Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Chandos xmas eve images
From: Chandos Michael Brown <cmbrow@mail.wm.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:54:11 -0500

Rob,

I posted the links on the LEG, but not on the LUG--so let me elaborate a bit.

The negs are as sharp as I can manage shooting wide open at very slow 
shutter speeds (1/30-1/15).  I view these as acceptably sharp, given the 
ambient conditions and the 'atmospheric' quality that I seek to obtain (not 
to say that I wouldn't shoot at faster speeds if I could).  Available 
darkness photography has its own aesthetic, I think--one's vision is not as 
acute in marginal light (when the pupils are dilated), so the standards of 
resolution it seems to me are somewhat at odds with the values that we 
ordinarily attach to "sharpness" (as in, "boy, the Summicron is *really* 
sharp stopped above 5.6").  What I find with the Noctilux is that it 
achieves an overall impression of sharpness at full 
aperture--notwithstanding camera shake, that's unequalled by other fast 
lenses that I've used (Nikon and Canon 1.4--though not the most recent 
versions).  I suppose that one might speak of this impression as a kind of 
perceptual gestalt--the shallow depth of field increases the contrast 
between the out-of-focus background and foreground (bokeh--if you will) and 
the *relative* sharpness of the plane of focus.  I suppose that this could 
be expressed as some sort of ratio, but I don't possess the knowledge to 
calculate it, nor even to assess whether or not this is a plausible theory.

Here some examples:

Photo 1:  full frame.  Kodak T400CN.  f1@1/30.

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/People/babybob2.htm

Photo 1, detail 1:

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/People/detail1.jpg

The child's face--eyes are my principle index of relative focus.

Photo 1, detail 2:

I actually focused the M3 on the plate and its contents, hard, clear 
reference edges close to the plane of focus.  I watched for the kid's 
rocking back and forth and tried to shoot when he was within appropriate 
depth of field.  In the final image, he *is* slightly out of focus, 
compared to the plate, but against the overall effect of the blurred candle 
light in the foreground and the softened champagne bottles in the 
background, to my mind, at least, his eyes are acceptably sharp and arresting.

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/People/detail2.jpg

Photo 2:  infant, full frame f1@1/15

Hard edge of napkin focus reference.

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photography/People/babybob1.htm

Photo 2, detail 3:

Again, Daddo's rocking the kid so I have to calculate the in-focus 
zone.  Using eyes and ruffle as an index, I believe that the image is 
acceptably sharp--especially in an 6x9 print--against the very diffuse 
background.

All of this is to say--in the professor's typically effusive manner--that 
these images represent what's on the film, well reproduced by the scanner 
(Nikon LS 2000--5 pass--"clean"--white balance--VueScan 5.8).  Are they 
bench-test samples of the Noctilux's capabilities?  Manifestly not.  Do 
they represent the 'real-world' capabilities of the lens?  Again, to my 
mind, absolutely.  Could one accomplish this sort of thing (good or bad) 
with another optic?  Possibly, but I can't.


Chandos






At 10:07 AM 1/26/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>This is what I expected from a Noctilux-M. From all the posts, one must be
>careful of the background, but then, one must be careful of the background
>all the time.
>
>You say that the eyes of the child are sharp, does that mean the entire
>image is sharper and that the scan could be better?
>
>Rob Mueller
>Studies in Black and White
>www.studiesinblackandwhite.com
>rob@studiesinblackandwhite.com
>
>



Chandos Michael Brown
Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
College of William and Mary

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown