Chuck wrote:
> I would admit of the possibility that certain B&W films might have
> sensitivity in the IR or UV wavelengths that might be attenuated
> by some lenses and less attenuated by others.
This is actually more likely than we may realize. For forensic
photography, there are only a handful of lenses that truely can be
used for UV and IR work and these tend to be quite old.
However, if you look at the published response curves of common B&W
films, the only one that remotely comes close to pushing the envelope
is Ilford Delta 400 which has an extended near-IR response.
> The Mamiya lenses are OK for color, not so good for B&W. Get the
> 6x7 if you can scrape up the cash...
I know I'm going to be in the minority opinion here, but I used to
have a Mamiya C220, 645 and a SuperPress 67 or whatever it was
called. I've also been through a Crown Graphic, my Olympus gear and
various other gear. The tonalities of the Mamiya 645 in B&W is the
worst of the bunch. Not bad, mind you, but definitely not the same
as the others. I attribute that to a much more contrasty lens than
the others.
Which brings up my theory about Zuikos. I believe the older
"Single-Coated" lenses are better for B&W photography because they
tend to "compress" the contrast a bit. The loss of contrast allows
the shadows to exceed the sensitivity threshold of the film--not
unlike "preflashing". This gives us details in the shadows normally
lost through a more modern lens. Through my commercial B&W lab, I've
processed a few rolls of film shot on ancient Leicas with OLD glass.
What I found, without exception, is that the developed negs look much
flatter than those shot with other cameras. However, when printed,
these negatives seem to possess a greater smoothness--almost a
creaminess which is easily identifiable.
AG
The quality difference in formats is
>
> >> considerable. 6x7 is a wonderfully proportioned negative.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I think this just reflects the poster's personal taste. He does
> not get
> > the look he wants with Mamiya, that's pretty much his personal
> problem.
> > Think about how many other factors can influence the tonality and
> contrast
> > - light at the location, choice of film, exposure time, choice of
>
> > developer, development time, print exposure time, choice of
> paper, print
> > development time, choice of print developer, light at the viewing
>
> > location (or substitute the digital process for the chemical
> print, same
> > difference). Is the lens really such a big contributor there?
> >
> > Lenses for color photography need to be achromatic, or better
> yet,
> > apochromatic (if you can afford it). A lens with no such
> correction would
> > have a more diffuse look in B&W. But in any case all modern
> lenses (for
> > SLR photography, anyway) have this correction.
> >
> > priit.
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
> >
> >
> >
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|