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

Unique color rendition
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Different cameras often render different colors with same lenses, my Panasonic G1 poor crap vs Sony NEX-7 with all my effort remain very different and very crap , to learn Photoshop
most inexpensive way and bring best results if you looking for color altering. I remember for Hanimex 200mm what did render so different colors than other lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rick1779 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
If by APO you mean free of CA, yes, software can do that.

I sense a lot of hot air being spouted to justify overpriced Leica lenses yet again.

It's like when Leicists talk about 'Leica glow' as if it's some magical property only their expensive Leica lenses possess. How laughable, it's nothing more than residual spherical aberration.


or Pentax colors in pentax forums, or Minolta colors in Minolta forums etc... Laugh 1


Exactly.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
If by APO you mean free of CA, yes, software can do that.

I sense a lot of hot air being spouted to justify overpriced Leica lenses yet again.


With you it so often comes down to money and insults.

You really think software trumps optics? Seriously?

Even if such blather were true, who wants to fiddle endlessly? I like a lens that shoots gorgeous colors all by itself.

And if you think software makes APO you are really out there. Well we knew that already. How many years did it take you to get over muddy HDR in every photo?

And we were generally very polite about that glaring insult to glass, post after post after post. Tuzki with lens We perhaps should have given you more of your own medicine.

buerokratiehasser wrote:
You can't tweak what isn't there. Spectrum is continuous, light sources maybe not so, wavelengths eaten can't be gotten back by pulling the Red slider up and amplifying the other Red wavelengths.

You can't tweak cross effects (from film) like Velvia Reds.

You can't tweak/duplicate wide angle lens shot from 4 cm away (you can just move farther away or stitch for a boring landscape shot)

That said, a lens is rather unlikely to eat all the light in a wavelength or to cross (would require sharp filters more expensive than the lens itself, or nonlinear optics).

Still, people do speak of "Minolta colors". The reds look very nice indeed but I haven't got around what these colors are exactly. Maybe excellent transmission even in deep Reds, overall neutral cast.


Good post. Colors behave and transmit differently and lens design is a struggle to deal with it, with obvious variability.

The observation that different cameras make different colors is totally beside the point. The same camera will make different colors as well LOL

Once on a Sony forum there was a guy who put up a very soft mountain shot and bragged all about it. I posted a decent one. Oh! He said, that's just photoshop. Any lens can be made to look like that.

Dreaming software makes up for the way a lens deals with color is equally silly.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't insult you so why do you feel you have the right to hurl insults at me?

Clearly you don't understand the process of CA removal in photoshop, learning such skills would be far more useful in improving your images than spending a few thousand on some exotic overpriced lens.

As for the rest of the garbage you wrote, it's not worth answering.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I didn't insult you so why do you feel you have the right to hurl insults at me?

Clearly you don't understand the process of CA removal in photoshop, learning such skills would be far more useful in improving your images than spending a few thousand on some exotic overpriced lens.

As for the rest of the garbage you wrote, it's not worth answering.


Typical oversensitive bully LOL Poor Ian.

All that special glass selected for an APO lens, yes how stupid. You just need photoshop!

As to prices, Leica is not any more overpriced than anyone else, why single them out?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845555-REG/Sony_SAL500F40G_500mm_f_4_0_G_Lens.html

Maybe it just feels better to gripe about Leica. Thank You Dog

The best current glass has never been cheap. Nikon, Canon or Leica.

Or Olympus or Pentax back in the day. Nothing wrong in looking for great deals on old glass. I never insult people who do. Ever. You, on the other hand never miss a trick to imply others are stupid to buy a nice modern lens. It's your ethos or stupidity, or intonations to that effect.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What I object to is people who spout nonsense in order to justify their expensive purchase.

Attributing mystical qualities that are quite laughable in reality.

It's like someone buying a Ferrari then thinking it makes them Michael Schumacher.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
buerokratiehasser wrote:
You can't tweak what isn't there.


right.. but you could fake it Wink


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
you don't understand the process of CA removal in photoshop


there is no lossless way to remove CA in Photoshop.. you can remove/reduce CA with software, but you will lose details. If you always see those missing details is a different question.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BurstMox wrote:
Uran-27 100mm/2.5 has specific color rendition. Very warm rendering, but deep blue flares...







Excellent pics. And now I have another lens on the wishlist...


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
you don't understand the process of CA removal in photoshop


there is no lossless way to remove CA in Photoshop.. you can remove/reduce CA with software, but you will lose details. If you always see those missing details is a different question.


It varies from image to image. For instance, if the CA is magenta and you don't have much magenta in the rest of the image then you lose very little.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laugh 1 Ian 5-Rest 3...


