Advice for Shooting Velvia
phantom309
Normally I'd use print film, usually Royal Gold. This time I want to use
Velvia and scan the slides with my new film scanner. I've never shot with
this type of film before, and it doesn't look like I'll get a test roll
in..... Anyone have any tips for a slide film n00b? I'll be using a Contax
G1 with the 35, 45, and 90mm, if that matters. Thanks in advance.
DBaker9128
>Anyone have any tips for a slide film n00b?
What does this mean? If you are asking what EI to shoot Velvia at, I use EI 40
with my Contax G1. BTW, I understand the Fuji Astia scans very well because of
its wider latitude.
Doug from Tumwater
Johan Delanghe
will burn your highlights and there's little you can do about that.
Underexpose by 1/2 or 3/4 of a stop and everything will be OK.
You might clip your films but because it will be in "uncontrolled"
lightning condition
i don't see an real use in that.
hope it helps
"phantom309" <12...@sunflower.com> wrote in message
news:u2aun26...@corp.supernews.com...
Dilbertdroid2
digital darkroom to produce your prints, the extra color saturation of velvia
isn't a big issue anyway, and you are giving up a stop of speed which you can
use if you are shooting hand-held. Do yourself a favor and get Fuji RDP III
(Provia 100f), which is probably the finest reversal film available on the
market for general-purpose shooting. And if you think it is not as
fine-grained as Velvia, you will be wrong--- It has finer grain than Velvia.
It also pushes well up to two stops.
Peter Lawrence
Fuji Velvia is a great film for landscapes, but it works best when you use it
in soft lighting (dawn, early morning, late afternoon, sunset, or overcast
light). Try to avoid using it in the harsh midday sun. Its very high contrast
makes it difficult to use under the very bright sun.
Shooting under the midday sun, I get better results using Fuji Provia 100F or
Kodak E100SW.
To lessen the strong contrast of Velvia, many photographers prefer slightly
overexposing Velvia by shooting it at EI40 than at its rated ISO of 50.
Also, Velvia is not the best slide film for photographing people. Fuji Astia
and Kodachrome 64 give more pleasing results, IMO.
One last thing, if you don't do so already, be sure to bring a tripod when
shooting Velvia. With its low ISO of 50, under most lighting conditions, you
will not be able get all the sharpness that Velvia can deliver by just hand
holding your camera, regardless how fast you lens is.
- Peter
TheMartian
These days I shoot/process velvia at 40, scans better that way.
Also have a look at ProviaF100, shoot/process at 80, produces superb
results.
--
TheMartian
AIM: OrigMartian
www.ozetechnology.com
www.marsfirst.org
Al Denelsbeck
phantom309 <12...@sunflower.com> wrote in message ...
I'll agree with everything already mentioned by the other responders,
and add in one thing.
Many film scanners show a 'preference' for a certain type of film. My
own Minolta Dimage Dual (the first) needs correction for Velvia and Provia,
but seems to be bang on for E100SW. Others may vary significantly.
Take the opportunity to try several different kinds of film. Velvia is
loved by nature photogs for its brilliant greens (as well as the grain), but
it makes people look terrible - the saturation isn't across the board, and
other photogs feel sometimes it makes colors *too* brilliant, like overdoing
the Saturation within a photo-editing program. Astia is better for neutral
color, close to what you're seeing (some people think there's no fun in
that), Provia 100F has excellent grain, slightly increased saturation, and
pushes really well - I shoot it often at 320, process at 400 (push 2 stops).
And yes, Velvia is disgustingly slow, one of the reasons I don't use it
much even as a nature boy. A tripod is almost a necessity, and grab shots
are a hit-or-miss thing.
Good luck, and have fun while you're there!
- Al.
--
Remove an 'E' from Speed for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.ipass.net/~denelsbeck.
Gannet
In my opinion, it's not smart to switch to new films, especially
"specialty" films like Velvia, for a trip. What if it doesn't work
out? What if you hate it? What if your scanner or software hates it?
Trip pics down the drain.
As others have pointed out, Velvia is a great film, but it is slow,
and has very high contrast. In practice, the latter means you have
even less exposure latitude than usual for a slide film. For this
reason, I think Velvia is a poor choice for a "first" slide film.
Both factors mean it can be a poor choice as a "general purpose" film,
and when traveling, that's what you need.
The high contrast and deep blacks of Velvia stretch the Dmax
capabilities of scanners to their limit. Also consider that if you
intend this for scanning, you can always increase the saturation in
your image software. While this is not "the same" as working directly
with high-saturation film, it's also more flexible.
If you're convinced you want to go to slide films for this trip, I
would suggest using a "middle of the road" slide film that everyone
agrees is good. My own preference is for Provia 100F, but Ektachrome
100S is also very good, and the Kodak "equivalent", if you prefer
Kodak. I think you'd be thrilled with the results from either, and
this strikes me as a much lower risk way to go.
No matter what you decide, good luck on your trip.
Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida USA
gan...@jtel.net
imo, ime, fwiw, ianad, ymmv, dnrtupol, etc.
phantom309
know.
phantom309
"phantom309" <12...@sunflower.com> wrote in message
news:u2aun26...@corp.supernews.com...
Jason
SLRs. Some manufacturers tend to bias the exposure in their cameras slightly
towards overexposure since most amateurs prefer to shoot negative film and
negative film has more latitude towards overexposure. Contax however seems
to be spot on when compared to my hand held meter. You might also try Provia
100F or the amateur version the Sensia 100. I have been impressed with their
image quality and find I use Velvia less and less these days.
For what it is worth, my personal experience is that scans (at 4000 dpi and
blown up to 11x16 inches) from Sensia 100 or Provia 100F seem to turn out
better than scans for Royal Gold 100 negative film.
Jason
"DBaker9128" <dbake...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011223020835...@mb-fb.aol.com...
Anthony Polson
Now isn't the time to be changing films. It's especially not the time
to change to Velvia, which is not the easiest slide film to use. I
think you should take your usual print film and scan that instead.
If you are adamant about slide film I suggest using Fujichrome Sensia II
which comes in ISO 100, 200 and 400. It's low contrast for a slide film
and is reasonably forgiving to a newbie to slide films.
If you are willing to consider another print film, Fujicolor NPS
Professional. It has low contrast (so scans well) together with natural
colours that are only slightly over-saturated. It's ISO 100, as is
Fuji's NPC which offers over-saturated colours. In the same range there
is NPH which gives an extra two stops of speed at ISO 400. It has
similar colour rendition to NPS.
This may not be the answer you wanted, but I hope it is helpful.
--
Best regards,
Anthony Polson
Leicaddict
picked up 30 rolls of cold-stored Sensia II (200) from FreeStyle for .99
cents apiece to shoot in Paris. As you're aware, Sensia II, at least in the
states, is discontinued. And Fuji is back to calling the new Sensia, just
Sensia.
Have a Happy Holiday
Leicaddict
"Anthony Polson" <acpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21cc2ucpjffbdk3a0...@4ax.com...
Dilbertdroid2
.99
cents apiece to shoot in Paris. >>
Can afford a Leica but can't afford film? I sure wouldn't drag clearance-sale
film on a trip to Paris. Amazing how some people cheap out on the most
important part of the photograpic chain.
DM
I'd recommend Provia 100F or even 400F. They both deliver
excellent scans. Velvia scans very well only when exposed under
moderate to low contrast lighting otherwise shadows completely
block up and highlights get blown out. Most scanners I ve used
can't seem to cope with Velvia's range. OTOH no trouble with Provia
100F and 400F.
Matthew Powell
> Can afford a Leica but can't afford film? I sure wouldn't drag
clearance-sale
> film on a trip to Paris. Amazing how some people cheap out on the most
> important part of the photograpic chain.
Aside from the photograher, presumably?
Anthony Polson
> Good God Tony, I'm going to shoot (with gun, not camera) myself.
Do us all a favour, and go for it!
Webmarketing
> Now isn't the time to be changing films.
Why not?
It's especially not the time
> to change to Velvia, which is not the easiest slide film to use.
Why is that? What makes Velvia any different to use than any other color
transparency film? Yes I know it's slow and saturated but that doesn't make
it different to use than any other transparency film.
I
> think you should take your usual print film and scan that instead.
Works for some people. My scanner has a tough time filtering out the orange
base on color negatives. I prefer to scan transparencies every time. Could
be the same with him.
>
> If you are adamant about slide film I suggest using Fujichrome Sensia II
> which comes in ISO 100, 200 and 400. It's low contrast for a slide film
> and is reasonably forgiving to a newbie to slide films.
How are these slide films more forgiving than any other slide film and what
does forgiving mean? What do they forgive?
