Hi Folks,
I understand that for some purposes, such as portrait photography, low-
contrast lenses give a smoother image showing fewer skin imperfections, for
example, and thus more satisfied purchasers of the photos.
For Black & White, having read (but not necessarily understood) Ansel
Adams, I had the impression that the photographer who does their own
processing can control the contrast at the film development stage then at the
printing stage.
I've never been satisfied with commercial B&W processors here, especially
after seeing the non-contrasty prints with a great tonal range that I used to
get when in the UK in the '60's. Here, there (used to be anyway) only what I
would describe as very hard prints. Black or white "tones" with very little in
between.
I have not compared and evaluated colour film to anything like the extent that
CH, and John Lind have, for example.
In comparing shots of the same subjects (one specific red flower, same lens -
Zuiko 100 f/2 ) taken with Kodachrome 64, and Fuji Reala, I noticed that the
Kodachrome gave a greater tonal range (more contrast/) for the identical
subject and probably very similar lighting although being outdoors in
changeable conditions one can never be sure. The print shots were dull by
comparison (but I cannot comment on the print film options as I have no
knowledge. Must do that (ask the Lab people) some time.)
So what I expect from a lens that delivers less contrast is that the highs and
lows of lighting are not so far apart in range; but the downside for me is that
the colours are made less saturated at the same time. So lighting and colour
are simultaneously affected. And I don't mean that the saturation should
approach the super-saturated colours of some films that give an unreal image
especially in good bright white light. (I can understand that they give a
result
in dull grey lighting that might better simulate bright light). But, the
colours
are noticeably more dull than those I recall.
I have long come to accept that in certain lighting conditions and for some
subjects where I live, Kodachromes are very difficult to use. Clear skies and
white, very directional light, mean black shadows that Kodachrome cannot
render well at the same time as handling highlights. And when taking action
to minimise the dark shadows, one often ends up with using flat frontal
lighting or near-frontal lighting and therefore sometimes unsatisfactory
images.
I've never used Nikon lenses of any vintage, so I don't understand what
people know when they speak of their contrasty images..
>From reading Gary Reese's data, I suspect that the most contrasty lens I
own may be the # <500,000 35-105 Zuiko. (But my new Panagor macro also
seems very contrasty).
Thanks for the many points of view. Gives me more to think about. And I
agree that satisfaction with the final result is what counts in the end. One
has only to read about the development manipulation, post-development
manipulation, and enlarging manipulation that Ansel Adams did, to
understand that a tyro could never envisage from an examination of his
negatives, the prints he could produce from them. I have only Adobe fine
products to play with <g>.
I feel that I'm a tyro in this game, really. And this is too long.
Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|