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

1912 Dagor - certainly not only for BW
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:09 pm    Post subject: 1912 Dagor - certainly not only for BW Reply with quote
To-day I had the 6.8/150 Goerz Dagor from 1912 mounted on my 350D when I bumped on a colorful scene at the Senate Square, people gathering for samba, then marching and dancing through the city center. Taking reasonable shots in the middle of the crowd with the bellows focusing long lens wasn't easy as everybody was moving around, and focusing during the parade was even more difficult, but I got a few good shots. Here are a four of them to whet your appetite, more are available at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/samba.html. I'll be adding a few more when I get them processed. These down-sampled photos have been slightly sharpened for display but otherwise no PP, the colors and the contrast are as produced by the default 350D profile of LightZone.









On the basis of these shots I think it would be somewhat exaggerated to say that old lenses aren't any good for color photography - or what say you?

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
More than acceptable for color photography, WOW!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent series ! I especially like first one!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Veijo, this isn't really playing fairly, the subjects would look great even if
you used a disposable camera! But agree, the Dagor captures colors quite
nicely. Hardly ever see Dagors this side of the pond, and when they are
offered, are made of solid unobtainium.

Bill


PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The usual complaint is that the lens detracts from the subject; its precisely the opposite in this case !

Though that is a good lens, I trust its giving us a faithful testimony !


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Totally amazing vilva. Those colours are spectacular.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Think the lucky Dagor ever had it so good? Smile
super color Cool


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
superb results
I appreciate even more the bokeh on #2, great combination with the subject
resolution is top
no trace of CA and bloom in such high contrast scene is impressive


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is soft, but in a very pleasing way, very appropriate for female subjects.
So congratulations! Great lens to have.

I think that a lens can be only for black and white when it is a low quality lens with problems related to colours such as chromatic aberrations.
Good quality lenses made in B&W era are also good for colours.

I think the opposite is more true, i.e. today's cheap lenses made for colour photography and digital cameras may lack the necessary microcontrast to make for good B&W photos.
This because digital photography allows for makers to make bad lenses that sell cheap but require software sharpening.
In the past this was not possible so all lenses had to have at least a decent micro-contrast.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Veijo, this isn't really playing fairly, the subjects would look great even if you used a disposable camera! But agree, the Dagor captures colors quite nicely.


The colors look nice, but of course the accuracy may be another matter, Zeiis or Leitz colors could be quite different due to the coating and higher contrast. On the other hand, under the circumstances, a lower contrast lens may do slightly better, and anyway, no media can faithfully reproduce the effect of fluorescent pigments lit by direct sunlight, and all the glitter will play havoc with any optics - the Dagor highlight bokeh does real weird things.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now that I wrote about the lens, a comment about the subjects: just how beautiful is the woman in the first picture??? Shocked Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Clicking on the link was quite rewarding, I vote for 0667 for comp!
The lens he's shooting with was made the same year the Titanic sunk,
amazing!

Veijo, post a pic of this lens, would love to see it, thanks. This had to be
one of your more pleasant photo shoots!

Bill


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It is soft, but in a very pleasing way, very appropriate for female subjects.
So congratulations! Great lens to have.


Most of the photos here are at least slightly out of focus as focusing at f/6.8 with the 350D isn't very easy even at somewhat more favorable circumstances, and here the subjects were mostly moving all the time, often at an unpredictable speed. Used on a 350D, the Dagor may be a little bit soft as it was originally used on a 4x5 or even larger camera so the portrait orientation frames here represent 1/7 or less of the original frame width, and the enlargement on the screen even at this image size is higher than was considered reasonable for real sharpness when using film.

I picked two full-size frames which give an idea of what can, with luck, be expected under these circumstances. The frames have been sharpened during RAW conversion but less than is the default sharpening on most dSLRs when shooting JPEG and much less than would be used for printing. On these shots the bokeh is reasonably decent, but on some others it is abominable, a combination of a very sharp Gaussian peak and a strong bright edge, together producing all kind of weirdness.

http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/samba_files/da0745s.jpg

http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/samba_files/da0751s.jpg

Quote:
I think that a lens can be only for black and white when it is a low quality lens with problems related to colours such as chromatic aberrations.


Chromatic aberrations will also degrade the quality of BW photos, sometimes even more than in color as all the color facilitated visual clues are missing, a bad lens is a bad lens even in BW.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent enlargements. The resolvance is really remarkable.
However I still notice some overall glare, visible in the whites especially. But like I said, it's of the pleasing kind, not disturbing.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Excellent series ! I especially like first one!

Indeed! But it's hard to tell if this is because of the lens or because of this beautiful "subject". Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
0667 does appeal to me as well!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:

The lens he's shooting with was made the same year the Titanic sunk,
amazing!

Veijo, post a pic of this lens, would love to see it, thanks.


The lens isn't mounted on a shutter, it has only an aperture level:



The body has an M39 thread, and the lens came with a Novoflex M39-to-M42 adapter tube ready for mounting. Here it is mounted with a bellows on my 350D:



Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Veijo, what do the people around say when they see you shooting with such a construction?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the pics, Veijo!

@Carsten: I think the setup looks very cool, and I like the leather grip he's added as well! Cool

Bill


PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Veijo, what do the people around say when they see you shooting with such a construction?


I think Veijo likes to "épater le bourgeois" Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Veijo, what do the people around say when they see you shooting with such a construction?


Mostly they just stare at the camera or they may also take a look at my well-worn beret and then dismiss me as some stereotypical artist. Some may stare for a length of time, but it is quite rare that someone approaches to have a word.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Veijo, what do the people around say when they see you shooting with such a construction?


I think Veijo likes to "épater le bourgeois" Smile


Perhaps a wee bit Very Happy

I checked that term in Wikipedia, found some commonalities in the linked material, artists and writers I've liked, and finally through a short English article came upon one in Italian (I don't actually know Italian, but I can make something out on the basis of the languages I know). In a way, I think the following excerpt vaguely matches me and perhaps many of us on this forum, not in the sense of dismissing technological progress in general but dismissing "progress for the sake of progress", where the progress is, more often than not, just illusory:

Quote:
Più tardi passò a designare la dilagante "decadenza" della società materialista di fine secolo, orientata verso l'esaltazione delle conquiste tecnologiche e dalla quale gli intellettuali si sentivano estranei. (in http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decadentismo)


I also hit upon a saying by Anton Chekhov which can be transformed to match many of us: "Medicine is my lawful wife, and literature is my mistress." Chekhov was a doctor but is, of course, better known for his writings.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your interpretation of the excerpt you found is absolutely correct!

As for "épater le bourgeois" I meant it in the meaning that I think Rimbaud (or was it Verlaine?) invented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89pater_la_bourgeoisie

that is to basically go against the "common (average) is acceptable" state of mind.

In our case, photographing is usually perceived as acceptable with a compact camera (film or digital) or at most with a modern day reflex and one-two lenses.

More is already perceived as "weird" or "fanatic".

Using 1920s lenses on today's digital camera is definitely another step further and falling directly into the "freak" department Laughing

Since I remembered that you mentioned you liked to go out with your beret and secretly having fun with people that because of this label you as the "bohémien artist", I assumed that going out with this setup could be part of it as well Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1