Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As lenses got sharper, Zeiss invented the Softar. Jim At 06:02 PM 10/29/98 -0600, you wrote: >I agree with you , Alexy, that many of these pictures make good use of >regional focus to make them work. I don't recall any picture in the book >that would be improved by increased sharpness or contrast. I'm saying the >opposite. > What I am trying to say is that adding crisp sharp detail and high >contrast would detract from more than a few of these pictures. I gave the >book back to the library. However, the picture of the woman in the crowd >with the pope is a good example. That picture would not be helped at all >if you were able to see great detail of the texture of the people's >clothes, the dandruff on their shoulders, maybe an interesting whorl of >hair on someone's cheek, etc. Probably, this kind of detail and contrast >would distract your focus of attention away from that interesting face on >the woman. So, I am saying that even in addition to the tool of selective >focus, there are pictures, like this one, where high sharpness and contrast >would actually work against the picture. The two people in bed is another >example that is really too obvious. > Very certainly, many people's pictures really do depend on high >contrast and sharpness. That's fine use the best tool for the job, as >another LUGger has said. The best tool for the job is not always the >newest, sharpest lens. Many say that better sharpness and better flare >suppression can't hurt. I disagree. > > By the way, that Oz summary is hilarious. -Mark Walberg > >>-Mark Walberg writes: >>>So, I was looking through the HCB Aperture book last night, too - I've >>>got it out from our local library. I wonder how some of those pictures >>>in there would look if taken with a current generation, sharp as my old >>>barber's freshly stropped blade Summicron, with every last bit of flare >>>suppressed. I think many of those pictures would still look great. >>>However, there are definitely some that would suffer from all that >>>crisply rendered detail, which would distract your attention away from >>>what makes some of these pictures great. >> >>I think that a lot of us on this list own that, or other, HCB books. >>Maybe it woud be interesting to be more specific? *Which* images would >>be stronger with more detail, or with a lens displaying reduced spherical >>aberration? While sharpness may be overrated, it's clear that a lot of >>HCB's images work through the *regional* control of focus vs. out-of >>-focus and movement-blurred vs. frozen areas. The Aperture book contains >>abundant examples - the photo of the crowd surrounding the Pope, with that >>one woman's passionate, almost crazed eyes completely dominating the >>photo - that image will be with me forever. The portrait of Matisse, with >>its blurred foreground, is another. >> >>On the other hand, one of the last photos in the book, of the leg and >>fist jutting out of the prison cell, was clearly made with a more modern >>lens, and I think it would be weaker if it were less harshly rendered. >> >>-Alexey >>.......................................................................... >>Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com >> | PGP public key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/ | voice:503/494-6840 >> | Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the >> | first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete >> | strangers to kill again. >> | -- TV listing for _The Wizard of Oz_, >> | in the Marin County, Ca., newspaper > http://www.photoaccess.com Jim Brick, ASMP, BIAA Photo Access (650) 470-1132 Visual Impressions Publishing Visual Impressions Photography (408) 296-1629