>
> If you are willing to consider another print film, Fujicolor NPS
> Professional.
I see. Not only should you not use a slide film but you should change to my
favorite print film even though the first sentence stated that this is not a
good time to change film? I'm pretty confused.
It has low contrast (so scans well) together with natural
> colours that are only slightly over-saturated.
Scanners scan low or high contrast images about the same. Mine actually
produces a scan with higher contrast material that is less work for me to
adjust in the software.
It's ISO 100, as is
> Fuji's NPC which offers over-saturated colours.
If you didn't want him to use an oversatureated slide film then why an
oversaturated print film?
In the same range there
> is NPH which gives an extra two stops of speed at ISO 400. It has
> similar colour rendition to NPS.
I wouldn't call it similar, I would call it less blue. And if you like the
idea of suggesting fast film then why not mention the down side of using
fast films like graininess, high contrast, lower acutance etc.?
>
> This may not be the answer you wanted, but I hope it is helpful.
>
Hopefully, it was not helpful but confusing. Sorry, Tony, I couldn't
resist. I'm in a mood today.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
Me
Some others have mentioned this but I'd like to repeat, having shot
Velvia in New Orleans :-) It's a bit too high contrast for easy use.
White or light buildings with black wrought iron accents are not a good
subject for Velvia, nor are the dramatic graveyeards. (Is there something
else to take pictures of in New Orleans?) Oh, street performance artists.
Velvia isn't good for them either. Generally I really like the film, but
it is very high contrast and doesn't do skin tones particularly well.
Merry Christmas
Toivo
Pat Chaney
>Good God Tony, I'm going to shoot (with gun, not camera) myself.
I don't want to appear insensitive ... but can I have your M6? :)
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Demetrios Hung, APA
<to...@bandit.net.usf.edu> wrote:
>Some others have mentioned this but I'd like to repeat, having shot
>Velvia in New Orleans :-) It's a bit too high contrast for easy use.
>White or light buildings with black wrought iron accents are not a good
>subject for Velvia, nor are the dramatic graveyeards. (Is there something
>else to take pictures of in New Orleans?) Oh, street performance artists.
>Velvia isn't good for them either. Generally I really like the film, but
>it is very high contrast and doesn't do skin tones particularly well.
Unless of course those tones are tanned sun worshippers with perfect
blemish free skin. Makes them look nice-n-healthy at least as
"healthy" as you can be when exposing yourself to UV radiation.
Anthony Polson
> >
> > Now isn't the time to be changing films.
>
> Why not?
>
> It's especially not the time
> > to change to Velvia, which is not the easiest slide film to use.
>
> Why is that? What makes Velvia any different to use than any other color
> transparency film? Yes I know it's slow and saturated but that doesn't make
> it different to use than any other transparency film.
At that point I stopped, Fred, because you have become irrational. You
were always an eccentric, sometimes even an amusing eccentric, but that
was when your postings had *a rational basis*.
What's up Fred? Are you worried that someone else has an opinion
they're not afraid to express?
If I were you, Fred, I'd stick to selling knives, where there is no
judgement required other than to measure what can be measured.
Happy Holidays!
Bill Tuthill
>
> I'd recommend Provia 100F or even 400F. They both deliver
> excellent scans. Velvia scans very well only when exposed under
> moderate to low contrast lighting otherwise shadows completely
> block up and highlights get blown out. Most scanners I ve used
> can't seem to cope with Velvia's range. OTOH no trouble with Provia
> 100F and 400F.
On the other hand, I get sharper scans from Supra 800 on a cheap
HP Photosmart S10 than my friend gets from Provia 100F with his
well-respected Nikon LS-30.
Perhaps it's just HP's overagressive unsharp mask, I dunno, but
I would not classify Provia 100F as a great scanning film. Maybe
it's better than Velvia, but that's not saying much.
Mxsmanic
scanner and some experience using it (both film and scanner). It is
very saturated and contrasty, though, and I don't know that it's a good
choice for a general-purpose slide film. It's very slow as well, so in
anything other than bright daylight, you risk either blurring your
subjects or requiring a tripod or flash.
My choice for slides is Provia 100F; it works for practically
everything. If you need more speed, Provia 400F is probably the best
there is for slide film in the ISO 400 range. Both are somewhat easier
to scan than Velvia.
"phantom309" <12...@sunflower.com> wrote in message
news:u2aun26...@corp.supernews.com...
Mxsmanic
news:a074o2$2n7l$3...@nix2.kconline.com...
> What makes Velvia any different to use than
> any other color transparency film?
High contrast, slow speed, strong reciprocity failure (for night shots),
limited latitude even by slide standards, thanks to the high contrast.
The saturation can be a problem if you try to take pictures of people
(they sometimes look at bit on the sunburnt side).
Also, Velvia is a pain to scan.
DM
a print film of that speed. After struggling with Fuji Press 800 and
other films, I almost gave up till I tried Supra. I rate it at 500
or 640 since it scans better that way. To my (aging) eyes, I can see
no grain. Still, I have a scan of a Provia-100F slide shot at night-
cityscape and all that. It scanned very well, and the black was
absolutely grainless and deep.
Bill Tuthill <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u2fpq4g...@corp.supernews.com>...
Dilbertdroid2
Pat>>
Trade him a Lomo for it. His results will likely improve (less controls to
screw up) and you will have something valuable to pawn to pay off your sexchat
phone bills. :-)
Pål Jensen
"Dilbertdroid2" <dilber...@aol.com> skrev i melding
news:20011223053010...@mb-mw.aol.com...
>Do yourself a favor and get Fuji RDP III
> (Provia 100f), which is probably the finest reversal film available on the
> market for general-purpose shooting. And if you think it is not as
> fine-grained as Velvia, you will be wrong--- It has finer grain than
Velvia.
I stronlgy disagree. Apart from having an appaling color palette, Provia F
is significantly less sharp than Velvia. In fact, its no sharper than
Kodachrome 200. Grain isn't everything...
Mxsmanic
news:Is0W7.9558$KQ3.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> Apart from having an appaling color palette,
> Provia F is significantly less sharp than
> Velvia.
Both Provia and Velvia are razor-sharp--sharper than you can perceive
visually in a full-frame photograph. Additionally, both are sharper
than the average lens as well. With a good lens in daylight, I've
counted 100 lp/mm under a microscope with Provia 100F, handheld. Both
films provide plenty of resolution.
Pål Jensen
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding news:Ev2W7.229178
> Both Provia and Velvia are razor-sharp--sharper than you can perceive
> visually in a full-frame photograph. Additionally, both are sharper
> than the average lens as well. With a good lens in daylight, I've
> counted 100 lp/mm under a microscope with Provia 100F, handheld. Both
> films provide plenty of resolution.
Plenty depends on your point if view. Provia F is no sharper than other 100
ISO films. Sharpness is not measured by grain. MTF values of film gives a
clue; Provia F is only 15, Velvia 25, Kodachrome (25) 26. Provia F is not a
sharp film. The difference in sharpness is readily visible with almost any
lens. I'm not even happy with Provia F when shooting medium format.
Iskandar Taib
Ha! Some photographers are cheap, too. Take me, for instance.
I guess at least, I'm consistent. I use cheap cameras, cheap lenses, a
cheap scanner, cheap processing.. and cheap film. Not that I don't
have standards - I stay away from that Ferrania stuff, for instance. I
figure I'm not a pro, and I don't have a good enough eye for really
good photos, so why bother paying pro prices? It's not like I'll ever
earn it back again..
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Mxsmanic
> MTF values of film gives a clue; Provia F
> is only 15, Velvia 25, Kodachrome (25) 26.
MTF cannot generally be characterized by a single number.
> Provia F is not a sharp film. The difference
> in sharpness is readily visible with almost
> any lens. I'm not even happy with Provia F
> when shooting medium format.
As you wish. But it seems to be more than adequate for many
photographers.
Mxsmanic
news:a0b3ij$6re$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> I guess at least, I'm consistent. I use cheap
> cameras, cheap lenses, a cheap scanner, cheap
> processing.. and cheap film. Not that I don't
> have standards - I stay away from that Ferrania
> stuff, for instance. I figure I'm not a pro,
> and I don't have a good enough eye for really
> good photos, so why bother paying pro prices?
> It's not like I'll ever earn it back again..
At least you have a very balanced and reasonable perspective. That
alone can be a valuable skill in life.
Dilbertdroid2
I guess at least, I'm consistent. I use cheap cameras, cheap lenses, a
cheap scanner, cheap processing.. and cheap film. Not that I don't
have standards - I stay away from that Ferrania stuff, for instance. I
figure I'm not a pro, and I don't have a good enough eye for really
good photos, so why bother paying pro prices? It's not like I'll ever
earn it back again..>>
That's OK, there are lots of people who are actually proud of being cheap.....
