Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] in the dark with the summilux
From: John Collier <>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 08:10:40 -0600

The flare of a lens can function the same as preflashing paper in the
darkroom. It allows the very low shadow values to register on the film even
though normally they would not. In most situations flare is a liability as
it reduces contrast, however, in high contrast situations the reduction in
contrast can be a benefit. There is nothing to prevent one from preflashing
the film when you are using a lens with low flare though multiple exposures
are not recommended with the M cameras. I am not a darkroom expert but I
believe that preflashing is not a common technique anymore with the advances
in multigrade papers, split printing and what not. I am sure that the
resident darkroom experts can take this much further than I am able too.

John Collier

> From: John Brownlow <>
> on 6/8/00 8:14 pm, ralph fuerbringer at wrote:
>> 1/2 a
>> century ago there were recommendatons to get uncoated 50mf1.5 sonnars for
>> portraits. it was said they put more details in shadows.
> this brings up an interesting point about the current and pre-asph summilux
> 35. There is a similar argument to the above that the latter, because of
> flare, puts in more shadow density in high-contrast nighttime lighting
> conditions. I'd have to say that subjectively, that seems true. I've
> assumjed the overall veiling flare from bright highlights eg streetlamps
> bumps up the shadow threshold, at the expense of overall contrast. (In a
> high contrast night shot this is not such a problem).
> I don't want to open up the asph v. non-asph debate but I wondered if this
> is a real effect or just my wrong impression?

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <> (Re: [Leica] in the dark with the summilux)