Thambar-Crazy

[ldhrads]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it's pretty mental, even stopped down half a stop or so (and without the filter). The true test for me will be when I shoot some film with it.

 

Really like this one! Great shot and use of the lens!

[ldhrads]

Thambar M CSF on f4 on M9P

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ldhrads]

Another, indoors (obviously) f3.4

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!

[albertknappmd]

I believe that the red lines are a friendly reminder that the accompanying diffraction filter should only be used between 2.2 and 6.3.

 

Albert      

[wattsy]

Around F2.4 without the filter.

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by wattsy

[wattsy]

The same photo slightly adjusted (and now missing above).

 

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another quick handheld test using the Thambar on the Macro Adapter. This is at F2.8 without the filter. If I was less lazy I would have fetched a tripod and tried to replicate the photo using the same setting on my M-A with film but I just wanted to take a snap of this Crocus (that I'd brought in from the frost outside) before it goes over. This is the full frame (uncropped) at minimum focus using the goggled adapter (1:3 max repro ratio). With the new adjustable adapter you could get closer (1:2).

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by wattsy

[wattsy]

More Thambar testing with the M 240. Daughter practising her recorder for an exam. This is at F2.8 without the filter. I've noticed that in the closer range, the "glow" is more restrained than at longer distances. If you avoid bright backlights, etc, the lens behaves like a fairly normal 90mm.

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by wattsy

[ianman]

Really nice glow on her right hand here! I like this, when the effect is subtle.

[ianman]

This one has an almost Kodak HIE rendering.

 

it's pretty mental, even stopped down half a stop or so (and without the filter). The true test for me will be when I shoot some film with it.

 

[wattsy]

This one has an almost Kodak HIE rendering.

 

 

Ready Brek effect.

[wattsy]

Another test snap to illustrate my point about the lack of glow when focussed in the close range, especially when the main subject plane (in this case the eyes and face) is in the plane of focus. This is at F2.8.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by wattsy

[Susie]

Does anyone know the logic of omitting the white aperture numbers between F2.6 and F9, other than staying true to the original (which I think also does this)? Not being very bright sometimes I have been guessing the aperture when in this range (I don't use the centre filter) but, looking at the aperture scale again, I guess the red numbers F3.2, F4.5 and F6.3 are equivalent to F2.8, F4 and F5.6 respectively. With the M 240 this information hasn't really mattered because I've been chimping the exposure but for film use (without in-camera metering) I need to know the aperture a bit better for exposure purposes.

Hi Ian,

 

Congratulations on your purchase.  I hoped that you would seccumb as I wanted to see the results you would get.

 

I think that by the time you get to f/3.2 the difference the centre dot makes is pretty well irrelevant (certainly for film) and so the red lines are okay to use both with and without the centre-dot filter.  It then goes back to white (no filter) to remind you that the dot is the same size (or larger) than the aperture and should not be used for these apertures. 

 

I am a bit confused with your last question. The aperture figures are  what they say  (3.2, 4.5, and 6.3), not ASA standard ones (2.8, 4.0, 5.6).  If you use an old meter such as a Weston Master, these aperture readings are on the dial, as are the older shutter speeds. The old German standard is half a stop adrift to the ASA ones. They both go up/down in the same proportion (square root of 2), but start at at different point: the German ones at f/4.5 the ASA at f/16 and then go both ways). 

 

Susie

Edited March 22, 2018 by Susie

[wattsy]

I am a bit confused with your last question. The aperture figures are  what they say  (3.2, 4.5, and 6.3), not ASA standard ones (2.8, 4.0, 5.6).  If you use an old meter such as a Weston Master, these aperture readings are on the dial, as are the older shutter speeds. The old German standard is half a stop adrift to the ASA ones. They both go up/down in the same proportion (square root of 2), but start at at different point: the German ones at f/4.5 the ASA at f/16 and then go both ways). 

 

 

Susie, my understanding is that the red numbers are the effective aperture with the centre filter in place. This takes into account the slight loss of light from the centre dot. The white numbers are the actual aperture value without the filter. Therefore, F2.2 becomes an effective F2.3 with the filter, F2.4 becomes F2.5 and F2.6 becomes F2.8. The middling apertures (in red) are not given white equivalents but I would have thought that F3.2 red (with filter) is roughly equivalent to F2.8 white (without filter), F4.5 red to F4 white, and F6.3 red to F5.6 white. My question merely related to the white number equivalents (and why they are not on the lens barrel) rather than questioning the use of "non-standard" values.

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!

Edited March 22, 2018 by wattsy

[albertknappmd]

The next step in Thambar portraiture...... Refining the magic....

 

 

I started using my Thambar last weekend and my father-in-law kindly volunteered.

 

I decided to use the SOFT FOCUS SPOT FILTER exclusively for my first foray in expressionist portraiture so as to reduce potential confounding variables

 

I noticed that the chromatic aberration artifact aka THE MAGIC is most pronounced at f/2.2 and RAPIDLY  tapers off by f/4...

 

Hence, I restricted myself to either f/2.4 and 3.2 for most of these initial studies.

 

Here are the first two INITIAL uncorrected photographs...

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!

[albertknappmd]

Refining the magic.... part 2

 

I then made general corrections in Lightroom and was not satisfied. I brought each picture into Photoshop and used a high pass filter with a mask and soft light to SUBTLY sharpen the eyes, lips and other selected areas. I used curves and a mask to lighten the conjunctivae and teeth.

 

I found that a strong high pass would effectively eliminate all of the chromatic aberration...

 

I feel that the selective addition of subtle high pass will improve the portraits overall and selectively enhance the MAGIC..

 

Any suggestions...

 

Albert        

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!

Edited March 22, 2018 by albertknappmd

[wattsy]

Albert, one of the variables I think you have to get straight is focussing this lens. I have found that getting the plane of focus precisely where you want it is a significant determinant in the degree of hazy glow (“magic”) that results. Also, as I’ve mentioned above, the focussing distance also plays a significant role (with the effect reducing the closer you wind the lens in).

[albertknappmd]

Wattsy

 

Could not agree more.

I try to focus on eyes and by and large was successful. I did have a very cooperative "MODEL." 

Most of my pictures were from about 5-6 feet and I realized that the closer you are, the less MAGIC is seen. Cannot explain that but it is true.

What I discovered is that selective and judicious use of the high pass filter can help improve a THAMBAR picture.

Albert

[wattsy]

Most of my pictures were from about 5-6 feet and I realized that the closer you are, the less MAGIC is seen. Cannot explain that but it is true.

 

 

I think it's because, as the lens is racked out for closer focussing, the angles of the aberrant light rays flatten slightly (or something like that  ). Andy Piper will probably be able to explain it an awful lot better and supply a suitable lens diagram.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[albertknappmd]

I think it's because, as the lens is racked out for closer focussing, the angles of the aberrant light rays flatten slightly (or something like that  ). Andy Piper will probably be able to explain it an awful lot better and supply a suitable lens diagram.

 

 

Intuitively sounds correct....

Albert