sean_reid Posted October 7, 2007 Share #41 Posted October 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's the point... we expected to have some "preview" of how well can do these Summarits.... and found a undoubtly questionable print style... on images that per se are nothing exceptional... a delusion... as for lenses, not worthing more than the cold "quality proofs" in Leica Site; better to wait for Sean ( I finally will succeed in registering after 2 or 3 unsuccesful trials...) I understand. E-mail me if you're having trouble subscribing. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here New LFI magazine .. new summarits. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted October 7, 2007 Share #42 Posted October 7, 2007 I am waiting for the MTF graphs of the new Summarits... The what..?<G> Best, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted October 7, 2007 Share #43 Posted October 7, 2007 In my opinion, the color and style in the photos was intentional; the coordination of the colors within the photos is too sophisticated (look at the girl with the fox) to be accidental. Lorna Lux is also over in this direction, and quite a few other cutting edge art photographers. If you don't like it, you don't like it, but I don't think there were any editorial or printing press problems. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 7, 2007 Share #44 Posted October 7, 2007 Agree. The photos are not good enough to be published. I just received my first issue of LFI and apart this section I love it. How would you rank the previous issues of LFI? Is it a worthwhile subscription? Are these bad photos outliers or LFI publishes with random quality? I like the publication. The reportages are a bit random, in quality and style. Sometimes are really good, and you know a new good photographer, and sometimes are not so good, or even surprisingly bad. For instance, in the same issue of LFI, you have an excellent reportage in B&W by Erdal Buldun about people swimming, really beautiful ( Erdal Buldun ). They also publish "historic" reportages. My reference for a good publication is "C Magazine". The technical articles are interesting, but the articles about equipment are too "light". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 7, 2007 Share #45 Posted October 7, 2007 The what..?<G> Best, Sean The modulation transfer function curves. I find them very interesting and informative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted October 8, 2007 Share #46 Posted October 8, 2007 In my opinion, the color and style in the photos was intentional; the coordination of the colors within the photos is too sophisticated (look at the girl with the fox) to be accidental. Lorna Lux is also over in this direction, and quite a few other cutting edge art photographers. If you don't like it, you don't like it, but I don't think there were any editorial or printing press problems. JC Loretta Lux, I believe. I agree; the color schemes are repeated too often and too deliberately to be an accident; this color is what the photographer intended. I don't much like the photographer's work, but I judge the ability of a camera to achieve looks different from the ones I like as a strength rather than a weakness. As much as I'm happy with the way I do things, if the camera forces everyone to do things my way, it's broken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share #47 Posted October 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes the low contrast style of pictures are intentional ... but some faces have all colors of the rainbow if you look close .....i realy question if that was intentional .... the repro of that article is miles behind to how a well printed Lotretta Lux picture looks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 8, 2007 Share #48 Posted October 8, 2007 Agree. The photos are not good enough to be published. I just received my first issue of LFI and apart this section I love it. How would you rank the previous issues of LFI? Is it a worthwhile subscription? Are these bad photos outliers or LFI publishes with random quality? In general I find LFI well worth the money. Their lens reviews are informative, and I enjoy most of the reportages, even the ones which aren't to my taste. It has been quite good since perhaps 5-7 years ago. Before that it was more of an acquired taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 8, 2007 Share #49 Posted October 8, 2007 I haven't seen the LFI in question yet, so I'll bypass that discussion for the moment. Ruben: Sean used a <wink!> mark, so I believe he was joking with you - he no doubt is far more concerned with the Summarits' performance (drawing) in the real world than with MTF charts (with which I'm sure he is very familiar!) (As an aside - I place relatively little value on MTF charts, myself. Since they measure a combination of contrast and resolution, it is all too easy for a lens of modest resolution to achieve high MTF, simply by cranking up the overall contrast through coatings and such. One reason why I mostly stick with the Mandler lenses of 1970-1980 - a gentle contrast suitable for digital or slides combined with eye-popping crisp fine details in Super-A3 (13 x 19) prints. MTF charts that included 80 lppm might be more useful.) I personally am interested in seeing the lens cross-sections, just out of curiousity. I bet the 35/50 are basic double-gauss designs - but the 5-element, 4 group 90 intrigues me - a recycle of the old original "fat" Tele-Elmarit, perhaps? Or something new? I know the final image delivery is what's key - I just enjoy observing the optical-design side, as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 8, 2007 Share #50 Posted October 8, 2007 I personally am interested in seeing the lens cross-sections, just out of curiousity. I bet the 35/50 are basic double-gauss designs - but the 5-element, 4 group 90 intrigues me - a recycle of the old original "fat" Tele-Elmarit, perhaps? Or something new? Erwin Puts has published those cross-sections: Leica Summarit-M lenses (aug 5, 2007; updated sept 30, 2007) | Photography and image capture: the Leica technique and philosophy by Erwin Puts | Erwin Puts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted October 8, 2007 Share #51 Posted October 8, 2007 I like the publication. The reportages are a bit random, in quality and style. Sometimes are really good, and you know a new good photographer, and sometimes are not so good, or even surprisingly bad. For instance, in the same issue of LFI, you have an excellent reportage in B&W by Erdal Buldun about people swimming, really beautiful ( Erdal Buldun ). They also publish "historic" reportages. My reference for a good publication is "C Magazine". The technical articles are interesting, but the articles about equipment are too "light". The Erdal Buldun photos published in LFI are outstanding. Great results with a M6 underwater. Are there other examples of underwater photography with a M? Which waterproof cases suits best M Leicas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 8, 2007 Share #52 Posted October 8, 2007 Ruben: Sean used a <wink!> mark, so I believe he was joking with you - he no doubt is far more concerned with the Summarits' performance (drawing) in the real world than with MTF charts (with which I'm sure he is very familiar!) Indeed... Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 9, 2007 Share #53 Posted October 9, 2007 Ruben - thanks for the Erwin link. Interesting that the Summarits seem to be "de-rated" versions of Summicron designs rather than uprated Elmar/Elmarits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.