You remember ol' Ed Romney, don't you? He even wrote a book about it,
although he doesn't sell it at cheap price. I guess people who don't invest
much don't get much back, either.
Dilbertdroid2
is significantly less sharp than Velvia. In fact, its no sharper than
Kodachrome 200. Grain isn't everything...>>
Since there is no such thing as "sharpness" you'll have to let us know which
film attributes you are referring to. I'm also wondering how a film like
Velvia that produces distorted, inaccurate colors ranks as so superior, or are
you just unable to appreciate slides that don't look like cartoons?
McEowen
a aftermarket cheapie telephoto for example, is cheap and dumb. Buying a
classic lens used -- something like the venerable 105mm f2.5 on the used market
for less than $150 is cheap and SMART.
Bill Tuthill
the point where MTF falls below 100%.
In his sharpness tutorial, Norman Koren questions why Fuji's
MTF chart for Provia 100F is above 100% at low spatial frequencies,
and theorizes that the marketing department could be lying.
To my eye, Supra 800 is sharper than Provia 100F. According to
the datasheets, Kodachrome 200 and Provia 100F have about the same
MTF sharpness at 50% spatial frequency. Most 400 speed print films
exceed the sharpness of Provia 100F on datasheets. For example,
Agfa Vista 400 falls below 50% MTF sharpness at 50 lp/mm instead
of 40 lp/mm as on the Provia 100F datasheet
Provia 100F is not a sharp film. It's as if Fuji applied a soften
filter to the emulsion, reducing both grain and sharpness.
Robert Monaghan
quoting DD2:
I guess people who don't invest much don't get much back, either.
So are you saying that your photographic results are the result of your
purchases and investment in photogear, rather than your talent and vision?
I expect this kind of statement from a camera store clerk, but not serious
amateur or pro photographers. I seriously doubt that's what you mean, but
it sounds like what you are saying? Is this what you really think?
My own blind lens tests so far have found NONE of the serious amateurs and
pro photographers tested could reliably sort slides by the cost of the
medium format lenses taking the shots in identical side by side shots (see
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/blind.html, "best" correlation is well
under 0.8 sigma (std dev.), average under 0.6 sigma, and if you exclude
the 3 element lenses eg on a $75 chinese DF4 6x6cm SLR, you get
essentially random ratings in which the "best" rated lens is as likely to
be from a low cost rigs as my hasselblads or rolleiflex 3.5f TLR.
Similar blind lens tests on 35mm have been run in the past, pitting the
best optics from Leica and Nikon and Canon against each other, and similar
results in 35mm obtained. Time and again, the folks could not reliably
pull out randomly numbered slides from a stack of slides and sort out the
Leica slides from those by Canon or Nikon or Pentax etc. The pros and
photo authors and photo lab techs at Pop Photo magazine could not reliably
separate Nikon from Olympus, even in side by side comparisons (see
blind.html). By diffraction limited f/stops, most 35mm SLR normal lenses
do pretty well, and this is where the majority of us do most of our
shooting (f/5.6 to f/16..). Instead, they don't even bother to take the
photos used to sell the lenses with the lenses being advertised, or even
the same formats (see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/photoads.html) ;-)
I have also pointed out that Leica sales figures strongly suggest that the
average Leica body has circa <2 Leica made M-lenses, and that very few of
these are the high priced speed optics, but mostly the average owner
probably has just the still very good 50mm f/2 as their Leica M lens kit.
So my observation is that if price is an issue, it is an issue in limiting
the average range of optics available to the typical Leica body owner, and
by extension, to other high priced cameras and lenses.
So as someone with dozens of cameras and over 100 lenses, including full
kits of hasselblads and bronicas and kowa and..., I can regretfully report
that buying all this stuff hasn't made me a great photographer. And now my
blind test results suggest that not only I, but most other viewers, even
pro photographers, are unable to reliably tell which of my photos came
from a cheapy used bronica and which from a hasselblad etc etc. Oh well...
But it has been fun and educational ;-)....
bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html *
McEowen
>best optics from Leica and Nikon and Canon against each other, and similar
>results in 35mm obtained. Time and again, the folks could not reliably
>pull out randomly numbered slides from a stack of slides and sort out the
Hardly relevant to a discussion about "the cheap philosophy" None of those are
"cheap" brands. OTOH, if you told me knowledgable people could not distinguish
photos made by Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Pentax/Minolta lenses from
Haminex/Quantarey/Promaster/etc -- especially under challenging light
conditions -- I would be surprised . . .
Iskandar Taib
Yeah, it is a sort of reverse snobbishness, otherwise, why brag about
it? ^_-
It's a matter of priorities, I suppose. I don't think buying a Leica
or an EOS 1v would make me a better photographer. At least, not as a
good a one as some I come across online, whos photos make my jaw
drop. On the other hand, I can have a lot of fun playing with that $36
Danubia 400mm f6.3 lens I bought off ebay last week, just to see what
kinds of pictures I can take with it. Or with that FED-5C I got for
$12.
I do own a few halfway decent lenses (Pentax 50 f1.4, old Vivitar
Series One 80-210, etc.) though I didn't pay lots of money for them.
If I had a spare $1200 lying around, it'd more likely go into more
balsa wood and more model airplane engines.. ^_- (I'd probably buy
four nice Nelson .36 Combat Specials and some Allenplane kits, and a
plane ticket to Seattle for the Bladder Grabber next year..). Or
computer parts.
Robert Monaghan
suggesting that the optics by Nikon, Canon and others are known to produce
similar or equiv. results to the Leica's superlative optics, and you have
to get down to promaster standards to see a real difference. ;-) ;-)
after all, Pop Photo VP Keppler got scorched here for noting that at f/8
(diffraction limited point), the resolution and quality of prints from a
25 year old pentax 50mm f/1.4 (faster) lens versus latest Leica Summicron
50mm f/2 lens was the same to his (expert) eyes when evaluating the
prints. Remember?
I have had a spotmatic with SMC 50mm for 20+ years, and added Pentax 50mm
f/1.4 on a K-mount camera for under $100 (their manual lenses work on
their AF bodies, and vice versa) due to Nikon's one way backward
compatibility. But I also have minolta (50mm f/1.7 for <$20) and topcon
and vivitar and contax/yashica SLRs, and they all have low cost normal
lenses you can routinely buy for well under $100 (even the zeiss contax
50mm lens). By comparison, leica M mount normal lenses are usually ten or
more times as expensive, and sometimes 50 to 100+ times more if you get a
good buy on your OEM lens ;-)
Compared to the Leitz optics, all other normal mid-speed lenses are still
the lower priced options ;-) You can also buy them used for prices less
than the sales tax on used Leica equivalents. Yes? So if they turn in
results that are hard to distinguish from Leica optics, why pay so much
more for the Leica optics?
It may well be that Leica owners are a truly select group, and that the
reason they are Leica owners is that they can reliably identify the slides
taken by Leica optics from side by side shots taken with other lens
brands. It would be an interesting test to run, but since I can't rent
Leicas locally, I haven't done it yet.
But I doubt it, based on my medium format examples and testing. And the
price range on the medium format lenses that were similarly rated ranged
from $25 to $1,800+ ;-) In fact, the used bronica nikkor ($50) was
selected #1 and among the top lenses tested by some very experienced pro
shooters, and rated higher on average than other lenses costing ten+ times
as much.
I was one of those surprised. I knew there were some differences, but I
thought they were a lot larger than they really were when I tried them out
with side by side and randomly numbered shots. One subject commented he
thought they were a gag, and all taken by the same camera, until he saw
differences in the fountain spray highlights bokeh and coloration.
My other bet is that some existing Leica owners would be quite pleased to
discover that the more affordable Leica lenses (tri-elmars etc) do quite
well at typical shooting apertures, and if you don't need wide open
performance, they produce results indistinguishable from the much more
costly faster lenses. But when noted leica tester Erwin Puts makes such a
suggestion, even HE gets torched for suggesting such heresy ;-) ;-) yes?
Certainly, it is easier for me to be happy shooting my Kowa or bronica
now, knowing that my film choice is likely to be much more limiting than
any differences between my bronica lenses and my hassy or rolleiflex kit,
so I simply pick the kit I want to shoot and forget about "upgrading", as
the differences won't show or be detectable to my eyes, anyway ;-)
so I say this hoping that it will be liberating to others, who like
myself, have swallowed the BS that our results will be improved by paying
lots more money for equipment and gear. My own results suggest that isn't
true, and I don't think I'm alone in this club ;-) In retrospect, I have
gotten a lot more out of the major investment I have made in building a
library of quality photo books than the $$ in more gear ;-)
regards bobm
Iskandar Taib
Robert Monaghan <rmon...@smu.edu> wrote:
>In retrospect, I have gotten a lot more out of the major investment I
>have made in building a library of quality photo books than the $$ in
>more gear ;-)
That's a REALLY good point, actually. While buying a EOS 1v or Leica
might not make me a better photographer, reading books about
photography and looking at lots of other peoples' well-taken photos
most likely will, over the long run.
(Of course, being cheap, I'd be likely to get the books used, or
borrow them from the library! ^_^)
McEowen
suggesting that the optics by Nikon, Canon and others are known to produce
similar or equiv. results to the Leica's superlative optics, and you have
to get down to promaster standards to see a real difference. ;-) ;-)>>
I own Leica equipment. I routinely shoot Leica and Nikon optics on the same
shoot. While there are times I CAN pick the Leica shots off the light table
without too much trouble, as a general rule my Leica lenses don't put my Nikon
stuff to shame. Sure there are subtle differences but it's not night and day.
That being said, the difference seems to increase as the light gets worse. The
Leica lenses just seem to handle low light situations better.
Mxsmanic
news:a0dqbk$j37$1...@post.cis.smu.edu...
> You might get disowned by other leica-philes
> for suggesting that the optics by Nikon, Canon
> and others are known to produce similar or
> equiv. results to the Leica's superlative
> optics ...
Lens quality is far more closely correlated with lens cost than with
brand name. Expensive lenses tend to produce better images. Leica does
not produce any cheap lenses, and so all of its lenses are
expensive--and thus very good--which in turn creates the impression that
Leica lenses are somehow better overall than any other. But Canon and
Nikon lenses of comparable price provide comparable image quality as
well. And nobody can recognize the brand by the results alone.
McEowen
Nikon lenses of comparable price provide comparable image quality as
well. >>
I didn't realize there WERE any Nikon or Canon lenses of comparable price -- at
least not when comparing apples to apples, i.e. a 35mm f2 to a 35mm f2 . . .
william martin
about color.
william martin
would almost have to make a deliberate effort to make a bad lens, at least in some focal lengths.
I think the main difference nowadays in cost and quality is in the body, mount, and
diaphagm assembly, not the optics.
Bill Martin
Anthony Polson
>
> Lens quality is far more closely correlated with lens cost than with
> brand name. Expensive lenses tend to produce better images. Leica does
> not produce any cheap lenses, and so all of its lenses are
> expensive--and thus very good--which in turn creates the impression that
> Leica lenses are somehow better overall than any other. But Canon and
> Nikon lenses of comparable price provide comparable image quality as
> well. And nobody can recognize the brand by the results alone.
It's certainly true that, in your grossly incompetent hands, no one
could possibly tell the difference between the results from a cheap
disposable and those from a Leica or Nikon 'pro-grade' lens.
--
Best regards,
Anthony Polson
Anthony Polson
> With modern manufacturing methods and computer-aided design, a lens maker
> would almost have to make a deliberate effort to make a bad lens, at least in some focal lengths.
> I think the main difference nowadays in cost and quality is in the body, mount, and
> diaphagm assembly, not the optics.
That statement is absolutely and completely wrong.
Tim
Hmmmmmm, aren't the "results" the only thing that matters? There are
very few of my clients who even ask about what sort of equipment I am
using to take their portrait...but every one of them expects good
results.
Maybe they should have a Leica Challenge...sort of like the old Pepsi
Challenge ads from years ago.
>It's certainly true that, in your grossly incompetent hands, no one
>could possibly tell the difference between the results from a cheap
>disposable and those from a Leica or Nikon 'pro-grade' lens.
Like my old Daddy used to say about playing poker:
"Any fool can play a good hand, it takes a skilled player to win with
a bad hand."
OK, so you can take your Leica and go make some great shots, I'm not
impressed. Now try one of those Wal-Mart disposables, prove your
superior skill, go out and make some great shots with it, then come
back and show us.
Tim
william martin
Sorry to rain on your parade. I also like Leicas, they show very fine engineering and are a great pleasure
to use. I've only owned one, but gave it up for a Zorki, when I saw it could get results as good as
my Leica produced, for much less than 5% of the cost. And if I just had to, I could use Leica lenses on the Zorki,
but so far I've seen no need to do that, my Russian lenses work just fine, thanks. I have to admit that
the fit and finish of the Zorki leaves a lot to be desired, and it certainly doesn't make any kind of fashion statement.
Now, though, I have more extra money to spend on all the other do-dads I've always lusted after, so in the long run, I
reckon I'm better off for having rid myself of the Leica, and I found that, surprisingly, my penis is no smaller than it was
when I owned the Leica.
I did optical engineering and design in the space business for somewhat more than 14
years. I and my colleagues developed computer designed optical systems when the manufacturing
methods couldn't produce them at feasible cost. All that's changed now, and my experience tells me
that there's no particular cost reason for making substandard optics, for most focal lengths. At a reasonable
cost , MUCH more reasonable than what Leitz sells their lenses for, most lenses nowadays will produce
beautiful results ( in the hands of a competent photographer ), and there's no optical reason for paying the big
bucks that Leitz asks for their products. The cheaper lenses suffer in the "mechanics" department, which is
where all the cost-savings can be had . Mechanical stuff is super expensive, but good glass can be cranked
out ( once the manufacturing process is set up ) automatically, at very low cost. It's true that some focal lengths,
especially the short ones, aren't as cheap and automatic to construct.
Leicas are for people who appreciate the ultimate in engineering, cost bedamned, much
like Mercedes Benz vs Honda. My Mercedes gives me supreme pleasure everytime I drive it, but my
Honda just keeps on going & going & going, much like the little rabbit on TV. The Honda gets me there and back
every bit as reliably as the Mercedes does, and for a lot less money, but it ain't as much fun; And sometimes I do
believe my penis grows everytime I get behind the wheel of the Mercedes, but deep down, I know it's only a fantasy.
Peace, Bill Martin
Pat Chaney
>I've always had good luck using the cheapest black & white film I can get.
And the connection between film quality and luck is what exactly?
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
william martin
Peace, Bill Martin
Lisa Horton
brou...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> rmon...@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>
> >after all, Pop Photo VP Keppler got scorched here for noting that at f/8
> >(diffraction limited point), the resolution and quality of prints from a
> >25 year old pentax 50mm f/1.4 (faster) lens versus latest Leica Summicron
> >50mm f/2 lens was the same to his (expert) eyes when evaluating the
> >prints. Remember?
>
> Ahh, yes. The great Keppler. Have you seen one of the latest (if not the
> latest) issues of Pop Photo where Keppler shows off his "fantastic" wedding
> photos? I'd be ashamed to show many of those images to friends and family,
> let alone publish them!
LOL! And the blurb on the cover advertised a "how to" article on
photographing a wedding! I often enjoy Keppler's column, but this
one... It's more like "Uncle Herb's winter vacation to California for
the wedding" than anything useful.
Lisa
Ppestis
>latest) issues of Pop Photo where Keppler shows off his "fantastic" wedding
>photos? I'd be ashamed to show many of those images to friends and family,
>let alone publish them!
>
>
he published some bad stuff , but acknowledged as much. I viewed the article
as more of a "how not to do it".
As far as Leica, no I don't own one anymore - I sold mine years ago. But I will
admit that I could almost always pick out the color photo taken with a Leica.
It was never sharpness, it was color contrast when comparing the same shots
taken by a Nikon or Canon.
Iskandar Taib
Pat Chaney <p...@patchaney.com> wrote:
>william martin <wcm...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I've always had good luck using the cheapest black & white film I can get.
>
>And the connection between film quality and luck is what exactly?
Some people are so literal.
Back in my previous photographic life (I stopped taking pictures as a
hobby in the mid-80s and didn't start up again until the Web started
to take off in the late 90s) I was much into buying bulk film (mostly
chrome film and B&W). These days, I scan ebay for out of date
stuff. For the price, you can buy 20 or 50 rolls of whatever, shoot
one or two test rolls, then throw it into the deep freeze. If you
don't like it, use it for such uses as taking pictures of stuff you
want to sell on ebay. So far I've had fairly good luck (various
batches of Agfa and Fuji stock, some of it house-labeled) except for
some Kodak PJM (darned grainy stuff).
At this time, there seems to be a glut of Fuji SHQ 100 - looks like
everyone (including Freestyle) has some for sale for around a buck a
roll. I've been lucky enough to get some for half of that.
Pat Chaney
>In article <m8km2ugb0bsl9d4p6...@4ax.com>,
>Pat Chaney <p...@patchaney.com> wrote:
>>william martin <wcm...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I've always had good luck using the cheapest black & white film I can get.
>>
>>And the connection between film quality and luck is what exactly?
>
>Some people are so literal.
Sorry, I didn't realise we were speaking metaphorically here.
>At this time, there seems to be a glut of Fuji SHQ 100 - looks like
>everyone (including Freestyle) has some for sale for around a buck a
>roll. I've been lucky enough to get some for half of that.
You mean literally 50c a roll? Or is this another metaphor?
How much have you invested in camera gear?
Anthony Polson
I agree that an apology was appropriate.
> I found that, surprisingly, my penis is no
> smaller than it was when I owned the Leica.
I don't find that surprising at all. You
can't really go much smaller than 0.1".
;-)
James
people hold back from commenting on his awful photos but he's also
lashed out irrationally at quite a few people because basically, he
has no life and tries to own
the board, and because of this, I'll go ahead and say the obvious...
I haven't looked at Keppler's work but what you guys are describing
makes me think of Spadaro. Here's a guy that talks about gear 24/7
and it sounds like he knows what he's talking about but you look at
his photos and you think that the photos were taken by 1st semester
photo students. I mean they are just awful, you would think a guy
that has spent so much time studying photography and acts as if he
knew it all, could at least take decent photos. Anyways, I just
thought it needed to be said. Tony, sell some of your gear and take a
class.
Lisa Horton <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message news:<3C2B6CE2...@lisahorton.net>...
DM
> With modern manufacturing methods and computer-aided design, a lens maker
> would almost have to make a deliberate effort to make a bad lens, at least in some focal lengths.
> I think the main difference nowadays in cost and quality is in the body, mount, and
> diaphagm assembly, not the optics.
Sorry, but that is only partly correct. If you are talking prime lenses,
then the wide, fast lenses need lot more work (eg. 28/1.8, etc), but with
zooms, it is very easy to make a junk lens. Just look at the so called
decent zooms (Canon 28-90, etc). These babies are optically crap, leave
alone the construction. There is a LOT of cost cutting going on in the
optics as well.
Pat Chaney
>Anyways, I just thought it needed to be said.
Well you were wrong.
Dilbertdroid2
don't know about color.>>
Unless you've compared your results with shots taken on the same equipment with
the best B&W film you can get, that's exactly what you are counting on---
luck. It's a shame that so many photographers think so little of their work
that they trust it to "the cheapest (fill in the blanks) they can get."
Dilbertdroid2
balsa wood and more model airplane engines.. >>>
there yo go, it's all a matter of what you consider to be important.
Obviously you think model planes are more important than photography. Perhaps
the people who take those photos that make your "jaw drop" would think $1200
spent on balsa wood and model airplane engines is foolish? Those higher
quality, expensive engines aren't so expensive when they are pulling a model
you've spent a few hundred hours building, are they? Same goes for a lens
that will produce an image that has your name on it.
william martin
enough to live off my work, but enough to buy more cheap film, etc :>)
I used to take it all very seriously -- only "name-brand" lenses, cameras, film, but what the heck, it's a hobby,
and my hobbies should be fun and not keep me so uptight about whether my Nikon lens will produce better
results than my Vivitar lens, when viewing the negatives through a high-powered loupe. Hell, I don't look at prints
through a high-power loupe, so why concern myself with such things? Probably, if you get close enogh to one
of my 11x14's to smell the paper, you can indeed see a slight difference(maybe), but that isn't the way prints are viewed,
at least by reasonable people. I used to be an Ansel Adams wannabe, and ate up every word he wrote
about shadow density, highlight blocking, and so forth, and I was hung up on getting the best technical results I could
get; But I found that I can get good shadow density and acceptable highlights with just about any black and white film,
so I quit worrying about it and just have fun. I'm still a great Ansel Adams fan, but an Ansel Adams I ain't, and I'm
not sure I even want to be. At my age, I'm just happy when I can get out and take a few pictures, and enjoy nature; And
I actually think I get better results than I did when I took myself so seriously. Arguably, my pictures may not be as
good technically as they used to be, but I think they're much better pictures. Does that make any sense? It does to me.
But have fun with your expensive film and do-dads, and best wishes. I found out a long time ago that what's best for one of
us is not necessarily what's best for another. Peace,
Bill Martin
Dilbertdroid2
purchases and investment in photogear, rather than your talent and vision?>>>
Not at all, Bob. Since I use quite a bit of professional-grade gear, I
recognize that I can get higher-quality results or handle difficult conditions
and varying requirements with good quality equipment. Your so-called "blind
tests" are convenient foils to present your ideas but I've had thirty years of
experience working with academics and I'm very aware of how they can produce
"tests" that support whatever result is desired by the person paying for the
test.
Here's a good example--- I recently upgraded my Mamiya RZ 50mm lens from the
"W" version to the UL-D version. The Mamiya rep was kind enough to loan me a
UL-D for a weekend so I could check the lens out and what I found was a
noticable improvement in corner sharpness at the wider apertures, and better
flare control. Also a bit flatter field, too. I have no doubt I could show
these comparison test slides to a large number of pros and serious amateurs and
get the same random results you mention. However, I can clearly see the
differences, and my art director can too. That's important to me-- to have
the best image quality my equipment can produce. That makes the creative
process even more enjoyable, because I can count on my equipment to produce the
results I envision.
Dilbertdroid2
(diffraction limited point), the resolution and quality of prints from a
25 year old pentax 50mm f/1.4 (faster) lens versus latest Leica Summicron
50mm f/2 lens was the same to his (expert) eyes when evaluating the
prints. Remember?>>
Yes, and I remember that I could easily see the differences between the two
prints, especially where resolving power was concerned. Many of the fine
details visible in the Leica print were simply gone in the other print. Herb
was creating a controversy to sell magazines, Bob. He probably can't tell the
difference---- Hell, he goes out on an all day photo shoot and forgets to load
film. What surprises me is that you can't tell the difference.
Dilbertdroid2
engineering and are a great pleasure
to use. I've only owned one, but gave it up for a Zorki, when I saw it could
get results as good as my Leica produced, for much less than 5% of the cost.
>>>
Thist one had me doubled over laughing. Are you saving up to get into medium
format with a Kiev? Think of how much you'll save over a Hasselblad. LOL.
Bill Tuthill
>
> I know Tony Spadaro has been helpful to some on this board, so many
> people hold back from commenting on his awful photos but he's also
> lashed out irrationally at quite a few people because basically, he
Did you see his night gallery?
Unless I'm mixing up Tonys (or should I say Tonies)
the photos there were extremely impressive.
Not only beautiful, but difficult to obtain.
wcm...@attglobal.net
know the size of my penis :>)
Pjtg0707
<wcm...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Well, I get results that satisfy me. And I do manage to sell a few prints here and there, certainly not
>enough to live off my work, but enough to buy more cheap film, etc :>)
>
>I used to take it all very seriously -- only "name-brand" lenses, cameras, film, but what the heck, it's a hobby,
>and my hobbies should be fun and not keep me so uptight about whether my Nikon lens will produce better
>results than my Vivitar lens, when viewing the negatives through a high-powered loupe. Hell, I don't look at prints
>through a high-power loupe, so why concern myself with such things?
---snipped---------------
Interesting observation..
I just came back fom a trip to SF, and it rained while I was there
while Portland was dry! Why does it rain everywhere I go?
While I was in SF, I took a tour of its main library downtown, where a
local photo club was showing some of their member's works. There was
one fellow that showed pics from a disposable Holga. The Holga's lens
was so poor that it gave low contrast, slightly out of focus and
vingette (?) pics. All in all, it was kind of like looking at the
world through a keyhole. It was very interesting while I reflected at
all the BS over lens bokeh around here. It's definitely not the
equipment that produced good intesesting pics.
NickC
James wrote:
>
> I know Tony Spadaro has been helpful to some on this board, so many
> people hold back from commenting on his awful photos but he's also
> lashed out irrationally at quite a few people because basically, he
> has no life and tries to own
> the board, and because of this, I'll go ahead and say the obvious...
Whoa there.
Spadaro? Tony Spadaro?
Geeze James, You've got the wrong guy. Either that or you have a screw loose.
Nick
> Snip: Not worth reading.
Robert Monaghan
Should we say inexpensive film versus "cheap" film? Film that was $8 per
roll last month and is now being closed out (short dated 3 months to go)
for $1 per roll or less 'cuz it isn't selling can be useful, esp. if you
like the film and use it anyway and will use it up pretty fast ;-) And at
$1 or so per roll, you can buy 150 or so rolls and be set for a semester.
I also buy fresh off the truck to Ritz fuji C41 print film (24 exp) 100
ISO for $1 per roll at our local Ritz; they have it at $4.99 for a 3 pack
(or $2.99 for one roll, duh), with a $1 coupon in each box, plus a free
fourth roll of film (so it is 4 rolls for $4.99-$1) or just $1 + tax/roll
I shot several hundred rolls of the stuff last year. Add mail order
development and it is a third the price of drug store film and processing.
These savings on just fuji 100 alone would pay for my 3 most recent medium
format cameras (including a Kiev 60 with 2 lenses) and 4 35mm SLR bodies
bought last year. FIlm and processing aren't a big expense - until you
start shooting more than a roll a day on a budget ;-) then it really is!
I also like to buy up some sample film packs that are in date (or short
out of date but refrigerated) and shoot them just to compare the film with
my gold standards (velvia, provia, ektachrome 200 etc). At a dollar or so
a roll, you can experiment with a lot of different films over a few years
;-) Sometimes you even find a better film that you like, or that an old
film really has been improved (RDP..) and you like the new stuff lots
better. I doubt I would do this at full price for most films, esp. exotic
ones, but at a buck a roll or so, why not try them now and again?
over time, you have all the gear you really need, and film and processing
and photobooks become your biggest expense ;-)
grins bobm
Iskandar Taib
Exactly. For the people who take really good photographs and/or make a
living doing it, the expensive cameras and lenses are something they
really do need. The cheap stuff won't cut it when your customers
demand ultra-sharp pictures from corner to corner. And you can't risk
that 20 year old Sears body breaking down when you're in Lower
Patagonia and your next paycheck depends on the pictures you bring
back. If I were in a similar situation, I'd be looking real hard at a
Leica, too.
But I'm not in that situation. For me, playing with old cameras and
lenses is just a lot of fun. They're just toys, not a means of
livelihood.
(Ironically, the main reason I started buying camera stuff on ebay was
that I needed a backup for the old Pentax ME that's beginning to
misbehave, and I did get paid, for the last 4 years, to shoot model
airplane photos for a magazine article once a year..)
Iskandar Taib
Pjtg0707 <Pjtg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>While I was in SF, I took a tour of its main library downtown, where a
>local photo club was showing some of their member's works. There was
>one fellow that showed pics from a disposable Holga. The Holga's lens
>was so poor that it gave low contrast, slightly out of focus and
>vingette (?) pics. All in all, it was kind of like looking at the
>world through a keyhole. It was very interesting while I reflected at
>all the BS over lens bokeh around here. It's definitely not the
>equipment that produced good intesesting pics.
Freestyle sells the Holgas, incidentally. They say it's a close
relative to the infamous Diana. Back in elementary school (early 70s)
the rest of the camera club was shooting with those expensive 126
Instamatics (110 wasn't common yet), I was shooting with a Diana
Deluxe which, strangely enough, wasn't that bad (the original Diana
was horrible in comparison). My pictures were generally better than
those shooting with Instamatics. Don't have it any more,
unfortunately.
I do have a small collection of plastic 127 Brownies, which I plan to
actually use some day.
Something I might buy at a later date is another camera sold by
Freestyle - the Lomo. Supposedly, the lenses are pretty sharp, though
you do get vignetting. At over $100, it doesn't quite fit into my
"cheap" philosophy, but who knows - I might find a used one. These
things have supposely become a craze in Europe, and supposedly the
Dalai Lama uses one.
Hallaj
Where can we see your pictures?
Hallaj
On 27 Dec 2001 17:21:47 -0800, moderate_...@yahoo.com (James)
wrote:
Robert Monaghan
I agree with you that the differences with many high $ lenses tends to be
at the margins, typically wide open apertures in the corners or slightly
better flare control (the new hassy lenses cite this as their big
benefit). You pay a whole lot more for some modest improvements in corner
sharpness etc., at least with the prime lenses (esp. medium format). Most
of the extra $$ costs go into higher markups and levels of marketing
(zeiss markup, hassy markup, hassy/USA markup, dealer markup...) and
additional quality control inspections that prevent bad lemon lenses from
getting out. FOr most non-pro users, the extra quality in mechanics and
mounting is overkill, since few of us will ever wear out a lens ;-)
But the reality remains that most of us don't often shoot our lenses wide
open, but usually stopped down. Sussman's study of records of contest
winning photos showed 65% were f/6.3 or slower, 89% were f/3.5 or slower.
{Amateur Photographers Handbook} With many of today's zooms, you can't
shoot faster than f/4, right ;-) For most decent prime lenses, you usually
won't be able to tell the differences at the commonly used (often
diffration limited) apertures around f/5.6 thru f/11 or better.
the other big problem is that a leica lens with an aerial resolution of
say 600 lpmm versus a pentax 50mm SMC takumar with an aerial resolution of
450 lpmm are both wasted on current films - see mf/lenslpm.html numbers;
with a very good 100 lpmm resolution limit film (provia) the leica lens
delivers 86 lpmm versus 82 lpmm for the pentax, and for 50 lpmm limit
color films, the differences drop to 46 lpmm Leica vs 44 lpmm pentax.
Granted, resolution is only one parameter, but a major one, and there are
other issues like distortion and flare etc. But my point again is that you
are paying a lot for a great lens while the films often used (color print)
throw a lot of this quality away as the film is more limiting than lenses.
My blind lens tests and that of many others in the past has consistently
showed that most of us can't simply pick up a slide and identify what
camera or lens took it. We can't sort a pile of slides reliably by whether
they were made with a new Leica 50mm f/2 summicron or a used minolta 50mm
f/1.7 costing 1% as much $$.
Personally, I am a bit disconcerted to discover, by finally doing these
blind lens tests myself, that the differences are as small as they are,
and as hard to pick out reliably, not only by me but by other very good
pro and serious amateur photographer subject volunteers. I really did
think they were a lot bigger, or I wouldn't have paid big $ for OEM nikkor
lenses and my five zeiss hasselblad lenses (well, maybe the biogon 38mm ;-).
If you have an art director who can pick these differences out
consistently in your general shots, then they are really much better than
the vast majority of folks out there. That's why hasselblad put those
"vees" on their backs so art directors would know you were at least using
"professional hasselblad" equipment ;-) ;-)
where this gets useful or important is for the majority of folks who are
led to believe that the reason they aren't getting the same results as the
pro photos is because they don't have the expensive top quality pro gear,
and the equipment and esp. costly lenses (Leica, 'blad) really make a big
difference in your results. Most of the big $$ gear makes photo taking
more convenient, and has uses in some narrow niche areas, but as the study
of contest winning photos showed, the vast majority of these great shots
could have been taken with any decent SLR made since the 1960s (many were
;-0)...
What my blind lens tests (and many other past tests by others) has shown
is that the differences in lenses and cameras within the same format are
often so modest that most of us would be hard pressed to reliably see the
difference in our photos, let alone non-photographers and others less
attuned to these subtle differences. I am not saying that there aren't
differences in lenses, but that the differences between the very expensive
top lenses (leica, zeiss..) are relatively modest against much less costly
prosumer or pro lenses from Canon,Nikon, Pentax, Minolta. These
differences will NOT show up in every photo in most cases (e.g., at
diffraction limited ranges) but only in a modest range of situations
(shooting wide open).
Again, if you are a pro who has to shoot wide open a lot, these lenses and
differences are probably justified and worthwhile. You will have tested
the lenses side by side to see and ensure the differences are verifiable,
and that the lens sample they are buying is not a lemon or out of
alignment (cf rmonagha/third/variations.html) as happens even with big $
lenses (dropped in shipping etc). Few amateurs get that opportunity, and
so they don't know how small these variations are, or even whether they
can see them or not in their typical shooting situations (apertures..).
Another poster today suggested we need a "Leica challenge". I think we do,
it would help put the differences and the costs in proper perspective. The
mfgers don't have much interest in doing so, nor do the photo magazines.
IT might help resolve some of the canon vs. nikon vs. leica etc.
arguments ;-)? I have also found that factors like Bokeh which DO make a
difference in a lot of photos and situations are far less well known, and
much harder to find good info on lens bokeh qualities too. Moreover, it is
often rather cheap to get a great bokeh lens (older primes..) which I find
I like more than the later AIS or other current AF lenses.
Anyone with both Leica and brand xyz SLRs want to run a blind lens test
challenge? see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/blind.html and
blindtest.html for some medium format comparison discussions and ideas ;-)
regards bobm
Iskandar Taib
Pat Chaney <p...@patchaney.com> wrote:
>nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) wrote:
>
>>In article <m8km2ugb0bsl9d4p6...@4ax.com>,
>>Pat Chaney <p...@patchaney.com> wrote:
>>>william martin <wcm...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've always had good luck using the cheapest black & white film I can get.
