Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/23

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new
From: "M.E.Berube" <MEB@goodphotos.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:32:28 -0400
References: <200010231815.OAA28562@sushi.toad.net>

At 03:18 PM 10/23/00 -0400, B. D. Colen wrote:
>and on the other we have a bunch of guys who
>call the flare and veiling of the old, optically inferior lenses, the 
>"classic leica glow."

The 'quality' of any final product of artistic endeavor is and always will 
be a matter of personal preference. If the glare and haze and other 
'inferiorities' of an old lens provides you with the results that you find 
pleasing, why should anyone chuckle about this?

Granted, romanticising the 'inferiorities' of old glass into something that 
should always be sought by everyone is kind of reminiscent of Aesop's "Fox 
without a tail", but exclusively ruling out the old lenses because the new 
optics are "better engineered" (and cost so much) comes off to me as 
elitist. The new lenses resolve better but have entirely different 
characteristics. They are 'too good' to replicate that glow of glare and 
haze found in the old lenses that many find appealing to seek in their work.

Why not use those tools which will best give you the image qualities that 
you most desire to pursue. Sometimes breaking with convention gives us a 
more likeable product than adhering strictly to it.
If smearing Vaseline on your Summicron gives you results to smile at, smear 
away and have fun. :)

If we all used exactly the same equipment for exactly the same reasons this 
list would be no fun at all.

Carpe Luminem, (hazy or otherwise)
Michael

Replies: Reply from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new)
In reply to: Message from "Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net> (Re: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new)