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

Ansel Adams on lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 9:52 am    Post subject: Ansel Adams on lenses Reply with quote
Just came across a rather interesting discussion on lenses by Ansel Adams - so just to share here:

http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Conversations_With_Ansel_Adams_1000800814/115


PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you grainy

Thank you!


PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting about flare.
As per Adams there modern lenses have lifeless shadows because they lack useful flare as in an uncoated Dagor.


PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know that flare actually does anything useful. Sure it can lighten a shadow, but it is only doing so by reducing contrast, it's not as though it is revealing detail the way actually filling the shadow with a flash might.

I took many photos recently with an old Pilot 6 with an uncoated triplet and flare was apparent in most photos that were decently lit, but the overall effect is really just somewhat lower contrast.

Naha by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Compare the top of the utility pole to the bottom. The bottom pole is just adjacent to a rather large shaded area, and so despite being lit the same as the top of the pole from this angle, it was recorded on film with more contrast.


PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
I don't know that flare actually does anything useful. Sure it can lighten a shadow, but it is only doing so by reducing contrast, it's not as though it is revealing detail the way actually filling the shadow with a flash might.

I took many photos recently with an old Pilot 6 with an uncoated triplet and flare was apparent in most photos that were decently lit, but the overall effect is really just somewhat lower contrast.

Compare the top of the utility pole to the bottom. The bottom pole is just adjacent to a rather large shaded area, and so despite being lit the same as the top of the pole from this angle, it was recorded on film with more contrast.


I think that is all it is. When researching lenses I'll often read that the best for B&W are those with lower contrasts. Whether they also flare or not is a different matter. It made sense considering the old days, but not today when we have so much control over the post-process.


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is hard for me to discern sometimes when he's thinking negative and when positive, processing & acquiring...

For example, here I thought he said the old photographers using uncoated lenses lost two stops of exposure -- the two stops veiled by the flare from uncoated lens.


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:

...
I think that is all it is. When researching lenses I'll often read that the best for B&W are those with lower contrasts. Whether they also flare or not is a different matter. It made sense considering the old days, but not today when we have so much control over the post-process.


I have books from around 1910-1930 in my collection, with lithographies from places like Venice, and the "luminous" shadows are incredible. I haven't seen anything like that from our modern sensors.

I wouldn't recommend uncoated lenses for 24x36mm or 6x6cm, but on 13x18cm or better 18x24cm they can produce incredible results.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Teemō wrote:

...
I think that is all it is. When researching lenses I'll often read that the best for B&W are those with lower contrasts. Whether they also flare or not is a different matter. It made sense considering the old days, but not today when we have so much control over the post-process.


I have books from around 1910-1930 in my collection, with lithographies from places like Venice, and the "luminous" shadows are incredible. I haven't seen anything like that from our modern sensors.

I wouldn't recommend uncoated lenses for 24x36mm or 6x6cm, but on 13x18cm or better 18x24cm they can produce incredible results.

Stephan


Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure to see anything like what you describe. I'm most interested in images like these, that look like drawings:
https://www.historypin.org/attach/uid43505/map/#!/geo:-28.166608,153.535509/zoom:15/dialog:277295/tab:details/
https://www.historypin.org/attach/uid43505/map/#!/geo:-27.967607,153.413472/zoom:15/dialog:279539/tab:details/

Not many images are rendered in the same way from the same period so I wonder what is different... The photographic process, the lens? Unfortunately the photographers of these images are unknown, and there is no mention of the equipment used. The dynamic range is very clearly limited but the detail is all there.


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use uncoated, single-coated and multi-coated lenses. Horse for courses. Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Teemō wrote:

...
I think that is all it is. When researching lenses I'll often read that the best for B&W are those with lower contrasts. Whether they also flare or not is a different matter. It made sense considering the old days, but not today when we have so much control over the post-process.


I have books from around 1910-1930 in my collection, with lithographies from places like Venice, and the "luminous" shadows are incredible. I haven't seen anything like that from our modern sensors.

I wouldn't recommend uncoated lenses for 24x36mm or 6x6cm, but on 13x18cm or better 18x24cm they can produce incredible results.

