Noctilux on a film Leica

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If all this is true your answer about fast glass is very untypical.

The talk about the "look" of each lens is very modern and typical of digital newbies. Fast glass was created as a necessity to get the shot, not because of a certain look.

 

A miller doesn't need defending, but I'll jump to his defense here anyway.   The talk about the "look" of the lenses started shortly after the Noctilux f1.2 was introduced in 1966, and the comparisons to the Canon 0.95 began immediately in the photo press.  They also compared it with the current model of the Summilux at that time.  I remember when the Noctilux f/1 was introduced in 1976 and the lens testers went nuts with numbers and Lines/mm resolution charts, and measuring distortion..  ad nauseum.  No, comparing the "look" of a lens is not new with the introduction of digital.  You just hear about it more since the introduction of digital coincided with the great democratization of information (or misinformation) sharing... the internets...  

[A miller]

Thank you, Roger.  

What can I say, some people can't tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, McDonalds and Burger King, or Hellmans and Miracle Whip...or tri-x or tmax, or portra 160 and portra 400...(you think the normal person back in the day looked at a photo and considered which type of B&W or color film was used???  Does that mean that endless discussions regarding the nuanced and not-so-nuanced differences among the various film stocks is pointless and queer???

To me, the most recent generation of ASPH Leica lenses have a clearly different look when the right person is watching out for the right things - even on film.

I own a 50mm elmar f3.5 (LTM), 50mm DR summicron and a 50mm summilux ASPH.  Sure, they all take photos, and ANYONE (even me or the most discerning gassy gear-head) in the right frame of mind will look past the lens and focus on what is in front of him or her on paper on the screen.  But there are certain aspects of these lenses that are distinct to the design of the lens; and the greater the difference in lens design the less subtle the aspects are.

[hepcat]

.  

Does that mean that endless discussions regarding the nuanced and not-so-nuanced differences among the various film stocks is pointless and queer???

 

 

First Adam, before I go any further,  the work you have displayed on Flickr is superb.  Every image...  superb.  I am humbled by the quality of your work. 

 

Now, back to the discussion...  with negative films, the nuanced and not-so-nuanced differences among the various film stocks are important to a degree...  but not as important as how the film stocks are processed and printed; especially among films of the same ISO for the same reasons as discussed above with the lenses:  there is too much variance in processing and printing to make sweeping arguments about the film stock itself.  So, yes, then IMO the endless discussions become pointless unless the discussion centers around common processing and printing techniques that would standardize the output.  Changing developing chemistry, times, temps... papers and all of the developing techniques for various papers all have the potential as big or greater impact on the "look" of the final print than the film stock.   I've seen many many instances of a photographer eschewing one brand or line of film for this or that and the next guy processes differently and the issue doesn't exist in his work; or the print looks very different with just a switch in papers. 

 

Of course if you're shooting positives, that's 'nother whole diff'rent issue.  

[A miller]

First Adam, before I go any further,  the work you have displayed on Flickr is superb.  Every image...  superb.  I am humbled by the quality of your work. 

 

Now, back to the discussion...  with negative films, the nuanced and not-so-nuanced differences among the various film stocks are important to a degree...  but not as important as how the film stocks are processed and printed; especially among films of the same ISO for the same reasons as discussed above with the lenses:  there is too much variance in processing and printing to make sweeping arguments about the film stock itself.  So, yes, then IMO the endless discussions become pointless unless the discussion centers around common processing and printing techniques that would standardize the output.  Changing developing chemistry, times, temps... papers and all of the developing techniques for various papers all have the potential as big or greater impact on the "look" of the final print than the film stock.   I've seen many many instances of a photographer eschewing one brand or line of film for this or that and the next guy processes differently and the issue doesn't exist in his work; or the print looks very different with just a switch in papers. 

 

Of course if you're shooting positives, that's 'nother whole diff'rent issue.  

You are too kind, indeed.  But thank you nonetheless.

I do agree with the points that you have made.  And there is a lot to agree on with respect to many of your posts, as well as the posts of others on this thread. 

[hepcat]

 

I do agree with the points that you have made.  And there is a lot to agree on with respect to many of your posts, as well as the posts of others on this thread. 

 

Well thank you.   I fear that I am a hopeless pragmatic who sees the final image as the "product." and I take issue with a focus on any one part of the process as being more significant than any other.  Each part contributes to the whole, and each part is influenced more by the other steps in importance than being of importance in influencing the process itself.  No single step in the process is stand-alone as many of these internet discussions would lead you to believe. 

 

For example in this thread,  how important are lines/mm of resolution, "look," or "drawing"  if you're shooting wide open, hand-held at a slow shutter speed?  In a lab bench test, there are differences.  Shooting hand-held though, not so much.    In film selection, how important is t-grain vs. "regular" grain film if you're using a #2 diffuser when shooting, or your final product is printed through cellophane, or a half-tone screen?  How competent is your enlarger lens and condenser?  Do the film carrier and easel hold the film and/or paper flat?  There are LOTS of variables in any process;  too many to make any definitive sweeping statements about just about any single aspect of photography.   Those stats on lenses, film, or sensors are all good to know at the beginning of the process, as a starting point, but really aren't that important most of the time when discussing the final product: the print or display image. 

[Exodies]

The final image is not the end of the matter. The viewing conditions also affect the quality of what the observer perceives.

Visitors to my gallery are given mid grey overalls to wear and the security staff instructed to break up any clumps of more than three people. Of course, those with too ruddy a complexion are simply not admitted.

[jcraf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course, those with too ruddy a complexion are simply not admitted.

 

Thought you liked colour.....

[hepcat]

The final image is not the end of the matter. The viewing conditions also affect the quality of what the observer perceives.

Visitors to my gallery are given mid grey overalls to wear and the security staff instructed to break up any clumps of more than three people. Of course, those with too ruddy a complexion are simply not admitted.

 

I hope the overalls are carefully crafted of 18% gray?

[Exodies]

I've been considering changing to a grey on grey camouflage. The large grey blobs distract from the beauty on the walls when one scans the rooms.

 

Thought you liked colour.....

 

 

I do, but my choice of colour