Summicrons -- Why the Three Dimensional Quality?

[andy_piper2]

Here's a <a href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/DoF/DoF.html">

link</a> to the Erwin Puts essay.

 

<p>

 

Whether you call it "the caustic surface" or the abberrations palette

or Bokeh - lens designers CAN (in fact, HAVE TO) influence how a lens

lays down the image in more ways than just contrast and resolution.

Obviously Leicas designers have chosen slightly different paths along

the way.

[jacques_balthazar1]

This 3D thing is all in the eyes of the beholder. I see it in slides

and prints shot with a wide array of lenses from a wide array of

suppliers. Gimme in focus red on blurred green background on

Velvia, and I'll show you systematic 3D effects....

 

<p>

 

If the light is right, if the distance to background is right, if the

colors are right, if the angle of view suits the subject, you'll get

that "wow" effect from almost any piece of contemporary

hardware (OK exclude plastic compacts and lowest end of 3d

party zooms). That is what some of the examples posted here

show. They do not show "Leica".

 

<p>

 

This blah serves to justify the investment or the idiosyncracies of

using Leica in 2002. I have other ways of justifying that to myself

and to those parties who fear about my spending sprees, but

that is off this topic...

 

<p>

 

Erwin the Puts is right: the most recent Leica lenses might make

a noticeable difference on high res film, shot from heavy tripod at

fast shutter speed. The rest is daydream...

[msitaraman]

I guess I am a daydream believer...

[mikep1]

Well, don't Monkee around with success.

[MTC Photography]

Peter and other poster's image are excellent. However I don't

particularly see where the 3D comes from

<p> Viewing with one eye only, any photograph, taken with any camera

has a 3D look.

<p> Is the 3D look you mentioned the same thing as when you view the

picture with only one eye (one eye closed, or covered ) ?

<p> If that is the case, then probably one eye becomes more

dominant....

[michael_darnton1]

I don't have any idea why the lenses do it, but one of the more

interesting things about my total switch to digital printing is that

this effect is quite easy to achieve through the careful application

of curves in Photoshop, leading me to think that it has a lot to do

with the rendition of tonal values, especially at the far ends of the

scale. What I've been forcing in Photoshop, and what I see in Peter's

photo, is a lot of highlight (and shadow, too, but not in his photo)

contrast.

[kens]

In Peter's photo I think it's the lighting, combined with the lens'

ability to smoothly manage the contrast. The highlight on the hand

makes it pop out against her shoulder. With a lens that can

seemlessly handle the subtleties of contrast, the effect comes

through. With a lens that tends to block these subtleties up (even on

a micro scale) the effect is watered down or maybe lost. Conversely,

even a Leica lens can't do much with a poorly lit subject.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

I can not agree with you Ken, the shadow or low ligth penetration of

leica lenses, make low ligth-contrast images gain contrast, I have

seen it over and over, and not only in photography lenses, leica

scopes and well known for that.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand that capability of leica lenses to make a 3D efect,

is the same that makes leica lenses be second or third in flat

optical tests, in wich Zeiss usualy comes up.

[kens]

When I say "poorly lit subject" I'm not referring to low light

levels. I'm referring to unworkable light or light at bad angle to

the subject - for example front-on flat light. In those situations it

would be tough for any lens to pull magic out of the subject. In my

opinion the oblique light in Peter's photo, combined with the lens'

ability to handle the image, is more responsible for the 3-D effect.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

oh! I see what you meant...

[andy_piper2]

I'd agree with Michael D. and Ken S. (if I didn't already). Lighting

clearly helps define 3D forms, in addition to anything the lens is

doing. So does image tonality, regardless of whether it's there in the

negative or brought out through careful printing or PhotoShopping.

 

<p>

 

I got my Leicas long after I gave up darkroom printing, but the Leica

(esp. 'cron) negatives/chromes are certainly (on average) easier to

scan than anything I used previously - and at least some of the

traditional printers here and elsewhere have commented on how easy

Leica negatives are to print.

 

<p>

 

I think there's a chain of events here:

 

<p>

 

Lenses with outstanding edge definition and contrast can have lower

macro-contrast and still look 'sharp'.

 

<p>

 

This makes for more controlled negatives with a longer tonal range and

less 'blow-out' in the highlights. Especially with the somewhat

contrasty directional light (chiaroscuro?) that enhances the

representation of 3D forms.

 

<p>

 

Which allows us to maintain nice straight-line separation in the

midtones/shadows, instead of compressing them when trying to get

overly-bright highlights under control.

 

<p>

 

Which (in combination with some other optical stuff) makes for a rich

3D look.

 

<p>

 

It all contributes.