Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted, Adopt me! Regards, Greg Ted Grant wrote: > > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html