[Leica] Matching Film to Lens Contrast

[Leikon35 <Leikon35@aol.com>]

 I can't speak for Eric either but I do think that his rational view would be
 the same as mine - in saying "why not just use a film that complements
 the lens".

 We all know that for MOST photos, hi contrast film or paper is bad as it
 compresses the tonal range but I can't conceive of a lens of "too high in
 contrast" - even an apochromatic process lenses is designed to capture
 a long as possible range of tones.  It has always been my understanding
 that contrast was one of the features for which lens manufacurers strived.

 The various contrast & other qualities of the many films dicussed here --
 should make the choice easier to pick a film whose quality will give you
 the best results with any lens.  In the pre-1960 period, before the advent 
 of the 50/1.4 Summilux,  I used the 50/1.4 Nikkor in preference to the 
 Leitz comparable 50/1.5 Summarit since it had more contrast for me.
 Of course this has all changed now and Leica has caught up and also
 surpassed both Nikon & Canon in their high speed lenses.  Amen 

 Marvin Moss
=====================================================
 In a message dated 98-04-07 15:30:45 EDT, John McLeod
<< 
 Eric Welch (if I may speak for you for a moment Eric  ;-)  ) would say Leica
 lenses are simply better at tonal gradation and subtle changes in
 micro-contrast.  Others would say the "problem" I'm seeing is really not a
 lens problem, but a film problem.  This argument suggests that a lens cannot
 ADD contrast to an image, it can only allow as much light to pass to film,
 thanks to better coatings and flare control.  In other words, a high
 contrast lens is a "good" thing.  Of course, a "good" thing in theory may be
 not so good in practice with high contrast slide films, right?
  >>