disturber, a troll. Brad never said this. Either you do it intentionally or you have a short circuit somewhere.

 

Great responce Andy.

[Brad_]

<I>Brad is right about digital post processing allowing you to mimic a lot of what lens

signature gives you.</I><P>

 

As Eric said, that's not what I said, and it's certainly not a strategy in my post processing. But

I'm all ears, tell me how you mimic len signature in post.

[al_kaplan1]

Touche! That's why we pick lenses for their signature! Well, it's been fun but I've got prints to make, and a shoot scheduled later.

[EricM]

great, I look forward to my Hendrix prints finally showing up then.

[vasilis]

I think that we should keep this thread on at least until new year. Maybe we should start posting new subjects in the thread so we will not get bored ...

[squareframe]

listen to Brad. this isn't 1965 and the Chevrolet Corvair isn't car of the year. lens signature ... sure, why not? better or just a difference? is it swamped by post-processing, from enlarging-lens and paper contributions to ten-second Photoshop operations that 'dramatically' influence the mood and texture the photographer desires? yes.<br><br>

 

quit thinking 'Leica magic' and more on the idea in your mind you want to express.<br><br>

 

daniel taylor<br>

San Juan Island, Wa. USA<br>

www.doublereef.net

[Brad_]

<I>Well, it's been fun but I've got prints to make, and a shoot scheduled later.</I><P>

 

Any photos to share from that "shoot?" Hopefully enahanced with some lens signature.

[al_kaplan1]

Nah, no sense wasting it on the unappreciative. Click on your name and see some fantastic pictures! I only really care if my clients like them. They write the checks.

[saotome_genma]

<p><blockquote><i>It is common for those that are farthest from God, to boast themselves most of their being near to the Church.</i><p>

<b>Mathew Henry</b></blockquote>

[ray .]

What was your shoot? Some 60 year old councilman groping

his secretary at a Christmas luncheon?