Old glass vs new glass, Ravilious, myth or reality?

[jonathan_reynolds]

The English photographer <a href="http://www.jamesravilious.com/"

target="_blank">Jame Ravilious</a> liked to use natural backlighting, and felt

that modern Leica lenses produced too contrasty an image. Famously, he came to

prefer the "look" he could achieve with older, uncoated Leica lenses, especially

the 35 mm Elmar.</p>

<p>

As I understand the argument, uncoated glass is more prone to veiling glare,

which raises the tonal value of the shadows, but also degrades definition and

tonal separation in the shadows. For best image quality when using these old

lenses, Ravilious took precautions to minimise glare caused by light falling on

the lens from outside the image area, e.g. by customising his lens hood.

Apparently he also used compensating development (diluted D-76?) with HP5 (and

Tri-X?) given plenty of exposure (for the shadow detail).</p>

<p>

Was it really impossible for Ravilious to obtain the same feel with a modern

lens? Maybe I don?t understand the physics (or the aesthetics) adequately.

Presumably under the same lighting conditions, a modern lens delivers a wider

range of light intensities to the film? If the exposure is sufficient for the

required shadow details to register, and development is constrained so that the

highlights don?t run away and become unprintable, what?s the problem? Once the

detail is captured, you can subtly bend the tonal scale however you like,

especially after scanning, but also in conventional printing.</p>

<br>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6869356-lg.jpg"></center>

<br><br>

<p>I?ve been puzzling over this since buying the reprinted 'English Eye', so I

dug out some spring-time 2005 negatives to explore things a bit (not to invite

unfavourable comparison with the wonderful Ravilious, please!). This was on

Tri-X developed in a compensating developer (Emofin) with no attempt to reduce

development for high contrast - i.e. I didn?t try to favour this image rather

than other less contrasty shots on the same roll. The shadows of the tree on

the right are admittedly fairly featureless. This is partly due to the limited

ability of my Epson scanner to cope with Tri-X, but admittedly also down to

underexposure. A neighbouring negative had a stop more exposure, has good

shadow detail, scans much the same, but happens to have a slightly different

viewpoint so it isn't as pretty!</p>

<p>So, was something really lost when lens coating came in? What would uncoated

glass have brought to this shot?</p>

<p>[How do I stop single quotes appearing as question marks when I'm in HTML?]</p>

[vincenzo_maielli]

I prefer the rendition of my Summaron 35/2.8 or Summicron 50 D.R. because they allow a better bokeh and better plasticity, in respect to the ultra razor sharp APO and/or ASPH Summicron or the new Summarit 2.5, that are a less pleasantness in bokeh and plasticity.

Ciao.

[jonathan_reynolds]

What exactly do you mean by plasticity, Vincenzo? And aren't those two lenses both coated optics?

[frank uhlig]

Well, I think your quote is living in an often dull climate with overhung skies for weeks off

the atlantic storms ... So he has developed a liking for pea soup weather, no doubt. And

all the modern stuff is too accurate to give him the dull dreary day look. That is all.

 

He likes this "distortion" since it replicates/enforces the mood he is in better. Artistic

preference.

 

Now if you or he took the same pics with Kodak 400 UC on modern Zeiss glass, he would

not recognize how much life there is in light even on his moody cloud covered days and he

would hate to be reminded of that.

 

Thrt is it in a nutshell (pun intended).

[andrewlamb]

Ravilious liked shooting into the light and he felt that the best way to do that was to use

uncoated lenses.

 

When Dion Beebe, the DOP for 'Chicago', knew he would be shooting directly into stage

lights, during production, he did a series of tests and found that modern multi-coated

Cooke lenses ( I think series IV) worked best of all. He won an Oscar for cinematography.

 

I get very confused on the merits of uncoated and coated lenses. However, to use the old

saying, "there is more than one way to skin to a rabbit'.

