Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/12/01

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

Subject: [Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)
Date: Thu Dec 1 11:45:19 2005
References: <a2f8f4470511300449q7621eb8fs9a4f489107e36ee1@mail.gmail.com> <BFB339A8.904C%bdcolen@comcast.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20051130082817.1206dcf0@192.168.100.42> <003101c5f5d6$37d29040$6400a8c0@ted> <6.1.0.6.2.20051130133650.120ca670@192.168.100.42>

Richard asked:
Subject: Re: [Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar

>>> So Ted, here's a question: lets assume that the flat contrast is from 
>>> the
> lens alone (which I will not be surprise about) and lets say the pictures 
> themselves have some merits (e.g. nice expressions), do you think using a 
> lens like this is more detrimental than adding to it?<<<<

Richard that's your call and how you like the look of your photographs.  It 
also depends what subjects you like shooting where this effect would add to 
the feel of the photograph or atmosphere of the content.

If we think about some of the real old pictures of misty days, foggy nights 
and street lamps  with the "look of the day". Then with this lens you might 
have a run at shooting under similar weather/light conditions and see if you 
can capture a similar look.

I'd also look for some turn of the century or '30's looking locations and 
shoot around this type of subject.

I think part of the problem of what we're looking at is, shooting what I'd 
refer to as..."modern day subjects" as you've shown where most of us might 
relate to shooting it with modern day lenses. While your attempt has turned 
out flat and grey looking I think you made an unfortunate choice of subject. 
Not to mention the added possibilities suggested by others.

I'd certainly try some with mist, rainy night scenes or snow in the evenings 
with street lights. Certainly before doing what others have suggested, 
getting it CLA'd. But not before using it in it's "natural state" as we see 
the effects here. Which of course may not all be due to the lens alone.

>>I mean, the pictures have certain characters because of the lens (e.g. 
>>certain soft portrait <<look?) but in your opinions, do the advantages 
>>outweigh the disadvantages?<<<

Not if you look at it as a "specialized tool" taking this into account when 
you select the kind of subject where it's most effective before you shoot. 
Olden-times they didn't have the lens options we have today and I bet there 
are lots of photos from those days that don't look so hot when we'd look at 
them with modern day photographic eyes, expectations of sharpness, contrast 
etc.

I don't feel it's an everyday lens for all subjects in modern times. But 
using it under the right conditions I feel it's a magical tool for creating 
'30's looking pictures with the right content. But to find out means 
shooting a pile of film using the right subjects and light conditions.

ted

Ted Grant Photography Limited
1817 Feltham Road
Victoria BC  V8N 2A4
250-477-2156 



In reply to: Message from dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar)
Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar)
Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar)
Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar)