wattsy Posted June 4, 2015 Share #61 Posted June 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Always best to use your own eyes rather than rely on what the likes of digilloyd and Ken Rockwell have written. The 50 will be a great lens to use with film, whether transparency or neg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Hi wattsy, Take a look here APO 50 FILM images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thebarnman Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share #62 Posted June 4, 2015 Sharpness captured on film with the APO 50 tends to be a strong subject in this thread. So if the sharpness looks good enough on color transparency film with our own eyes, I wonder in addition how contrast and resolution plays a roll in the over all determination of how it looks? No doubt, color film (transparency or negative) is capable of much more color depth than digital so there's more accuracy there. That may be one of the reasons why color film looks preferable (when compared to digital) to some...including myself. Also in that article, I noticed the f stop listed on the very top images as being f22. That might also play a factor in the soft (less sharp) image when viewed at 1:1. Also as mentioned in the article, the Imacon is not a flat bed scanner. As far as the resolving capability of film; Kodachrome 25 resolved 157 lines per mmVelvia resolves 160 lines per mmand Ektar 25 200 lines per mm Though I don't know what the resolving power of the APO 50 is, it's sharpness or it's contrast capabilities are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted June 4, 2015 Share #63 Posted June 4, 2015 I wonder whether the emphasis on sharpness with film is over-emphasized and mis-guided in the sense that the virtues of film have much more to do with the depth/3D effect and tonal smooth transition among tones. This, to me, is film's primary advantage over digital sensors, which are completely FLAT and thus do not have the same ability to render image with the same depth/3D effect, which leaves more emphasis to be applied to sharpness (which so many digital camera users are obsessed over). The reason why people love the Mandler era lenses is because of that dreamy 3D look that they give film images. These lenses were designed specifically for film. Why mess with that? When I use my 35mm summilux ASPH FLE (which I've heard referred to as an APO lens, though not sure) on my film camera I am always left curious as to why my images don't come out sharper and more clinical given that it is my most expensive lens and among the very latest in the stable of new premium lenses. I don't see the virtues of this modern lens in my film images (at least not to a meaningful extent) as I do with my digital images. Here are a couple of examples, one from cinestill 50 daylight film and one from fuji velvia 50 slide film. Both focused spot on with the ultra modern and clinical 35mm lux ash fle 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/245731-apo-50-film-images/?do=findComment&comment=2827648'>More sharing options...
A miller Posted June 4, 2015 Share #64 Posted June 4, 2015 the velvia 50 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/245731-apo-50-film-images/?do=findComment&comment=2827649'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted June 4, 2015 Share #65 Posted June 4, 2015 Adam, I think you're right, I often avoid using the latest and greatest on my M7, in fact I also tend to go for the older or more compact lenses. I think that is because I'm not using film to match the IQ/resolution of digital. But that doesn't mean that the different benefits and character of these lenses may not still shine on film - just haven't explored it much yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 4, 2015 Share #66 Posted June 4, 2015 Sharpness seems to be of particular interest and importance to digital photographers, and there are several self-proclaimed online "experts" on this, including Lloyd Chambers. Why is sharpness so important in the digital domain? As I mentioned, I have shot predominantly slides since the 80s and have never found such film to be lacking in this respect. And while in the film era the sharpness of lenses and films was an important factor I can't recall that it was given the almost overarching significance it has today. Perhaps it's a mindset thing? Or is there some particular quality in digital photography that causes this fixation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted June 4, 2015 Share #67 Posted June 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sharpness seems to be of particular interest and importance to digital photographers, and there are several self-proclaimed online "experts" on this, including Lloyd Chambers. Why is sharpness so important in the digital domain? As I mentioned, I have shot predominantly slides since the 80s and have never found such film to be lacking in this respect. And while in the film era the sharpness of lenses and films was an important factor I can't recall that it was given the almost overarching significance it has today. Perhaps it's a mindset thing? Or is there some particular quality in digital photography that causes this fixation? I think the quest for the ultimate sharpness reflects an obsession with "reaching for the stars" because we know they are there. In more relaxed times, we often looked at 8x10 prints, or transparencies viewed on a screen and concentrated on other traits...grain, color fidelity, 3D images, and so on. With computers, digital processing software, etc. everybody has the capability to pixel peep, and we get drawn into it, charmed by it, frustrated by it, and seek to optimize a characteristic, sharpness, which albeit is important, but not the defining characteristic of a good photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted June 4, 2015 Share #68 Posted June 4, 2015 As an aside, When projected, the image is affected by the projection lens and the quality of the screen, I believe I can see more detail on a light table using a 6x Schneider loupe. On the projection screen, I look for content, color accuracy and composition - - - "sharpness" is a secondary issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share #69 Posted June 5, 2015 I wonder whether the emphasis on sharpness with film is over-emphasized and mis-guided in the sense that the virtues of film have much more to do with the depth/3D effect and tonal smooth transition among tones. This, to me, is film's primary advantage over digital sensors, which are completely FLAT and thus do not have the same ability to render image with the same depth/3D effect, which leaves more emphasis to be applied to sharpness (which so many digital camera users are obsessed over). The reason why people love the Mandler era lenses is because of that dreamy 3D look that they give film images. These lenses were designed specifically for film. Why mess with that? When I use my 35mm summilux ASPH FLE (which I've heard referred to as an APO lens, though not sure) on my film camera I am always left curious as to why my images don't come out sharper and more clinical given that it is my most expensive lens and among the very latest in the stable of new premium lenses. I don't see the virtues of this modern lens in my film images (at least not to a meaningful extent) as I do with my digital images. Here are a couple of examples, one from cinestill 50 daylight film and one from fuji velvia 50 slide film. Both focused spot on with the ultra modern and clinical 35mm lux ash fle Interesting. At the same time, like MarkP said after your post about how, even on film; the other benefits and characteristics are visible with the newer lenses. In a moment, more about the depth/3D effect you talked about. About sharpness with film, if you haven't seen already, look at Ellie's post at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2826360 The B&W on film with the APO 50 has sharpness with detail unlike what I normally see on film and the color image (shot on color negative film) though not as sharp looking as the B&W image, has a very nice rendering. Since both were shot on negative film, more sharpness might be revealed if scanned at a higher resolution. Anyway, both of those image files are too small to see all of what was captured on the film and yet; I can see the difference the lens can make on film. I understand you may not like the clinical look of the newer lens. And, I think I have read your 35mm summilux is also a APO design (though it may not be as critically dialed in like the 50 APO.) Even so, I wonder if with the use of certain types of film, including the way in which something is shot; one can get that dreamy depth/3D effect your talking about even with the newest of lenses. Besides the lens you used, the effects your talking about must also be from the film you used (and other photographic techniques) that helped give it that depth/3D effect. It could possibly also be from less than adequate scans or the differences between the characteristics of the two films you used. I really like the look of that CineStill 50 daylight, and Velvia is nice depending on how I want something to look. However when comparing the two, even though you shot both with the same lens; the above image seems to have much more of that depth/3D effect your talking about. But that might have a lot with how your images were shot and even possibly the differences in film. I noticed the top image was shot with a aperture more open than the lower shot (causing the background to blur) and the above image was also shot later in the day with a overcast/cloudy sky. All that adds up to a softer lighting effect. The image below was photographed during early afternoon direct sun light about 1:30pm or so, with clear sky creating harsh shadows and probably with a smaller aperture since everything is pretty much in sharp focus near to far. The lower image not as sharp as digital, but pretty sharp non the less. (Higher contrast gives the effect of more apparent sharpness.) Still, not as flat looking as might have been created with a digital camera. In conclusion: I think it's very possible to create that depth/3D effect with the newest lenses if so desired. However, it simply might be easier to do with the older lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share #70 Posted June 5, 2015 Sharpness seems to be of particular interest and importance to digital photographers, and there are several self-proclaimed online "experts" on this, including Lloyd Chambers. Why is sharpness so important in the digital domain? As I mentioned, I have shot predominantly slides since the 80s and have never found such film to be lacking in this respect. And while in the film era the sharpness of lenses and films was an important factor I can't recall that it was given the almost overarching significance it has today. Perhaps it's a mindset thing? Or is there some particular quality in digital photography that causes this fixation? Funny, I remember a time when sharpness on a lens was actually toned down because many types of films could not take advantage of the lens's full range of sharpness. There were arguments as to why should a lens be develop with so much sharpness if all that sharpness can't even be recorded onto film? And of course, one of Leica's objectives in lens designs (as I have been once told) has been getting equal amounts of what's important in lens design such as resolution, contrast and sharpness. (I know there's more, but hold on.) Of course, other lens manufacturers can make very sharp lens, more sharp than Leica lenses, but at the cost of one of the other qualities within that lens design. Not to start an argument with digital photographers. I'd simply like to point out when we reached a point of when there were more digital shooters than film shooters, advantages and disadvantages naturally had to be discussed. At first film users argued the resolution with digital was not high enough. That was true with digital at first, however it did not take long for digital to catch up in that department. Then the debates about costs of film vs. digital. It may be less expensive to shoot digitally, but at what cost? More hard drive storage costs money and of course the possibility of a drive crashing and having lost all those digital images can be a factor. Since then, the price of digital storage has plummeted and various backup methods (cloud etc.) helps to lesson the blow to the pocket book. And of course, the obsolescence of each and every brand new digital camera after a short period of time. Currently, for those who want to continually get the best results with digital, a new digital camera has to be purchased every few years or so. And with B&W imagery, film arguably has always been the winner in that category particularly when it comes to latitude, dynamic range and contrast. But of course with digital, a color image (later to be turned into a B&W image) can be manipulated much more easily with color channels with striking results. And of course color film has always had a organic, more natural look when compared to color digital imagery, even today when color captured digitally can be dialed in perfectly and be spot on. And possibly depending on the type of film, an advantage with sharpness, but not in all cases. So of course with sharpness (a quality not