Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Quoting Nathan Wajsman <nathan@nathanfoto.com> > While I like the first image, I must admit that I do not understand > the point of purposely using uncoated, low-contrast, flare-prone > lenses when perfectly good and affordable modern equivalents are > available. Maybe not all pictures have to be high-contrast and super sharp. >The people who designed the old lenses 50 or 70 or 100 > years ago were not aiming for any "painterly" effects. Some were - there were (are) Struss Pictorials, Graf Variables, Pinkham & Smiths, Aldis lenses, Wollensak Veritos, Rodenstock Imagons, and even Taylor, Taylor and Hobson Speed Panchros that film makers used for a smoother, pictorial effect in the twenties and thirties. >They attempted to design lenses to deliver as much sharpness as they could, given > the technology at their disposal. While these lenses may have > historical interest today, I honestly do not see any purpose in > forsaking the progress that has occurred in optical technology during > the last several decades. > > If you want an unsharp picture, you get always get one with a modern > lens--just throw the lens off focus, or use a slow shutter speed, or > do some Photoshop magic. Not the same effect. Lenses have personalities, and I for one like to use their idiosyncracies to suit my needs. I'd rather get what I want on film than mess with PhotoShop. Nathan, you do good work with modern optics, but some of us like, as they used to say, "plasticity" in our pictures. Alan B^} Alan Magayne-Roshak, Senior Photographer University Information Technology Services University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Office Phone: 414 229-6525 | E-mail: amr3@uwm.edu Department Phone: 414 229-4282 http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/