Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Fuji 160S - B-L Tessar 1c
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Colour Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:53 pm    Post subject: Fuji 160S - B-L Tessar 1c Reply with quote

bloom by Nesster, on Flickr

Since I have a M42->MD adapter, I put the Bausch-Lomb Tessar 1c in its Pentax bellows on the XE-5. This is a CVS drugstore scan of Fuji Pro 160S


PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well done, cvs did a good job on the scan to


PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beautiful colours, digitals can not do these colours of flowers for the life of them.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agree with Orio. Lovely colours!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, I'll post soon the result from the MD 50/1.7 on the same roll - THAT is a good lens, by golly. The Tessar 1c does well, some day I'll have a real Graflex to put it on....


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:06 am    Post subject: Primarily film or lens? Reply with quote
Are the texture and colors we see in the above pix primarily a function of the uncoated Tessar or film? The Tessar to me, at least until relatively recently (for example, the Contax 45mm pancake), had a smoothness and a "rounded" texture that is hard to duplicate as well as "different" colors in part due to its 4/3 format and the lack of multicoating or any coating at all.

In addition Tessars have very "smooth" or creamy oof aspect. I am talking about a somewhat different aspect of smooth and rounded in the above paragraph. I am unable to think of better terms for what I am seeing. Help would be appreciated.

It might be of some use to compare the above to some others Nesster took with the same lens on a Pentax K100D 6.1 Megapixel CCD sensor. I am interested in hearing responses to check what I think I am seeing, not to argue or defend.

The full size of the above taken on film is
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5821242430/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Now full sizes of two others he took - same lens but K100D sensor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4365173538/sizes/o/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5408778527/sizes/o/in/photostream/

SO?


{A side issue that has long puzzled me is the quality of the monitor people use. Mine is a 20" Dell with the guts of a Apple Cinema 20 and properly calibrated. I know from using other monitors, especially most laptops, that for practical purposes I am "seeing" different images on these different monitors - many things readily apparent on my 20" Dell are simply not present on other monitors normally described as "good.". Why is that not talked about on any of these fora?}


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:26 am    Post subject: Re: Primarily film or lens? Reply with quote
jmiro wrote:
The Tessar to me, at least until relatively recently (for example, the Contax 45mm pancake), had a smoothness and a "rounded" texture that is hard to duplicate as well as "different" colors in part due to its 4/3 format


Could you please explain what you mean by "its 4/3 format"?

jmiro wrote:
{A side issue that has long puzzled me is the quality of the monitor people use. Why is that not talked about on any of these fora?}


Why don't you start a topic about this in the Accessories section?
This forum has no editorial guide to decide what subjects are talked about; topics get discussed when people opens threads about them.
So if you don't see an existing thread about a subject that you would like to discuss, simply start one.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:04 am    Post subject: Re: Primarily film or lens? Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Could you please explain what you mean by "its 4/3 format"?


The Tessar glass format.

That is sometimes described as a triplet with two cemented rear elements. 1 1 aperture 2.

Or it is sometimes just said to be the "classic" 4/3 lens format or sometimes "Classic Rudolph" 4/3 format by those who are unhappy with thinking of it as derivative of a triplet rather than a distinctive lens type of its own.

It may be the corruption of my early education (tessares Greek for 4) that makes it more natural to say 4/3.


I will take your advice on my inappropriate parenthetical remarks.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bet they smelled as nice as this picture! Excellent catch, Jussi!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting observations on the tessar rendering...

here's another with the 1c on the K100D

Suki profile by Nesster, on Flickr

and one from the roll of Fuji 160S, as scanned by CVS


I would break this out into two separate items:

- how uncoated lenses render color and shading
- how Tessars behave

I believe that the lack of coatings is the major contributor to something like you describe... the overall rendition is 'gentler' for lack of a better word, than modern coated lenses of the same type. That is, there's less overall contrast to begin with (disregarding any flare effect), and in some way the light path seems 'purer' without all those nasty coatings Laughing Color film sometimes comes out startling with uncoated lenses, and sometimes color comes out a muddy mess with red or some other color almost appliqued on (this may be a combination of exposure and scanning, but it's happened enough times...)

As for Tessars / Skopars, and other clones, I don't really have enough modern ones to make a call.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Colour Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1