Low contrast 35mm recommendations

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

I've made the case that many low contrast lenses do help you get a certain look right from the start, but they do so at the expense of the overall available tones recorded. It's the last part of that sentence that many here simply cannot accept nor digest for some reason.

Exactly. A high contrast lens simply enables more tonal data to be recorded. How you deal with this afterwards is of course up to you. But for some reason some think that low contrast lenses somehow enable greater image contrast to be captured, which they can't and don't.

[hdmesa]

7 minutes ago, pgk said:

Exactly. A high contrast lens simply enables more tonal data to be recorded. How you deal with this afterwards is of course up to you. But for some reason some think that low contrast lenses somehow enable greater image contrast to be captured, which they can't and don't.

At least we're not having to think about analog photography where lens contrast, film contrast, film developing variables (temp/time/chemicals), paper contrast, and printing variables (temp/time/chemicals) all influence each other 🙃

[pippy]

1 hour ago, sinjun said:

...I'm not one who likes spending too much time fiddling with curves or sliders...

I assure you, sinjun, I'm not trying to start a bunfight but why the reluctance to spend just a few minutes of post-prod work for those images which truly deserve such care?

Philip.

Edited November 27, 2023 by pippy

[sinjun]

11 hours ago, pippy said:

I assure you, sinjun, I'm not trying to start a bunfight but why the reluctance to spend just a few minutes of post-prod work for those images which truly deserve such care?

I'm not into throwing buns either... I do spend time on those images which warrant it but I find the older I get the more I appreciate images which look fine straight from the camera or require very quick levels / contrast tweaks.

[Alberti]

14 hours ago, pippy said:

just a few minutes of post-prod work

My experience is that with LRc and several lenses there are differences I cannot get away.

I even see that using a profile has a serious influence that won't disappear.

here 35mm Summicron v4 which is uncoded - in a Noctilux f1.0 profile (accidents, the M10R does not forget anything), and then in a correspnding profile 35 f/2 = 11310/11311 (V4 indeed):

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!

Type4:

A startling difference in tone/vignetting (these are crops to get the same selection), the first one having darker corners and a darker scene altogether; the second one nice colours; and the first one having a low contrast, the black space is more gray, the whole picture is flat and lacks dynamism. 

I can get some differences out, but I cannot get the same result. [ISO200, 1/180th, F2 full.]

Sorry this was in a train, so there is a non-clear window in between.

This goes to say: experiment with profiles to get low contrast (not my cup of tea though).

My four 35mm lenses (35mm Cron V1 ELW, 35mm Cron V4-ELC, 35mm F2.5 Canon LTM, 40mm M-Rokkor) are all low contrast by the way. On the M240 the Canon was my big pleasant surprise. On the M10-r the match with a profile is not so happy. I think the handling of profiles on the M10r/LRc is a bit 'harsh'. At times I even find the LRc profiles amateurish, for instance overdone in corrections.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Alberti

[pippy]

3 minutes ago, Alberti said:

My experience is that with LRc and several lenses there are differences I cannot get away. I even see that using a profile has a serious influence that won't disappear...

I couldn't comment on LRc, Alberti, as I don't use it nor ever have done so. Nor do I have much choice in the use of Profiles; only a few of my lenses - and only one which I use often - are 6-bit coded and the M-D, of course, doesn't allow the option to select a profile manually. It also only records in DNG format. As such I have no choice but to process-out my files myself. I use Photoshop and work on each image prior to conversion to TIFF / JPEG format.

Fortunately I enjoy the post-prod side of things as it lets me control the final print in pretty much exactly the same way as I did when working with negs in the darkroom.

I can understand, of course, that for other people this approach can be a right royal pain in the posterior.

My other digi-M is an M Monochrom and by its very nature - often needing to underexpose to retain detail in the highlights - this body rewards a similar methodology. It does have the possibility of manually setting a lens profile, however, so - if I remember - some aberrations might be able to be dialled-out at the shooting stage.

Philip.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, Alberti said:

I even see that using a profile has a serious influence that won't disappear.

Not sure it helps but when using an uncoded lens, the camera (the M11 at least) assumes you're using the last lens profile selected manually.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Not sure it helps but when using an uncoded lens, the camera (the M11 at least) assumes you're using the last lens profile selected manually.

Interesting.

With the M Monochrom if no profile is set manually or available due to 6-bit coding the body info-readout simply states 'Uncoded' and no profile is applied. With the M-D if there is no 6-bit coding there is no info recorded at all.

Philip.

[venom]

On 9/18/2023 at 5:07 PM, costa43 said:

Hi all,

Over the years, I've realised that the lenses that give me the most pleasing image to work with are of lower than average contrast.  Nowadays I enjoy the 35mm focal length a lot more than I used to, my love for 50mm is still real but I find I reach for my Canon 35mm ltm lens more often than ever before. My main gripe with this lens is that I find the 1 metre minimum focus somewhat restricting. Therefore I'm after a low contrast, 0.7m or less option. Ideally f2 or faster to be used primarily on digital. 

