Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Nevertheless the "lower contrast, higher resolution" myth continues... This only applies to lenses that are limited by spherical aberration. Modern design, glass and constructuion means you can have high resolution AND high contrast. I think what we tend to forget is that we should perceive many of these attributes (contrast etc) through a photograph. It's all well to say that a poor signal to noise ratio means that a lens is poorly implemented (I like that turn of phrase Herb) but when you look at a photo you don't see it that way. I tend to prefer moderate contrast lenses for B&W but higher contrast lenses for colour. If you can get to the Salgado show that Sonny pointed us to: http://www.leica-users.org/v46/msg09190.html or any other collection with a good range of prints of his photos, you'll see that they have a full range of tones but are printed with high contrast. Having a relatively low contrast original helps with making this kind of output. I am not sure what the S series lenses are like, contrast-wise, but my general feel is that the ASPH lenses from the 50/1.4 onwards have lower contrast than those that preceeded them, particuarly the 35s and the 90/2. I know that when I use Acros I develop one minute less when I have used my 35/1.4 asph a lot: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Randomness/File1084.jpg.html than if I have used my Noctilux a lot: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Noctilux/File1205.jpg.html With colour the perceived contrast depends on both the hue contrast and total contrast. I like the 35/1.4 a lot more for colour than for B&W: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/LuG/geoff+in+the+park.jpg.html With lenses, there is a theoretical 'perfect'. In aesthetics, anything goes. Marty On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> wrote: > Quite so. > > Nevertheless the "lower contrast, higher resolution" myth continues... > > FD > > > On 22 Sep, 2010, at 22:43, wildlightphoto at earthlink.net wrote: > >> Herbert Kanner wrote: >> >>>>> >> A lens per se cannot manipulate contrast, it merely refracts what is >> there. But miscellaneous scattered light not coming from the image >> will reduce contrast as if the film (or sensor) had been exposed to a >> low level of miscellaneous distributed light before or after the >> actual taking of the picture. It is the same phenomenon that we try >> to avoid by using a lens hood: scattered light inside the lens. So, >> in my opinion, a "low contrast lens" is just a poorly implemented >> lens: failure to coat internal elements, shiny internal structural >> parts, whatever. >> <<< >> >> Seconded. ?A low-contrast lens is a sign of photon noise: a lower >> signal-to-noise ratio. >> >> Doug Herr >> Birdman of Sacramento >> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on >> Microsoft? >> Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >