Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 10:59 PM -0400 4/1/01, David Kieltyka wrote:
>SthRosner@aol.com wrote:
>
>> As I pointed out in Viewfinder magazine, Leitz designers of the
>> current 50/2 Summicron clearly opted for enhanced contrast at
>> full aperture and were willing to accept somewhat reduced
>> resolution. At some point, I hope to publish the reasons that,
>> for me, the 50/2 Dual-range is a "better" lens while accepting
>> that for others, the current formula may better suit their needs.
>
>Interesting that you mention this, Seth. I'd love to read your reasons for
>preferring the DR when you're ready to present them. I've found that my own
>taste in both lenses and film has changed over the past few years since I've
>switched from the darkroom to the computer-based "lightroom." Specifically
>I'm favoring lower contrast optics and films that record a broader tonal
>range since I get more pleasing results with them under the scanner. Because
>of this I've bought a few older Leitz lenses of the high-resolution, lower
>contrast variety and am finding the DR in particular well-suited to my
>current way of working. IMO "better" does indeed depend upon the user and
>her/his intended use.
Very true. The limited dynamic range of many of today's scanners
makes lower contrast results easier to deal with. When scanners are
easily able to deal with the full tonal range, we will probably also
prefer wider tonal range on-film results. The parallels with audio
development are obvious.
>BTW, folks, I just picked up a copy of Erwin's book. It's a great read.
>
>-Dave-
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com