Stephan


Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure to see anything like what you describe. I'm most interested in images like these, that look like drawings:
https://www.historypin.org/attach/uid43505/map/#!/geo:-28.166608,153.535509/zoom:15/dialog:277295/tab:details/
https://www.historypin.org/attach/uid43505/map/#!/geo:-27.967607,153.413472/zoom:15/dialog:279539/tab:details/

Not many images are rendered in the same way from the same period so I wonder what is different... The photographic process, the lens? Unfortunately the photographers of these images are unknown, and there is no mention of the equipment used. The dynamic range is very clearly limited but the detail is all there.


In the second photo, it's just a matter of being a poor copy of an original, and that messed up the contrast.

In the first, I don't see anything unusual.

Printing technology has changed immensely in the past 100 years, in the past many photobooks were printed this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogravure which gives a distinctly different, almost luminous quality to the prints as compared to the standard half-tone offset lithography used today. There were other processes too, which aren't used today. There are other processes which used to be common which gave much higher quality reproduction than what you see in books and magazines today.

Photographic paper back then was also very different, so originals from the era has different qualities than prints made today. If you have come across old albumen, or "gaslight" prints, you'll know what I mean. Multi-contrast papers didn't exist, so paper itself was produced in different grades. Amateurs usually printed on high contrast paper as this helped hide exposure problems. Pros would make their own albumen, or platinum papers, etc.

Some of the rendering we may be attributing to the lens, probably actually has to do with the printing process.


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:

Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure to see anything like what you describe.
...
Not many images are rendered in the same way from the same period so I wonder what is different... The photographic process, the lens?

Nearly everything:
* Lens (not coated)
* Negative size (13x18 cm or larger)
* Silver content of the emulsion (much higher than today)
* Sensitivity (much lower)
* Exposure (overexposed and under-developped according to our today's standards)
* Developers
* Printing papers and/or printing process

Teemō wrote:

The dynamic range is very clearly limited but the detail is all there.

The books i've mentioned above have not at all a "limited dynamic range".
I'll scan some of the prints and upload them here.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Nearly everything:
* Lens (not coated)
* Negative size (13x18 cm or larger)
* Silver content of the emulsion (much higher than today)
* Sensitivity (much lower)
* Exposure (overexposed and under-developped according to our today's standards)
* Developers
* Printing papers and/or printing process


I may not have explained clearly, but a lot of images from the same decade look remarkably 'better' than the two examples I linked. Even if you google images from WW1 20-30 years earlier they are technically much better, so I'm left wondering if those two examples are a specific style of photography or perhaps just an inferior photographic method/poor processing.

These were all taken in 1910:
http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/4a23479a.jpg
http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/4a18581u.jpg

Compared to:
http://www.lauritzen-hamburg.de/fotosekke/navigationsschule.jpg
https://media.douglas.de/hybr/img/brands/b1482/dsicontent/b1482-0202/bildergalerie-bild02.jpg

stevemark wrote:

The books i've mentioned above have not at all a "limited dynamic range".
I'll scan some of the prints and upload them here.

Stephan


That would be great of you!


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 2:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Ansel Adams on lenses Reply with quote
grainy wrote:
Just came across a rather interesting discussion on lenses by Ansel Adams - so just to share here:

http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Conversations_With_Ansel_Adams_1000800814/115


Thanks for this!

The improvement in IQ and apparent increase in dynamic range due to flare is similar to that in audio due to addition of noise. When CDs came out, many folks preferred the sound of LPs even though they are technically poorer in dynamic range. Our ear/brain interface, similar to our eye/brain interface, is a sampling system that looks for patterns, and can't detect those patterns if the overall signal level is too low, or if the interface is overloaded nearby in the image. If you look at a shadow, dark in comparison with the area around it (ie high contrast) the brain sees detail only in the light areas. In communications this is called 'blocking', and it is the inability of a system to resolve a low-level signal in presence of a high level one. The instantaneous dynamic range of the system is too low. By lightening the shadows, they are brought within the dynamic range of they eye, and from there the small variations in intensity are discernible.

