Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]David Rogers wrote: >>Over the years I've used played around with some pretty scratched > up lenses (front and rear elements). I've yet to identify degradation. Even > in the worst cases, if it shows up in the end result it's too subtle for my > eye. Thus, while even a tiny nick in an element causes me to cringe, it > doesn't seem to have much effect on the actual image.<<< Hi David, How true, as some marks never show up on the final product. When I shoot baseball little league, I work from behind the catcher and umpire fence with the lens wide open and the glass as close as possible, if not the metal part of the lens touching the fence and it never shows up! Why? Because the wiring is so close to the wide open lens it just dissolves into nothing and allows for some great photographs. In the same manner as a zit on the front element. I use ...280, 400 or 800 for much of this work making for wonderful real action photos that look like I was standing on the field without any fence between the players and myself. I've also shot in this manner with the 100mm on an R8 and the effect is the same.... no cross marks of the fence in front of the glass! A shot from last year of my grandson pitching was sold by Masterfile the stock agency that represents me for, $8000.00 US! :-) My grandson (11) and I have a deal... any photos of him sold we split 1/2 & 1/2. He gets a few dollars for some treats, he needs to see immediate benefits :-) and the rest goes into an education fund. And even though the lens was against the chainlike fence the image was of a quality and sharpness good for an international product ad campaign. So my point of this is to agree with you that scratches, zits, chainlink fence and sometimes dust most times have little or no effect on the quality of the image. Of course there is always a "perceived by the photographer image loss" However, most cases it's our imagination. :-) ted Ted Grant Photography Limited www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Noctilux > Ted, > > >>However, my R 2.8 28 had this nice little zit burned right in the surface > after one episode and sure I was upset. > > But you know what? ...... it never showed anywhere from wide open to closed > right down! My good luck. Did I sell it because I was a tad image lens > quality panicked? Yep! And my buddy that I sold it to for a song has for > many years jazzed me about it because he's shot thousands of rolls of film > and at no time has he ever seen any degradation at all.<< > > I'm amazed at how badly a lens can be damaged without it showing up in the > results. > > Dave > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html