Guest JoanMarianne Posted December 24, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was intrigued by the work of James Ravilious, who used early, uncoated Leitz lenses for his documentary work in Devon. I tried to emulate him with, among others, this shot taken in Newcastle upon Tyne using a 35mm Elmar dating from 1940. I quite like the result and am now wondering whether I really need to keep my 1969 35mm f2 Summicron....what do the experts think, bearing in mind that my main interest is landscape photography? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/107687-elmar-35mm-f35/?do=findComment&comment=1162927'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Hi Guest JoanMarianne, Take a look here Elmar 35mm f3.5. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nikkor AIS Posted December 24, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 24, 2009 It's a very nice image. Really has great tonal range and interesting composition. Keep doing what your doing. I would love to see a nice big print. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 25, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 25, 2009 The image looks very "digital" to me, maybe just as a consequence of scanning and compressing to fit the web site - but apart from that is amazingly old-fashioned. Could almost have been from the 1840s except for the tonality, which betrays a panchromatic emulsion. Or from the turn of the last century, or from a FRPS portfolio half a century later. Not quite my cup of tea, but congratulations all the same! How about trying a 5cm Summar next? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoanMarianne Posted December 25, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 25, 2009 Well-observed, Giordano. Originated on HP5 in HC110 and scanned with a very basic flatbed machine. This helps in evaluation before printing in a conventional darkroom. This would, of course, give the best result. However, even these basic digital images can have their attractions and I put this example up because the effect I was aiming for seemed to be present. As it happens, I have a very clean, 1936, Summar so ,yes, I'll see what that produces.(Although I don't think James Ravilious went that far back with his lenses!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted December 25, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 25, 2009 the 35 elmar is tremendous lens...I have 3 of Ravillious prints at home and understand your fascination with his work... the above shot above is either heavily photoshopped or taken from a print? whatever...enjoy and don't ever sell that elmar! andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoanMarianne Posted December 25, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 25, 2009 ......heavily Photoshopped...I confess. One gets carried away with these things. A bit like chocolate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 25, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very nice, but I would still want a modern lens in addition. Check your lens internals with a pen light or keychain light. The old lenses did produce more modern looking images than this one. Shine the light in one side, view from the other. A dark background helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoanMarianne Posted December 25, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 25, 2009 This shot, from the adjacent frame on the strip of negatives, shows what it is like without any Photoshopping and also, perhaps, gives an indication of the state of the lens. It is actually extremely clean, the torch test showing only very slight imperfections in the extreme outer edge of the elements. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/107687-elmar-35mm-f35/?do=findComment&comment=1163328'>More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted December 25, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 25, 2009 I like the second one way better. In my first post I was going to say the image looked a little flat. At any rate I think you got a great lens there and good eye to go along with it. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoanMarianne Posted December 25, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 25, 2009 Many thanks. I think the lesson is that, to achieve a traditional look one should simply use old lenses and keep the processing simple. In fact, it does seem contradictory to use modern high-technologies like Photoshop to achieve this, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 25, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 25, 2009 Second is better. Try something in the middle biased towards the second. Layer in PS and adjust the opacity of the top layer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 25, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 25, 2009 I think I prefer the general approach of the first - probably because it harks back so far and is so distinctive these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted December 25, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 25, 2009 The second is far better, there was not enough contrast in the first. I'd be tempted to adjust the shadows and highlights, or curves to get a more even look, without reducing constrast. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nando Posted December 26, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 26, 2009 Hi Joan Marianne, You may be interested in the photography of my friend Ian: Flickr: luminousowl's Photostream I have a 3.5cm Elmar myself and I absolutely love it. However, I rarely take photographs in the countryside. f. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taildraggin Posted December 26, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 26, 2009 I like the first one a lot. It has the idyllic happiness of the (heavily retouched) magazine ads from the '20 and '30s. I hear the birds and someone is coming toward us, whistling. The second shot; well, it's only the vicar headed this way. - Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 26, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 26, 2009 I like the first one a lot. It has the idyllic happiness of the (heavily retouched) magazine ads from the '20 and '30s. I hear the birds and someone is coming toward us, whistling. The second shot; well, it's only the vicar headed this way. - Charlie Well said! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidStone Posted December 26, 2009 Share #17 Posted December 26, 2009 "As it happens, I have a very clean, 1936, Summar so ,yes, I'll see what that produces.(Although I don't think James Ravilious went that far back with his lenses!)" He went a lot further back than that! His large-format work was often done with lenses from the early years of the century. I can recommend the article on him in the British Journal of Photography, dated 30th October 1996 - three years before he died. He had a preference for the uncoated Leitz lenses on his M3 - 50 and 35mm Elmars, and the 28mm Hektor - so they would have been primarily from the 1930s. His lenshoods were heavily masked to the exact edges of the frame, which used to be done quite frequently with uncoated lenses. This allowed him to shoot against the light, while also avoiding the multiple reflections of the diaphragm that are characteristic of coated lenses. He didn't like the results he got with modern lenses, which were over-contrasty and "alien to what I see". He also used, in later years, Tri-X, rated at 200 and developed in a compensating developer (possibly D23?), with a reduced developing time. So his prints, which are full of detail even in the darkest tones, don't really fit the modern fashion for somewhat contrasty images. But they do duplicate much more accurately the way we see. And his art training would have been valuable to him, as would his artistic family connections. He knew exactly what he wanted in his prints. So the first shot you showed, although digitally modified, is much more sympathetic to the Ravilious point of view. But if you really want to emulate him accurately, you'll have to do it the hard way! Have fun, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted December 26, 2009 Share #18 Posted December 26, 2009 Also for some landscapes I use the 28mm Summaron.....has some of that older look I think.... here an example which I like regards andy Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/107687-elmar-35mm-f35/?do=findComment&comment=1164274'>More sharing options...
Guest JoanMarianne Posted December 26, 2009 Share #19 Posted December 26, 2009 Very appealing, Andy; a romantic-mystical shot. Minor White said "be still until the object of your attention affirms your presence" and it looks like you did just that, capturing the spirit of the place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 3, 2010 Share #20 Posted January 3, 2010 Hi I'd suggest getting a type IV (post '79 cron (or ZM Planar), and wet print, on multigrade bromide or chloro paper. the modern lens willo allow more detail in posters.Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.