Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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