>>>
>>>And the connection between film quality and luck is what exactly?
>>
>>Some people are so literal.
>
>Sorry, I didn't realise we were speaking metaphorically here.
Idiomatically, actually.
>>At this time, there seems to be a glut of Fuji SHQ 100 - looks like
>>everyone (including Freestyle) has some for sale for around a buck a
>>roll. I've been lucky enough to get some for half of that.
>
>You mean literally 50c a roll? Or is this another metaphor?
Literally 50 cents a roll.
>How much have you invested in camera gear?
Let's see (from memory, rounding the numbers):
Pentax ME body $60 (local camera store, about 4 years ago)
Cheap 80-210 zoom $60 (local camera store, ditto)
Pentax 50 1.4 $99 (back around 1985, Singapore airport)
Sears KSX body $35 (ebay)
Sears KSX Super body $45 (ebay)
Ricoh XR10M body $55 (ebay)
Osawa 24 2.8 $40 (ebay)
Vivitar S.1 70-210 4 $60 (ebay)
Vivitar 28-85 2.8 VF $50 (ebay) (might sell this)
Kiron 28-85 2.8 VF $55 (ebay)
Pentax 45-125 f4 $30 (ebay) came with a Tamron 28 2.8
JC Penney 35-70 $30 (ebay) weird lens! Two touch VF
FED 2 $10 (ebay) dirty, but fascinating
FED 5C $12 (ebay) excellent!
Yashica Electro 35 $10 (ebay)
Vivitar 3500 $25 (ebay)
Danubia 400 6.3 $36 (ebay) T-mount needs screw
Various filters $30 (ebay) includes some large diameter polarizers
I think that's it, other than a couple disposables, and a
nonfunctioning Ricoh XR2s I bought in the early 80s and a
nonfunctioning Topcon from the 70s.. All the ebay stuff was bought
this past year.
Iskandar Taib
Robert Monaghan <rmon...@smu.edu> wrote:
>Should we say inexpensive film versus "cheap" film? Film that was $8 per
>roll last month and is now being closed out (short dated 3 months to go)
>for $1 per roll or less 'cuz it isn't selling can be useful, esp. if you
>like the film and use it anyway and will use it up pretty fast ;-) And at
>$1 or so per roll, you can buy 150 or so rolls and be set for a semester.
How do you manage to shoot so much film? ^_^;; My main problem is
getting ideas of what to shoot. I should take the 400mm and go
squirrel hunting on campus next week.. ^_-
>I also buy fresh off the truck to Ritz fuji C41 print film (24 exp) 100
>ISO for $1 per roll at our local Ritz; they have it at $4.99 for a 3 pack
>(or $2.99 for one roll, duh), with a $1 coupon in each box, plus a free
>fourth roll of film (so it is 4 rolls for $4.99-$1) or just $1 + tax/roll
>I shot several hundred rolls of the stuff last year. Add mail order
>development and it is a third the price of drug store film and processing.
>These savings on just fuji 100 alone would pay for my 3 most recent medium
>format cameras (including a Kiev 60 with 2 lenses) and 4 35mm SLR bodies
>bought last year. FIlm and processing aren't a big expense - until you
>start shooting more than a roll a day on a budget ;-) then it really is!
Bought 40 rolls of Ritz 200 last week.. 50 cents a roll.. ^_^;; Dated
12-2000. 36 exp, to boot.
There's lots of Fuji 100 on sale for $1 a roll these days.
>I also like to buy up some sample film packs that are in date (or short
>out of date but refrigerated) and shoot them just to compare the film with
>my gold standards (velvia, provia, ektachrome 200 etc).
Just got 20 rolls of frozen Ektar 1000. 75 cents a roll.. ^_- I'm
wondering if I should buy some PJ400 from the same source (about a
buck a roll). I bought some PJM this last summer, didn't like it that
much.
My biggest coup was when I was in 10th grade. Not much allowance. So
the day I found the huge box of out-of-date Fomapan at a photo store
(in Penang, by the way.. back when it was a duty free port) for 30
cents a roll meant that I had a huge amount of film to shoot for a
while, for an outlay of $20.. ^_- I think the photo store owner gave
me a substantial discount, too, for buying so much of it.
Robert Monaghan
quality of the original prints or to the reproduction results? Keppler
says that the original prints are close enough to be indistinguishable,
and he is a good enough expert for 40+ yrs on printing for me to believe
his statement.
Unfortunately, you can't always use a magazine page to evaluate a film or
print quality, as you presumably know (and would agree?). I have found
this to be esp. true when looking at their color film comparisons ;-(
Color print press types suggest that they can tune their presses to make
one photo look bad and the other great with a few simple adjustments. ;-)
I have a similar problem with folks scanning minilab prints and saying
that we should evaluate the original image qualities this way. There are
so many variables that it is hard to know if what you are seeing is real
or not.
Sometimes, you get shocked by how much better your photos look when
published, e.g., color photos pick up a snap when printed on some quality
presses and good paper. Conversely, B&W seem to get muddier and lower
contrast and lose details in the shadows when printed. Roger Hicks has
taken to warning us that the details he often describes in his photos
probably won't show in the final production books (Lens Book, Film Book..)
This is why I setup my blind lens testing challenge to use ONLY the first
generation, original slide film as shot in the camera, and not second
generation color prints or B*W prints or third generation scans of prints.
It would be lots easier to just scan prints to the web, but probably
technically less useful as too many parameters intervene to make
comparisons questionable. ;-(
This is also why I think a Leica challenge using first generation color
film slides would be valuable and convincing, rather than prints or even
reviews by trusted experts (Keppler, Erwin Puts etc). And I strongly
suspect that many of us would be hard pressed to see some of the details
that folks who have been doing this for years, like Puts or Keppler, can
see in examining images. Not that you can't, or some handful of folks
aren't out there that can. But I think a decent blind lens test without
cheating would be useful and informative to many of us about these issues
Robert Monaghan
quote:
Thist one had me doubled over laughing. Are you saving up to get into
medium format with a Kiev? Think of how much you'll save over a
Hasselblad. LOL.
quite a lot, really, based on my experience, though I'd go Kiev-60 unless
you need the backs, and kowa 6/66 if you need leaf shutter flash synch
lenses (called the "poor man's hasselblad") ;-) I have both kits (3 blad
bodies, 5 lenses, half dozen or more backs and viewfinders etc). The zeiss
optics are very good - whether on the Hasselblad or Kiev in pentacon 6
mounts that fit the kiev-60. And you can use the 30mm fisheye, itself at
$179 a good reason for buying a kiev-60 kit ($175) even if you never use
the 80mm lens; though some like the shift lenses (3) they have for kiev
too ;-)
and as noted, my own blind lens tests show the hassy zeiss lenses did not
consistently outscore other less costly optics (e.g., bronica S2A nikkor
75mm f/2.8 came in near top despite $50-75 used price). So my own tests
suggest that I'd have saved a lot of $$ going kiev earlier ;-)
grins bobm
The Dave©
> I know Tony Spadaro has been helpful to some on
> this board, so many people hold back from commenting
> on his awful photos but he's also lashed out irrationally
> at quite a few people because basically, he has no life
> and tries to own the board, and because of this, I'll go
> ahead and say the obvious...
Tony Spadaro..., or Tony Polson?????
Anton Elron
> getting ideas of what to shoot. I should take the 400mm and go
> squirrel hunting on campus next week.. ^_-
I prefer a 5.56 mm myself for squirrels...
Mxsmanic
news:20011227074011...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> I didn't realize there WERE any Nikon or Canon
> lenses of comparable price ...
A Leica 80-200 f/4 costs about $1895, a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 costs about
$1400. Nikon gives you a bit more feature-wise, but with Leica you are
paying mostly for optical quality, plus a slight premium because
production quantities are low.
Mxsmanic
news:20011228104904...@mb-cc.aol.com...
> It's a shame that so many photographers think
> so little of their work that they trust it to
> "the cheapest (fill in the blanks) they can get."
It's a shame that so many photographers believe that using the best film
or the best equipment will make their work significantly better.
Content and composition that make the photo, not lines of resolution.
Anton Elron
> > You remember ol' Ed Romney, don't you? He even wrote a book about it,
> >although he doesn't sell it at cheap price. I guess people who don't invest
> >much don't get much back, either.
Use the library if you are really cheap.
> Yeah, it is a sort of reverse snobbishness, otherwise, why brag about
> it? ^_-
>
> It's a matter of priorities, I suppose. I don't think buying a Leica
> or an EOS 1v would make me a better photographer. At least, not as a
> good a one as some I come across online, whos photos make my jaw
> drop. On the other hand, I can have a lot of fun playing with that $36
> Danubia 400mm f6.3 lens I bought off ebay last week, just to see what
> kinds of pictures I can take with it. Or with that FED-5C I got for
> $12.