[bcostin]

It's an artistic decision. Lower contrast, yes, but not a uniform contrast reduction across the entire image. <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml"> This article</a> goes into quite a bit of detail, which you may already know. I'm not one to make lens selection sound like a wine tasting ("smooth, with robust undertones, yet playful") but having used coated and uncoated lenses I can definitely see a difference in the overall feel of the final images in those conditions.

 

I suppose that with enough work you could get a similar effect from modern lenses with some darkroom or Photoshop work. But if you always want that look you might as well just do it in hardware.

[vivek iyer]

I enjoyed reading your response Frank. Thank you! :)

 

Jonathan: one key factor that you did not look at is the increased UV transmission through older lenses. This is relevant since most true B&W emulsions have good UV sensitivity. Since the lenses are not corrected for UV light, the images will have a mushy look with lower contrast. To avoid this, many experienced photographers used an yellow filter over the lens.

[terry_rory]

It is worth remembering how the work of his father (Eric Ravilious the famous artist) influenced James Ravilious....

 

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=%22eric+ravilious%22&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=G&imgsz=small|medium|large|xlarge

 

JR was also heavily influenced by the work of Samuel Palmer and wished to recreate a photographic style that had similar properties...

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=11046&searchid=9586&tabview=image

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=11044&searchid=9586&tabview=image

 

His father was most famous as an engraver (although he was a superb water colourist) and James himself also had a formal training as an artist before his photography started.

 

Another very famous influence was the engraver Thomas Bewick....

 

http://www.bewicksociety.org/gallery/vigtails.html

 

Ravilious strove to incorporate these influences (amongst others) into his work and would scour second hand shops and junk shops for lenses and old cameras in many formats from 10x8, 5x5, 6x9 and 35mm.

 

He was gifted equipment from his first photographic influence Edwin Smith by Smith's widow Olive Cook....

 

http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/photography/photographerframe.php?photographerid=ph050

 

http://www.weepingash.co.uk/es/pictures/didmarton.html

 

He had many artistic influences from the cradle onwards and he was a skilled engraver himself. All of this should be born in mind when thinking about James Ravilious' work. He was not 'into' any particular brand of camera as people here would recognise. Instead he was primarily an artist who constantly experimented and adapted his style and equipment. If he had any favourite it was probably a 1914 Zeiss Tessar rather than the Leica.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Vivek, quite right. Of course with coated glass you don't have the option of NOT using a UV filter, but apparently Ravilious always used a pale yellow filter with these lenses, so that wasn't the attraction. Consequently he lost film speed too. Bummer. Did a good job though.

 

Glad to avoid the wine-tasting language, Bryan! Thanks for the link.

[adrian bastin]

There's something about the way an uncoated (Leitz) lens treats trees against a sky, in the fine twigs, that is satisfying. A high contrast ultra sharp lens in trying to resolve such a difficult subject can make an unpleasant harsh and cold mush and the treatment of it determines the handling of the rest of the picture. Trees and skies are a dominant part of most landscapes here in England. The landscape in Devon, and other places he sought out, have a softness that's perhaps more than just visual, and that comes over so well in his choice of lens, and maybe even format. There's nothing dull in those pictures; they achieve a shimmer that an artist will try very hard for in his own medium.

 

I believe James Ravilious did use yellow filters.

[andrewlamb]

Great reply, Trevor.

 

It prompted me to dig up an old book of Edwin Smith's I have, "England". I had forgotten

what a lovely book it is. Highly recommended, if you remember to look at it, occasionally :(

[ronald_moravec1]

Try this. Overexpose to 1/2 box speed. Cut development 20%.

 

In photoshop use above as a background layer. Add a layer on top and fill with white.

Reduce the the opacity of the white to an appropiate amount. I guess around 10% Now use

the eraser tool on the white to fine tune certain areas. Keep the brush soft edged and low

opacity, 5% or less. Apply in small amounts at a time.

[adrian bastin]

Yes, great contribution, Trevor.

[dave_s]

<i>If the exposure is sufficient for the required shadow details to register, and development is constrained so that the highlights don't run away and become unprintable, what's the problem? </i>

<p>

Different approach is preflashing your film, although it's rarely done by most of us. This gives a result similar to an uncoated lens-- gets some light into the shadows.

