Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]First, to each his or her own. If one is trying to achieve a 1930s look, more power to them. But I object to being called elitist because I'm suggesting that the "glow" is a result of optical flaws in the lenses of yesteryear, just as I'd object to being called blind for suggesting that the bareass emperor might, in fact, be nekid..:-) B. D. "M.E.Berube" wrote: > 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