Top of my list so far is the Summicron 35mm v1 but I feel I may be overlooking some gems out there so any advice is as always, very much appreciated! 

Thanks

Costa

 

I’m very happy with the 35 Nokton f1.4 v2. Contrast levels are manageable at small apertures. Unlike the Ultrons which is hard to get rid of. Wide open is very vintage. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by venom

[IkarusJohn]

It seems to me, having read through this thread, that the different experience that @lct is experiencing is down to exposure.  

I can see no reason why a low contrast lens would or could capture more shadow detail than a high contrast lens at the same exposure.  That just doesn’t make sense.  I can see that a higher contrast lens might transmit a higher tonal range through to the sensor than a low contrast lens - but that just means more detail is lost through veiling flare and other defects in the lens.  There’s no way, to my mind, that a lens can capture more detail simply because it is tansmitting less contrast to the sensor.  That loss of detail arises from defects in the lens, including most commonly veiling flare.

So, here’s the test - one camera, two lenses.  Take an ambient light reading, set the exposure and shutter for that reading then take two images of the same scene in the same light with the same settings.  Alternatively (if you think the lenses do not accurately maintain the same aperture - see another thread some time ago), using a spotmeter, expose the same shadow with each lens.

Then come back and tell us what you’ve found.  (Hint, I’ve tried this some time ago, and I got the same exposure for the shadows and the same level of detail - apart from the level of contrast, the more modern lens provided significantly more detail across a wider tonal range).

Edited December 1, 2023 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, here’s the test - one camera, two lenses.  Take an ambient light reading, set the exposure and shutter for that reading then take two images of the same scene in the same light with the same settings.

Please feel free to do it yourself my friend. Been doing this for almost 20 years personally. Problem, or lack thereof, solved for me. Place aux jeunes! 😄

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by lct

[IkarusJohn]

28 minutes ago, lct said:

You may wish to do it yourself my friend. Been doing this for almost 20 years personally. Problem, or lack thereof, solved for me. Place aux jeunes! 😄

 

You might have wished my comment that I have done this some time ago.  I don’t really need convincing. A vous!

[lct]

20 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

You might have wished my comment that I have done this some time ago.  I don’t really need convincing. A vous!

I would have been glad to read you when i began digital photography in 2002 or thereabout but you were not on the LUF yet IIRC. Now i am like you i don't need convincing any more but i am always glad to exchange experiences so we are both happy campers 🙂

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by lct

[IkarusJohn]

47 minutes ago, lct said:

I would have been glad to read you when i began digital photography in 2002 or thereabout but you were not on the LUF yet IIRC. Now i am like you i don't need convincing any more but i am always glad to exchange experiences so we are both happy campers 🙂

 

Well, if you were into digital photography in 2002 and a member of the forum, I must bow to your superior knowledge.  We have nothing further to discuss!

Happy snapping!

[venom]

As far as I know one trick to get more shadow detail is to use a low contrast filter. Stands to reason a low contrast lens would in fact get you some extra information in the shadows. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by venom

[pgk]

5 hours ago, venom said:

As far as I know one trick to get more shadow detail is to use a low contrast filter. Stands to reason a low contrast lens would in fact get you some extra information in the shadows. 

What's a low conrast filter? If it stands to reason could you explain how?

[venom]

47 minutes ago, pgk said:

What's a low conrast filter? If it stands to reason could you explain how?

 

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!

[lct]

6 hours ago, venom said:

As far as I know one trick to get more shadow detail is to use a low contrast filter. [...]

Ah yes i never used one but low contrast filters work fine on cine cameras i've been told. Not that i like filters in general but do you know if such filters are available in  M lens diameters (eg. E39, E46, E55, E60, etc.)?

[venom]

40 minutes ago, lct said:

Ah yes i never used one but low contrast filters work fine on cine cameras i've been told. Not that i like filters in general but do you know if such filters are available in  M lens diameters (eg. E39, E46, E55, E60, etc.)?

I think the best way is to choose the filter from the Tiffen website and then buy a filter adapter. 

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!

 

I don’t use filters either, but I didn’t think low contrast helping you retain highlights and shadows was some controversial thing. It’s the reason you shoot video in LOG to retain all that information for post. Files come out almost muddy looking to get more dynamic range. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by venom

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Quote "in order to produce lower apparent contrast" (my bold, as its a big word in this context). So it actually makes images appear to be lower in contrast by using flare to apparently increase tonality in the shadows whilst apparently not affecting the highlights. In reality all it does is to destroy information in the very lowest shadows and creates greater tonal separation of the data in shadows which are retained. It also probably relies on 'rich' highlight data being minimally affected. Flare always reduces data and cannot increase it. The data that remains will be tonally adjusted which is what is described by the use of the word apparent. I'm also not so sure that this is 'controlled' as such although I suppose that you could say that at least it will be consistent with the same scene. Sorry but I'm not buying this. Its just a triumph of marketting over reality.