HDR does a similar thing, but more effectively since it pseudo-linearly compresses the existing dynamic range while simultaneously adding real dynamic range to the image. A 111 in HDR might become 222 or 444, but then the .5.5.5 and .25.25.25 are brightened so they become 222 and 111. Flare just adds noise, so that if a flare level of 222 is added, the 111 becomes 333, 222 becomes 444, and so on. This is nonlinear compression, but they eye doesn't really care that much. In fact, it prefers it! This is why Adams calls such a lens "smooth" in his descriptions, because the tonal gradations are very pleasing due to the nonlinear compression effects. Of course Adams did all of this with the Zone System...


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Ray Parkhurst for the explanation.


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
I don't know that flare actually does anything useful. Sure it can lighten a shadow, but it is only doing so by reducing contrast, it's not as though it is revealing detail the way actually filling the shadow with a flash might.

I took many photos recently with an old Pilot 6 with an uncoated triplet and flare was apparent in most photos that were decently lit, but the overall effect is really just somewhat lower contrast.

Naha by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Compare the top of the utility pole to the bottom. The bottom pole is just adjacent to a rather large shaded area, and so despite being lit the same as the top of the pole from this angle, it was recorded on film with more contrast.


That avatar of yours is bloody annoying!

Sorry, I just had to mention it, very off putting and impossible to blot out of a thread.

Steve.
What is the point of that thing on a forum about visual...


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bychance wrote:
What is the point of that thing on a forum about visual...


The same point in having an avatar on any forum. Welcome Turtle


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most folks don't care much about them one way or the other, but animations really bother some folks. I have done animations of coin die varieties to show the difference between the variety and normal coin, and published them on various forums. Most folks come back with words of praise, or sometimes requests to slow down or speed up the animation to improve the effect. One guy on one forum came back and asked the moderators if they would please shut off all animations on the forum? Apparently my (very tame) animation really bothered him!


PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2016 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Animated gifs drain sensory attention -- a waste of mental energy. The more attention wanted or needed elsewhere, the more annoying the animations can become, depending on disposition and current mood. Especially avatar gifs -- I can see how a coin gif animation might annoy under those conditions such as on a page of thumbnails, but not when viewed as a single image.

Some people purposely annoy other people in the target audience. Beats me why?


PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2016 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@bychance
You can block the avator if you have installed an ad blocker in your browser.


PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2016 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bychance wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:

....


That avatar of yours is bloody annoying!



I agree, thanks for bringing up the issue.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2016 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Nearly everything:
* Lens (not coated)
* Negative size (13x18 cm or larger)
* Silver content of the emulsion (much higher than today)
* Sensitivity (much lower)
* Exposure (overexposed and under-developped according to our today's standards)
* Developers
* Printing papers and/or printing process


...

The books i've mentioned above have not at all a "limited dynamic range".
I'll scan some of the prints and upload them here.

Stephan


That would be great of you![/quote]

Here are some - sadly i have scanned them in low res before hurrying to work; the high res stuff will follow. But i think even these low res jpgs give an idea of what i mean. Noon/afternoon sunlight in Italy is extremely "hard", and the contrasts between open sky and shadow areas inside the small paths of a town often are too much for even the latest digital sensors.

These scans were taken from the book "Italien" (Italy) by Kurt Hielscher, published by Atlantis Verlag (Zurich / Berlin). The images probably were taken around 1925, and Zeiss cameras are explicitly mentioned by the author.

Stephan
#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2016 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those are great Steve - sublime rendering! It's incredible how the art has changed over time.


PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2016 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They are very nice, but they do indeed have limited dynamic range. I assume the scan is faithful to the original, and if so then the darkest shadow I can find is around 50 30 26.


PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2016 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
They are very nice, but they do indeed have limited dynamic range. I assume the scan is faithful to the original, and if so then the darkest shadow I can find is around 50 30 26.


You are joking, aren't you?

So you would say that the image below has a better dynamic range since it's darkest shadows has "0 0 0" Wink ?

BTW it's a scan from an early postwar German PhotoMagazin (1951). It's printing quality is rather limited, and the original image probably had a high contrast as well.



PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2016 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
Those are great Steve - sublime rendering! It's incredible how the art has changed over time.


Here are two of the images in higher resolution (their printed size in the book is about 12x18 cm):
#1


#2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2