Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Dan - I don't doubt that you're right about the film and paper emulsions, perhaps developing chemicals, etc. etc. It clearly is a combination of factors. B. D. Dan Honemann wrote: > Hi B.D., > > I've wondered about this and have considered it as a possibility. But if I > look at the contrast, the out of focus areas, the texture (I lack the proper > terminology)... I still see a difference in the older prints. I'd be more > inclined to believe it is based on different emulsions, chemicals and papers > than on lenses; I doubt that the nostalgia of the content accounts for _all_ > of it (but hey, I could be wrong). > > I can still tell the difference between videotaped vs. filmed footage on tv > right away, while many of my friends can't see it at all. To me, the > difference in old vs. contemporary prints runs along the same lines... > immediately apparent. I have seen some modern photographs that do seem to > come close if not match the older quality, though I can't tell you which off > the top of my head (there was a link mentioned here a few weeks back to a > photographer who did many portraits of appalachian familes that springs to > mind). I'll pay closer attention to this and jot down some examples as they > crop up. > > Dan > > > Okay, I'll take my life in mind hands and... > > > > This whole "old glow" thing is really pretty funny...On the one > > hand we have > > Erwin, judging lens quality on the basis of scientific formulae > > and the number of > > threads visible in a 1" square of silk photographed with ASA 2.3 > > film at 100 > > yards with the latest Leica optic, 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." > > > > Yes, as Buzz and some others have pointed out there were papers > > available 50 years > > ago which are no longer available - and some of them probably > > would produce > > superior prints. But the bottom line, folks, is that that glow > > which so captivates > > you is the glow of nostalgia; nostalgia for a long-gone world and > > way of life > > captured in the "glowing" photos of the greats, nostalgia for the > > days when > > photography really "mattered," nostalgia for the days when we > > were all a good deal > > younger and full of promise than we are now. > > > > But that's only my theory... > > > > And, by the way, some things, such as wooden stringed > > instruments, DO get better > > with age...Give me a 1966 Martin D28 over its "new" clone any day... > > > > B. D.