[adrian bastin]

Thing is, The English landscape tradition goes back unbroken for centuries and is the richest body of works of art, ever; Ravilious is deeply rooted in it and no small contributor to it - that's how he should be seen.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Trevor seems to have side-tracked us into what Ravilious was and what he achieved, rather than my question about glass.

 

No-one has yet said anything to convince me that Ravilious couldn't have achieved the same 'feel' with coated glass if he'd tried harder, though I accept that reverting to the old lenses was a simple solution since they fitted the same camera. (Nice and cheap too).

 

A problem with compensating developers is that for the shots on the roll that don't have strong lighting, the mid-tones can look "muddy", because they're compressed. Much as I love all Ravilious' work (looks like it appeals to many of the English on this forum, Frank!), I do notice that mid-tone muddiness in some of his shots. Improvement is easy for us today in a digitised image. It's also possible, but more of a pain, in a wet darkroom. Maybe this explains why for some people Ravilious doesn't escape the charge of dreariness.

 

In the end, who cares? By far the more important component of his work was human, not technical. But I was intrigued by that coated glass question.

[paul t]

Jonathan, I think you'r eperhaps taking a scientific approach to something non-scientific.

<p>

Ravilious was after a certain 'look'. It probably first manifested itself with a specific lens. If

you get the sound you want with an old guitar, why bother spending huge amounts of time

getting a new guitar that sounds the same? <p>

In any case, I'm glad we're discussing Ravilious. I only knew his father's work, and discovered

James through this forum, for which many thanks, principally to Mr H.

[jonathan_reynolds]

<p>Paul, everything is susceptible to a scientific approach!! </P>

<p>

Sorry, as a scientist I couldn't resist that. I understand what you mean, but I'm trained to ask why things work. Also, given that I'm unlikely to take 80,000 photos (or whatever it was) I need to understand why a certain look arises, so that I can do it again. I wouldn't necessarily recognise that it was the lens.

 

<p>Actually, we're told that Ravilious studied the writings of Ansel Adams, and agonised with fellow photographers about developer choice, so his technique wasn't entirely guided by visceral feelings.

</p><p>

As Trevor has started this Hare, another important influence on Ravilious hasn't been mentioned yet: <a href="http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/" target="_blank">Frank Sutcliffe</a>. Because Sutcliffe's photos were posed and look a bit picturesque to modern eyes, he is in my view now much under-rated as a community photographer who must have had an amazing rapport with his subjects.</p>

[adrian bastin]

We are in a strange borderland that could get into analysing beauty. When a wood engraver uses boxwood there is a good practical reason for it but it has to produce a beautiful edge to a line, not necessarily a razor-sharp one. A stone lithograph is more beautiful than one produced on a zinc plate.

[adrian bastin]

Clarity isn't everything. And Devon can sometimes be very muddy ! But I see a really wonderful quality of light in his work. Light has to have its foil.

 

I am very disturbed by the modern taste for the perfection of surfaces.

[andrewlamb]

Makes me wish I hadn't missed his exhibition in London. Rats!

[jonathan_reynolds]

Me too, Andrew. I've yet to see an original print, and there are a few I particularly want to study.

[adrian bastin]

Has anyone been to the permanent show in Barnstaple ? I'm assuming its still there - and I haven't yet seen it.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi Jonathan, sorry for my bad english. My Summaron 35/2.8 and Summicron 50 DR are both coated (both are made in 1962). For "plasticity" i want to denote the soft and gradual passing from the focused areas to the out of focus areas of the composition (bokeh?) with the background of the scene that is not confused and shapeless, but is an active part of the scene.

Ciao.

[laurentvuillard]

Less contrast in old glass (old summarit vs new summicron for instance) this compresses the scale between highlight and shadows wich may help in BW. BTW Ansel Adams techniques and settings are not so efficient under the low contrast sky of western Europe than in New Mexico where light is more contrasty and even a supermaket parking lot looks like art!