Re: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Hi, Dan - I don't doubt that you're right about the film and paper emulsions,
perhaps developing chemicals, etc. etc. It clearly is a combination of factors.

B. D.

Dan Honemann wrote:

> Hi B.D.,
>
> I've wondered about this and have considered it as a possibility.  But if I
> look at the contrast, the out of focus areas, the texture (I lack the proper
> terminology)... I still see a difference in the older prints.  I'd be more
> inclined to believe it is based on different emulsions, chemicals and papers
> than on lenses; I doubt that the nostalgia of the content accounts for _all_
> of it (but hey, I could be wrong).
>
> I can still tell the difference between videotaped vs. filmed footage on tv
> right away, while many of my friends can't see it at all.  To me, the
> difference in old vs. contemporary prints runs along the same lines...
> immediately apparent.  I have seen some modern photographs that do seem to
> come close if not match the older quality, though I can't tell you which off
> the top of my head (there was a link mentioned here a few weeks back to a
> photographer who did many portraits of appalachian familes that springs to
> mind).  I'll pay closer attention to this and jot down some examples as they
> crop up.
>
> Dan
>
> > Okay, I'll take my life in mind hands and...
> >
> > This whole "old glow" thing is really pretty funny...On the one
> > hand we have
> > Erwin, judging lens quality on the basis of scientific formulae
> > and the number of
> > threads visible in a 1" square of silk photographed with  ASA 2.3
> > film at 100
> > yards with the latest Leica optic, and on the other we have a
> > bunch of guys who
> > call the flare and veiling of the old, optically inferior lenses,
> > the "classic
> > leica glow."
> >
> > Yes, as Buzz and some others have pointed out there were papers
> > available 50 years
> > ago which are no longer available - and some of them probably
> > would produce
> > superior prints. But the bottom line, folks, is that that glow
> > which so captivates
> > you is the glow of nostalgia; nostalgia for a long-gone world and
> > way of life
> > captured in the "glowing" photos of the greats, nostalgia for the
> > days when
> > photography really "mattered," nostalgia for the days when we
> > were all a good deal
> > younger and full of promise than we are now.
> >
> > But that's only my theory...
> >
> > And, by the way, some things, such as wooden stringed
> > instruments, DO get better
> > with age...Give me a 1966 Martin D28 over its "new" clone any day...
> >
> > B. D.