Jump to content

graybrick

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    501

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by graybrick

    I can't let this Leica glow thing go

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Indeed. The two Holga shots here exhibitfar more 'glow' than anything else posted. But I digress.

     

    I am a skeptic by my nature. I do not, however, dispute the claim that different lenses display different optical characteristics which may be discernable by trained or untrained viewers in the images the lenses produce. I also don't doubt that different manufacturers produce lenses based on different design principles, and these will likely render some fairly characteristic differences among lens families produced by these different companies.

     

    I'm still waiting for an explanation of what, exactly or approximately, you have determined to be 'glow' apparent in photos taken with Leica lenses, followed by some examples which demonstrate a comparable scene with and without it, so that we may understand what we are discussing here and possibly offer a hypothesis as to where the difference lies. Until we are all speaking the same language it is impossible to answer the question.

    I can't let this Leica glow thing go

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    "For those brothers and sisters that don't "believe", just skip this thread."

     

    So, if I am reading this correctly, you only want answers that support your assertion that this 'glow' is real. You do not want answers that explain the 'glow' in realistic terms or from people who do not see the 'glow' at all. If it exists only in silver based prints on a certain paper, that's fine, but I must believe that it exists to enter your conversation about it.

     

    Is Leicaphilia the next sweeping religious movement? Is the enigmatic 'glow' the answer to life's big mysteries? If we believe in the 'glow', will we see it in all our prints?

     

    Sir, I believe that the only thing glowing here is your imagination, with a bit of low contrast and lens flare thrown in. I have seen the photos posted which are deemed to possess the magical 'glow', yet I have not seen any magic in them. Most don't have anything that I would call 'glow' at all. Some have lowered contrast due to flare, which gives them a tone which some might consider 'dreamlike'. There is little doubt that differnet lenses impart subtly different characters to the images they resolve, but this 'glow' you speak of is a vague and ethereal character which has yet to be defined or demonstrated in any realistic terms.

     

    Thus, I recommend that you do some real-world, side-by-side testing of your 'glowing' Leica lenses against other lenses which do not possess the 'glow'. First, you'll need to construct a scene with very few variables, most specifically lighting angle, intensity, and color character. Set a tripod and shoot the scene with your 'glow' lens. Then, place a lens which matches nearly precisely the focal length, aperture, and front element shape and diameter in exactly the same relative position to the scene, and shoot it again. Compare the two shots carefully. Define the 'glow' in this way until you can demonstrate it in a concrete manner. Then show us how the other lens lacks this 'glow'. Repeat with every other lens you can find, regardless of outside diameter, and compare those scenes as well. Only then will you be prepared to carry on a discussion of what the 'glow' is and from where it comes.

    Uneven development - Possible cause?

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    "Not visible just by eyeballing them"

     

    What do the negatives look like, exactly? Do they look more normal than these scans? It looks to me like you've got a scanning/conversion issue. I've seen a lot of artifacts on negatives, and this doesn't fit with any film/developing problem that i've seen before. Look at the negatives closely, through a loupe if you have one, and try to determine if what you see there matches what you see here.

    Do you or we REALLY need expensive glasses?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    simple answer, no, you don't need pro lenses to take great shots. However, those lenses have some qualities that

    make them desirable enough to some people to pay many times the price of the cheap lenses for. Good technique

    and attention to composition and lots of practice will go a lot farther than a really expensive lens for making great

    photos. The average photographer won't benefit much, if at all, from professional quality lenses.

     

    Now- If you want to shoot in low light, you'll have to pay for fast lenses

    if you want to shoot wildlife, birds, bugs, etc, you'll need long telephotos or macro lenses

    if you require exceptional sharpness throughout the frame, you'll be disappointed with most consumer lenses

     

    And, once you've used cheap lenses and pro lenses for a while, you'll miss things like USM focusing, full-time

    manual focus, dampered focusing and zoom rings, metal lens body construction, etc. When I switched from my old

    manual Canon gear to digital I was appalled at the cheap crappy construction and handling of the kit lens compared

    to my old FD 50mm f/1.8, the cheap standard lens from the 70s. The FD lenses had metal bodies and a smooth

    focus action with excellent feel, and you didn't have to worry about bumping the lens out of focus, and you could feel

    secure that if you bumped it into something it wasn't just going to crack open like an egg. But I digress... The

    standard today is cheap plastic crappiness, and if you want something that feels and performs better, you're gonna

    have to pay for it.

    A1 Questions

    in Canon FD Mount

    Posted

    Can't say on the 1.2 question, but for the meter there's a little toggle switch to the left of the prism which turns it off, but won't disable the shutter. If turning it to L doesn't turn the camera off then you've got a problem with your switch. It may be worth having a CLA.

    concert photography tips and tricks with the 40D

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Get good, fast lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.4. Leave the f/4+ stuff at home unless you're shooting daylight gigs. It's not much different than shooting film, really, except you're not locked in with sensor sensitivity so you can switch ISO values willy nilly if it suits you. Take a lot of test shots and figure out what level of digital noise you find acceptale, and set your ISO accordingly. Oh, yeah, and shoot RAW so you have that tiny little extra bit of wiggle room on the underexposed stuff. Otherwise the sky's the limit.

    Why Classic Cameras?

    in Classic Manual Film Cameras

    Posted

    Canon A1- b/w, E6 cross-processing, fast lenses super cheap (relatively), owned one since the eighties

     

    Mamiya C330- excellent quality, fun to use, square format, kick ass image quality, does portraits that my 20D can't, makes the dSLR kids feel like they're missing something, people wonder what the heck it is, fun at parties for snaps and conversation... oh yeah, doesn't need a battery

     

    Pentax K-1000/135mm off-brand lens: weird vignette, interesting image quality, doesn't need a batttery, lives in the floor of my car for whatever the heck I want to shoot at that focal length

     

    Vivitar panoramacam plastic focus-free: Has a roll of Ilford Delta 400 in it that's been there for three years. bought at goodwill for $1.50. I believe it actually crops 35mm to a pano perspective. One day I'll take all 36 exposures and develop it. I think it'll be somewhat of an anthology when I'm done.

     

    Canon 20D: Light meter, occasional event photography, setup/flash exposure for Mamiya, chimper. I have considerably more money in this system than all my others combined. I still feel a compulsion to buy more stuff to round it out. I user it for snapshots and to estimate what my film shots will look like.

     

    I

    24-70mm f/2.8 tamron & 28-105 mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM EF Lens

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I'd go prime for concerts because you'll end up with a faster lens. All the zoom range in the world is useless if you can't get a decent exposure. In my experience, f/2.8 is often too slow to get decent results at many events. I owned a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which was an excellent lens, but I haven't used to\he 24-70. You could start with the 50mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8, both in the $350 range. Something wider would be nice if you're close to the stage though, but the faster wide lenses are a little more expensive. You might as well leave the 28-105 at home if you're shooting shows, though it will serve as a walk-around daytime use lens for general purposes.

    Cannon 30D

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    http://www.photo.net/sports/overview

     

    This discussion is based on 35mm format, so don't forget that this is a 'crop' sensor- ie, effectively you can multiply the focal length of your lens by 1.6 for the '35mm equivalent' length. Also search lenses, and find reviews. There are too many lenses out there to just randomly suggest one without considering price range and your specific intended use.

    Chrome cross-processed then UN-cross-processed

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    http://www.photo.net/photo/5693389

     

    http://www.photo.net/photo/5660357

     

    Did this a while back... The problem is, while you can get somewhat consistent results using the same film in the same lighting conditions, changing film and/or exposure levels will impact your results, sometimes in a fairly dramatic fashion. The color response of these films is also quite different when cross processed, and in certain situations you can lose tonality almost completely- see this link:

     

    http://flickr.com/photos/screeminee/416071214/

     

    So, in short, it can work, but I wouldn't depend on it in a situation where you're going to need reliable results.

×
×
  • Create New...