as easily obtainable with film) can naturally be celebrated. But it's not just that, very sharp looking images can look very nice (and I'm not talking about taking a image that's not very sharp and has had lots of sharpness applyed.) There is a difference when a sensor can capture lots of sharpness on it's own, all that comes from a lens and displayed easily...a goal digital photographers know film photographers have always been trying to achieve. It's cause for celebration and sharp images do look nice. Digital photography from the very start achieved a goal film users had always tried to attain. Grainless images. It's interesting to point out, Grainless film capture on film has been around for a long time, though only through specialized film with very slow speed. So to get that kind of look with film, a lot of effort and thought from start to finish had to be done to achieve that goal. As long sought after as the Grainless image been searched for, it's funny to think today with so many digital shooters; it's the look of grain that's now sought after, as part of a artistic expression. That itself has brought some digital shooters back to film or for others to give film a try. Of course, there's software that can easily give digital shooters that effect with various degrees of success. In the meantime, digital users will understandably continually point out the cost of film, the area it takes to store film, film costs, development costs, hours in the darkroom vs. Lightroom, instant feedback with images shot vs. film, faster ISO vs. film and the list goes on. And that's ok because it's all true. For a long while, it looked like film might have been going away. With so many people shooting digitally today, a younger crowd who may have only shot digital all their life might wonder what's with film, and actually take a look and give it a try; only to discover what film users had known all along. Sure, it's more work to get the final results, but when they get wowed when film photography is fully experienced, some might decide the extra trouble is worth it. For others, it's surely not worth the effort. So now what I'm seeing in this phase of the digital photography revolution, are some (not all) seemingly want a different experience with photography than what they've been getting with their quick pix. Higher quality imagery and part of that quality includes very sharp images. Sharpness with film might be the holy grail. And, it might be attainable with some negative types of film. However to fully exploit it is as many keep pointing out, it's difficult, costly and surely a lot of thought, time and energy has to be put into every aspect of a film image to satisfactorily attain. When surely without a doubt, sharpness is very easy for digital shooters to obtain, exploit and celebrate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted October 3, 2016 Share #71 Posted October 3, 2016 Hi link below i shot with Leica M3 & Leica APO 50mm adox cms 20 ii film adotech ii scan at 8000dpi https://www.flickr.com/photos/97869800@N07/26739871676/in/album-72157640542635834/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/97869800@N07/albums/72157671296988794 Regardes Sultan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted October 3, 2016 Share #72 Posted October 3, 2016 Haha! I find taking this on a regular basis really helps, your milage may vary.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share #73 Posted October 4, 2016 Hi link below i shot with Leica M3 & Leica APO 50mm adox cms 20 ii film adotech ii scan at 8000dpi https://www.flickr.com/photos/97869800@N07/26739871676/in/album-72157640542635834/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/97869800@N07/albums/72157671296988794 Regardes Sultan I'm certain now (as I have been before) the benefits using the APO 50 on film really shines particularly with the lower speed film. That Adox 20 is gorgeous; as well as the APO 50 with the color film you used. Even on faster film; though not as sharp...I can still see the signature (characteristics) of how that lens writes. Thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted November 15, 2016 Share #74 Posted November 15, 2016 Red 1970 chevelle ss 454 by Sultan AL-Assiri, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted November 15, 2016 Share #75 Posted November 15, 2016 Turkey Bursa by Sultan AL-Assiri, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted November 15, 2016 Share #76 Posted November 15, 2016 Switzerland, Schilthorn by Sultan AL-Assiri, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted November 15, 2016 Share #77 Posted November 15, 2016 Turkey Bursa by Sultan AL-Assiri, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted November 15, 2016 Share #78 Posted November 15, 2016 1968 Chevrolet c10 by Sultan AL-Assiri, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sultanqtr Posted November 15, 2016 Share #79 Posted November 15, 2016 1972 Chevrolet c10 by Sultan AL-Assiri, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted November 15, 2016 Share #80 Posted November 15, 2016 Hey Barnman - Seems as though you really just want to hear people help rationalize your GAS. Of course, you are completely free to do what makes you happy and, if this release of GAS indeed achieves this, I say by all means go and do it. You only live once and why not enjoy the finer things in life. I would never dissuade you in this regard. Having said this, to say that that the view that I expressed (in your Film Forum thread) questioning whether it is cost beneficial to spend $8K for a 50 APO to use with only film is "besides the point" only reconfirms to me that it is YOU really may be missing the point. I never said that the 50 APO wouldn't produce excellent images with film; I merely said that I believe that you will be hard pressed to get materially sharper results relative to the 50mm lux asph - which is 50% cheaper - than you would with, say, the Monochrom. I was making a point about incremental cost-benefit I don't think these examples are that far off of what you'll get. I personally don't see the $8K value here... In the end, GAS nearly always overcomes reason. And we all have our episodes of GAS... All things M are not about logic and reason - they are about unbridled passion for the craft of image making. They are about passion for mechanical and optical perfection. Needs allow us to survive; wants help to elevate the quality of our lives. Does Joshua Bell need a $4 million Stradivarius to make music? No. Couldn't he make music with a $100,000 violin? Or a $5,000 violin? For God's sake, couldn't he just... be reasonable?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.