RE: [Leica] lenses suited for b&w vs. color

["Dan Honemann" <danh@selectsa.com>]

Doug,

Interesting observations.  I would have guessed just the opposite, but
that's probably due to the subject matter I shoot in b&w vs. color.  I use
the former (tri-x or delta 400) for candids, on the street and indoors, and
the latter (velvia or provia f 100) for landscapes and nature.  I want the
slides razor sharp, to the point where I'd prefer seeing every blade of
grass and every drop of dew on each blade.  But I don't mind the candid b&w
prints being a bit soft; I don't mind if skin blemishes and wrinkles don't
show up. :)

I was just having another browse through Winogrand's _Man in the Crowd_ and
noticing how grainy and soft many of the images are, and how I don't care
one bit.  What is there is an amazing tonal separation--blacks are _really_
black, and whites incredibly bright.  His use of the 28 in crowded city
streets lends a depth to the photos that has my eye overlooking graininess,
softness, and edge distortion.

And of course it helps that he's a master of composition with an incredible
instinct for the decisive moment.

In the color/nature arena, your images are gorgeous and stand with the very
best.  The "Submerged Log" is a lovely image, but my favorites of yours
happen to have been taken with Leica glass (sure, you could take the labels
away and I probably wouldn't know the difference, and it could very well
just be coincidence--but let's pretend <g>): "Denali National Park, Alaska"
(purple grasses) and "Indigo Bunting" are simply incredible.  Although I
have to admit the "Dwarf Dogwood" shot with the 50/2 Nikkor-H is plenty
sharp, too--and beautiful.

Dan

> Me experience with weaker lenses is that they may be marginally
> acceptable for color, especially where the photo is more about
> color than about image detail, but with B&W I can't hide the
> lens' faults behind pretty colors.
>
> The old 300mm Nikkor-P is a good example.  It had very noticable
> lateral chromatic abberation which I could hide with monochromatic images:
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/HBIRD.HTM
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/SUBLOG.HTM
>
> With B&W it was much more difficult to hide the color fringing
> because monochromatic photos often look drab and lifeless as B&W,
> while B&W photos (mine, anyway) had to rely more on detail and
> contrast to be successful.
>
> Doug Herr
> Sacramento
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt