Re: [Leica] Performers and flare

[Edward Meyers <aghalide@panix.com>]

This proves my point. Ed

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, ralph fuerbringer wrote:

> ed meyers goes into the closet! he started automatic flarefill nonsense
> with uncoated lenses,slow film, outside in the hot sun w/bruce davidson. now
> he's passing himself off as a low-lite fast -film photographer using inside
> flare for fill. in support of his weird theories he uses quotes from
>  Erwin Puts( below) to confirm a flare prone lens just makes dark areas
> muddy. could anyone but an editor so succinctly disprove his own case?  he
> called me weird. i can't decide what to call him now. I like inside-outside
> ed,but muddy meyers sounds so good.then there's always editor.ralph
>    
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Edward Meyers <aghalide@panix.com>
> > Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
> > To: L U G <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Performers and flare
> > 
> > If only low-light photographers could use a 100 ISO speed film
> > and make meaningful images with slow speeds and a tripod...
> > It is not the case, however. So we do what we can with high-speed
> > films. Filling in deep shadows in high-contrast low-light
> > situations, without a flash (hopefully), if helped by flare,
> > then the photograph might look better. If only this were a
> > perfect world... Ed
> > 
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Erwin Puts wrote:
> > 
> >> It was noted: "Once you get past Erwin's bench tests, is there really a
> >> "bad" version of
> >> the Summicron 35?...I've owned various versions over the years - I assume,
> >> as I've purchased them all used at widely different period of my life - and
> >> they've all be terrific performers."
> >> 
> >> If this really is what the poster assumes, I can only add: if your
> >> definition of "terrific performers" is modest enough, he is absolutely
> >> right. Most Leica photographers I know however see very discernable
> >> differences. The performance you can extract from a lens is tightly coupled
> >> to technical expertise and the level of your demands and your type of
> >> picture taking. Without this background info any statement about good
> >> performance is void.
> >> The flare issue. Flare is defined as unwanted stray light, that will be
> >> uniformly distributed over the whole image area. If we have a scene from
> >> black to white, we will have a range of figures that indicate relative
> >> contrast, we have a rnage of 100 to 0.25 lux, indicating light and dark
> >> areas, which is a contrast of 400:1. Add a uniform flare level of 0.25 lux
> >> and we now have 100.25 and 0.5, giving a contrast of 200:1. The effect on
> >> the dark areas is big and on the lighter areas to be neglected. This example
> >> shows two things: flare does simply give greater negative density in the
> >> thin parts of the negative (the black areas), and will give a dark grey
> >> instead of a black, suggesting detail, which is not there.
> >> The old story that you can use a low contrast and/or flare prone lens to
> >> compensate for high contrast in the scene is not correct. The highlights are
> >> not affected and the dark areas just become muddy.
> >> The best proposal: buy a high contrast lens, use a 100ISO BW film that gives
> >> good toe density and expose and develop to get the maximum contrast your
> >> print paper can handle.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Erwin
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
>