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't understand why animosity had to be injected into the discussion. Oh well.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To get back on point; I really like the color of my old m42 auto Takumars. I have a preset 2.8/105, preset 3.5/135, auto 2/50 and 4/35 and they all have lovely warm rendering and very smooth bokeh. They can also be found for pretty cheap.
Also, Meyer gorlitz lenses, like the Primoplan has great color rendition in my opinion. Getting very pricey, though.
Lastly, EBC fujinon Lenses and Steinheil Munchen Quinon.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
StillSanj wrote:
To get back on point; I really like the color of my old m42 auto Takumars. I have a preset 2.8/105, preset 3.5/135, auto 2/50 and 4/35 and they all have lovely warm rendering and very smooth bokeh. They can also be found for pretty cheap.
Also, Meyer gorlitz lenses, like the Primoplan has great color rendition in my opinion. Getting very pricey, though.
Lastly, EBC fujinon Lenses and Steinheil Munchen Quinon.


I agree, Takumars have some special color rendition.


Thanks.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BurstMox wrote:
Uran-27 100mm/2.5 has specific color rendition. Very warm rendering, but deep blue flares...







Those shots are extraordinary. I happen to be a huge fan of blue flares...
Can you tell me how you adapted the lens and to which camera? It is very interesting.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Starblitz 28mm 2.8 on a 10D


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Super Multi Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Same woods and camera with a Nikon 43-86.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I could take a wild picture of the woods with any old mf lens pointed into the light ? My newer ef-s Canon 24mm 2.8 stm won't hardly flare at all. I guess that's OK sometimes ? I like a wild old lens with a digital camera. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This is the digital age, colour rendition is infinitely tweakable in software so lens selection for colour rendtion is rather redundant.


Not so much redundant as obsolete, but I wholeheartedly agree. Today's software, when used judiciously and artfully and with a good file to work with, can pretty much give you any look you like.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
colour rendition is infinitely tweakable in software


That, at least to me, is part of the point. Infinitely tweakable means what you are essentially looking for initially is a lens that is borderline boring, flat, malleable. A great lens can suggest a shot, all by itself. A shot you may not have taken with another lens that didn't (or perhaps taken but not kept).

Yes, that is outside of the science of photography, but the science is not the whole picture. I am not a scientist.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


You could do this with software or just use a Starblitz 24mm 2.8. Smile[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
can pretty much give you any look you like


I think this points to the question that has people on both sides (angrily so, for some odd reason):

Is it just a "look" that can be fully emulated, or is there more to it than that?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes you can tweak colors - you can increase&decrease overall saturation, saturation of single colors, contrast, white balance etc.

But it's imho VERY HARD to produce natural colors out of unbalanced colors

Leitz and Minolta started as the first lens makers to optimize coatings for color-neutrality instead of overall contrast+sharpness. Other manufacturers followed later but with different philosophies about which ratio between colors and contrast are the best. T*-Coatings are more optimized on contrast and transmission than on maximum neutrality like modern Leitz etc.. "Leica colors" have nothing to do with the old "Leica glow"-fanboy-tattle, they are real and measurable and even benchmarkable(!) using a VIS-spectrometer.
If you should care that much about colors is something different - most people don't look on colors that conscious, but some do.
Canon also had standarized colors since decades btw. and despite digital revolution still has - for a reason I guess.

Colors are the reason I sold several Cosina-Voigtländer and Sovjet lenses I had Sad

And as Attila said, the body also makes a huge difference, even when shooting RAW and with the same settings.

But back to topic
My A.Schacht Ulm Travenar 35/3.5 had wierdo colors (extraordinary blue and sometimes also sligthly weird green I think) - impossible to get colors that look even close to natural, even with PP, optimized white balance etc.
DSC03273

Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:28 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good to see you are back, ForenSeil.Friends

My Minolta MC/MD lenses are pretty balanced in my 5N/A7. Coincidentally, I tried the Schacht Travegon 35mm F3.5 and I think it renders the blue color pretty well.


DSC07524 by Calvin Lee, in Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To get back to the OP's request, before further off-tangent analog vs. digital color "debating" (and let's hope it doesn't degenerate to folks taking things too personal and rebutting with personal attacks, and get closed, like the Xmas Lights thread.)....

Opinions bases on 50mm focal length, daylight white balance, bright sunlight shooting conditions.

On the warmer scale:
Yashinon DX and DS 50 f/1.7. Both are single-coated and use thorium doped glass. The thoriated element does more for it's optical characteristics, which are excellent (unlike some here who did not find the Yashinons satisfactory.), but also can color the rendering due to ambering the element glass.
Their DS 50 f/1.4 yielded similar warm rendering.

Another warm, but less amber colored lens are the Auto Mamiya/Sekor. 55 f/1.4 and 55 f/1.8. Very rich and saturated, and very sharp.

Personal favorites:
Nikon Nikkor-SC 50 f/1.4. The 'C' coating is the most pleasant to my eye SOOC. And is my favorite overall fifty when the rest of its performance is factored in. If the photo looks bad, it's my fault.

Schneider-Kreuznach Edixa-Laudar 50mm f2.8 from the 1950s. A Tessar copy, single-coated. Colors are neutral, with all well-balanced and represented. But the lens renders with a transparent characteristic of old rangefinder era glass.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3