I used to buy lots of outdated short ends of monochrome cinema stock,
35 and 70 both. 70mm,smooth as J.Lo's,umm...er...Anyway it's the true
pro format. Get a good scale and mix up your own chemicals, really is
cheaper.
A real cheapskate would build his own large/medium format
"zip-camera" out of an old roll Polaroid and scrounged enlarger
bellows or a truck gearshift boot.
Mxsmanic
news:10mp2ug94kmmjnbbn...@4ax.com...
> I just came back fom a trip to SF, and it
> rained while I was there while Portland was
> dry! Why does it rain everywhere I go?
Because you are carrying a camera. Several studies have shown a strong
correlation between cameras and the low-pressure systems that produce
rain. For example, when photographers gather to take pictures of an
important, one-of-a-kind outdoor event, often the concentration of
cameras actually produces precipitation. There doesn't seem to be any
way to counteract this effect, which still mystifies scientists. I've
seen it myself on many occasions.
Aggravating factors include attractive scenes, once-in-a-lifetime
shooting opportunities, and expensive equipment. Any or all of these in
conjunction with the presence of a camera can dramatically increase the
chances of a rainstorm. The best way to avoid rain (short of leaving
your camera at home, which always works) is to look for boring scenes,
or pictures that you can shoot again and again any old time; another
option is to use really cheap equipment that takes rotten photos but
resists water effortlessly--this always keeps the sky dry.
Mxsmanic
news:1104_10...@news1.attglobal.net...
> With modern manufacturing methods and computer=
> aided design, a lens maker would almost have to
> make a deliberate effort to make a bad lens, at
> least in some focal lengths. I think the main
> difference nowadays in cost and quality is in
> the body, mount, and diaphagm assembly, not the
> optics.
I tend to agree for the most part. Even the cheapest lenses today
benefit from computer-aided designs that the best designers of a few
decades ago could not have dreamed of producing. Both the cheap brands
and the expensive brands have profited equally from this, I think.
While a $75 lens may not perform like a $2000 lens, it will still tend
to outperform the vast majority of lenses made 30 years ago, no matter
what they originally cost.
The real differences, then, are in the build quality, the manufacturing
tolerances (some optical designs are incredibly sensitive to the
slightest slip in tolerances), the quality of the materials, and the
quality of the glass specifically.
I also think that the difference in image quality between the worst
lenses and the best has become much smaller over time. Nowadays, even
the lens of a disposable camera often provides suprisingly good image
quality, even though it will still be noticeably different from that of
a top-quality professional lens.
Mxsmanic
> Thist one had me doubled over laughing.
I prefer to hold my laughter until I've seen the results. I'm not sure
that I'd be able to tell the difference in most photographs, and I
daresay that you would not be able to, either.
Mxsmanic
news:mehm2ukhe81nebveb...@4ax.com...
> It's certainly true that, in your grossly
> incompetent hands, no one could possibly tell
> the difference between the results from a cheap
> disposable and those from a Leica or Nikon
> 'pro-grade' lens.
Even in expert hands, the difference is often very difficult to see.
Which reminds me ... can you give me the URL of your Web site again? I
wanted to look over your latest work; maybe it might help me with my own
pitiful efforts to see the work of a master.
Mxsmanic
news:3c2b53dd....@nntp.sprynet.com...
> Hmmmmmm, aren't the "results" the only thing
> that matters?
Of course. So if you can't tell what brand was used to produce the
results, then the brand doesn't matter, does it?
The real reason for choosing one brand of equipment over another, in
most cases, is photographer preference. A Nikon or Canon SLR is a lot
more of a pleasure to use than a JC Penny or Walmart SLR. The results
may look pretty much identical, but the photographer is likely to be a
lot happier using the former than using the latter.
> There are very few of my clients who even ask
> about what sort of equipment I am using to take
> their portrait...but every one of them expects good
> results.
Exactly. So even if you use the cheapest stuff you can find, it doesn't
matter, as long as the results satisfy.
> Maybe they should have a Leica Challenge...sort
> of like the old Pepsi Challenge ads from years ago.
It has already been done, on multiple occasions. Even pros can't
usually see any difference, at least between top-of-the-line equipment
from different vendors. Once you tell them which photo came from which
camera, however, they suddenly start to see all sorts of "obvious"
differences that mysteriously escaped them only minutes earlier.
Mxsmanic
news:a0itua$f90$1...@post.cis.smu.edu...
> But the reality remains that most of us
> don't often shoot our lenses wide open, but
> usually stopped down.
I dunno. I like to shoot Provia 100F, which isn't the fastest film
around, and being able to shoot wide open is often important. Also,
I've shot indoor stuff, like fashion shows and the like, and having to
go any slower than f/2.8, even with ISO 800 film, would be a serious
handicap.
In bright light outdoors, however, I do generally shoot at more
intermediate settings.
Mxsmanic
news:88iq2ucg6696advu2...@4ax.com...
> I bet most of us never use f/1, too.
I've used it occasionally, but the depth of field is so limited that it
isn't as useful as one might think, and no lens, no matter how
expensive, can ever get around that limitation.
Tim
Dilbertdroid2
you need the backs, and kowa 6/66 if you need leaf shutter flash synch
lenses (called the "poor man's hasselblad">>
Good for you Bob. Somehow I just knew you are a Kiev user.
Dilbertdroid2
I'd be able to tell the difference in most photographs, and I daresay that you
I have no doubt that you wouldn't be able to see the difference, Maniac.
You'd be very wrong on the latter though. I would be happy to submit myself to
such a blind test with the stipulation that I be allowed to participate in the
capture of the images. This would eliminate the problem with images being so
dissimilar that there is no way to compare them objectively in the first place,
which I'm pretty sure is the "technique" that Bob uses in his so-called blind
tests. (Unless he simply uses blind people, which is a possibility.) I would
also be bringing my 8X loupe, which my art director calls the "wand of
destruction."
Dilbertdroid2
seeing the protocol you followed, the sample images, the equipment involved,
and the published results. Your web site is such a morass of borrowed
references and URLS that it is pretty hard to find this information.
Dilbertdroid2
showed that most of us can't simply pick up a slide and identify what
camera or lens took it. We can't sort a pile of slides reliably by whether
they were made with a new Leica 50mm f/2 summicron or a used minolta 50mm
f/1.7 costing 1% as much $$. >>
Can you help me find where you published the results of these tests so I can
see your protocol? I also find your basic premise of the test (sorting
slides by lens) to be specious and a bit insulting to the intelligence of even
the most typical newsgroupie. An objective test would be to compare slides
taken with identical emulsions, exposures and scenes to really see how the
different lenses resolve. That's why everyone quotes Irwin Puts instead of
you, Bob. (Except Kiev owners, I suppose.)
Dilbertdroid2
lenses is just a lot of fun. They're just toys, not a means of livelihood. >>
I happen to collect old cameras and have shot with them many times, and on
professional shoots. I once shot a whole session for an antique car
collector with prewar cameras. Why? Because the collector wanted shots that
looked like period shots taken with period cameras. Best shots were of his
Dusenberg (Sic?) and Cadillacs taken at Meadowbrook Hall in Michigan with a
Steinheil Plate camera and a Eastman No. 2 Cartridge Brownie adapted to a
rollfilm back. I also shot MF in color. I used tri-X and ND filters to
optimize the exposures. The client was ecstatic--- the results looked
exactly like the vintage photos he had collected of these old cars. The color
MF shots were spectacular, but I have to admit the B&W shots were really unique
and fun to look at. I would suggest that you should start buying old equipment
not simply because it is cheap, but to investigate what it can do for your
photography and the unique qualities these old lenses add to your images. A
portrait taken with a lens that has some special qualities (Leica Summar comes
to mind) can be just as sellable and sometimes more sellable than one taken
with modern equipment.
Dilbertdroid2
the best equipment will make their work significantly better. Content and
Oops, aren't you the Nikon equivalent of Annika and the Fan, who was telling us
about the magical properties of your F5 with demo photos that everyone seemed
to agree completely lacked content and composition? Yep, I checked, it was
you. Haven't you also been pushing Leica and Voigtlander, too? What is it
you are trying to say, Maniac, other than the fact that you are schizophrenic?
Dilbertdroid2
Buying a aftermarket cheapie telephoto for example, is cheap and dumb. Buying a
classic lens used -- something like the venerable 105mm f2.5 on the used market
for less than $150 is cheap and SMART. >>>
Indeed, yes. Unfortunately that is usually lost on the "cheap" crowd who's
main purpose seems to be the lowest price, and all other considerations be
damned.