[Leica] BW developments

["Erwin Puts" <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

My book will be published by Hovebooks: www.hovebooks.co.uk, wher eyou will
find all info: price, ISDN etc. Signed copies and all these topics have to
be discussed with them and I will keep you informed. The history and
development of the Leica system, optically and mechanically has been
analysed and documented, in my view at least, only partially and strongly
biased. The recent discussion about the Summicron 50 versions is one small
example of the scant factual evidence most Leica topics are based upon.
In the next issue of LFI I will present the first part of a two part article
about Leica lens manufacture, which might be interesting to some.
Now on to a different topic. I did a study on current BW films and image
quality as related to  current Leica lens performance. (it will be published
in 'SchwarzWeiss', a German magazine devoted to BW photography). It is a
part of an ongoing research project into the optimal combination of Leica
lens quality and current BW-emulsions. It is still the case that BW is the
best medium for Leica quality, followed by slides and at at a large distance
colour neg film.
Focus was the queation if a ISO100 or slower film shows significantly more
image quality than the higher speed fims.
Another myth went down. I used Ilford films PanF+, D100, D400 (to be
replaced at Photokina by a newer emulsion called 400D!) and D3200. Also in
the line was Kodak PlusX, a favourite of mine  because of its high acutance
and very fine tonal scale. All films were developed in new Ilford DD-X. I
had not used this developer before and some may think it rash to use an
unknown developer for important work.
I exposed the films as indicated with the exception of D400 (as E320) and
D3200 (as EI1600)  and according to the times in the leaflet. Result?
Excellently exposed and developed negatives, so the old advice to do a long
series of trials to find the correct time may be biting the dust. While it
is true that some of the negatives would benefit by some fine tuning of
develoment time, all negatives, even the one that were flashed with an old
Metz CT-1, could be used without reservation in the darkroom. The fine
quality of the current VC papers and the Heiland Splitgrade did the rest and
I ended the day with a series of prints of very good quality.
What did it show. At 12 times enlargement, the PanF, the D100 are in a class
of their own, with the PanF having slightly finer grain. Here we see
outstandingly good reproduction of details and tone values, the resolution
of the system surpassing 100lp/mm on the negative. The often discussed three
dimensional close-to-life- quality is very visible. At ISO400, the image
quality drops significantly, but the sharpness impression is very high, but
deceptively so. The life-like impression is gone and the image is flat.
lacking depth and detail. But tonal quality is very good. At ISO1600 this
impression is even stronger, no detail rendition, and again a flatter image,
with good tonal range.
It is evident, that the finer points of the quality of Leica lenses are
mostly lost when using ISO speeds at 400 and over. I am not discussing the
use of the Leica camera is situations where a 400ISO or higher film is
required. The M and R in these situations are redoubtable instruments, but
image quality as it stands has dropped significantly and I wonder if  in
these situtions a non-Leica camera would deliver comparable results,
technically speaking. The picture taking qualities of the Leica camera and
the confidence and inspiration of use  are a ifferent topic.
I would always use a Leica in adverse lighting conditions, but I am aware
that the performance gap with the nearest competitor is narrow and can only
be widened by expert use of all components of the imaging chain.
The potential quality of the combo Leica and 100ISO BW will indeed intrude
into H'blad territory.

Erwin