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] Shadow boxing
From: "Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:45:04 -0700
References: <Pine.NEB.4.21.0008071326320.15965-100000@panix2.panix.com>

At 4:01 PM -0400 8/7/00, Craig Roberts wrote:
>"The flare helps to get to that threshold so it takes slightly less image
>exposure to show up as density." - Ed
>
>
>Hmmmm.  Thank you, Ed, but this sounds...almost literally...like smoke and
>mirrors, or a sophisticated practical joke.  I prefer not to think about it
>any longer.  My brain hurts.
>
>Craig
>"I wonder if they know about this at MIT" Boston

Believe it. That's the way it works. Whether with mercury vapours, airport
x-rays, pre-flashing or flare. Once you get past that initial step, you
have a bit more sensitivity. The astronomy folks have done it for years, in
a very controlled fashion.

As far as lenses are concerned, give me the flare free ones anyday. Just
like with some other problems earlier lenses had, you can raise your base
fog in various ways if you so desire, but getting rid of flare when you
don't want it doesn't happen (at least if it obscures or reduces detail).

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

Replies: Reply from "Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica]So long, Flare, we overknew ye.... was Shadow boxing)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Shadow boxing)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Shadow boxing (more from Ansel))
In reply to: Message from Edward Meyers <aghalide@panix.com> (Re: [Leica] in the dark with the summilux)