Re: [Leica] Trade off between film and lens speed

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>]

Peter Klein asked:
>>> Ted brought up an interesting issue regarding the Steve Unsworth's
> wonderful "Girl Talk" pictures:
> http://www.steveunsworth.co.uk/PAW/week_27alt4.htm
>
> Sometimes with available light pictures, we have a choice of using an
> f/2-ish lens and fast film, or a very fast lens and slow film.
> Ted--and anybody else--how do you deal with these trade-offs?  <<<

Hi Peter,
I don't think about them and never have. If I'm shooting in near darkness
and very low light situation I use the film that will fill the bill of the
assignment and if that means pushing 3200 to 6400 or a stop higher I just do
it. Or if I've thought I might use a slower film if I happened to have some
in the bag, the chances of that are usually very slim. I'd give it a try.

If I'm going on assignment where there might be enough light to use a slower
film and the Noctilux I do, only because I do it without any great thought.
I know sometimes I can do neat things with a shot and the Noctilux at f 1.0
but I don't make any plans about it and quite often only think of it when
I'm in the middle of the shoot due to the situation in front of me that can
be enhanced, by spinning the ring wide open and shooting.

Another thing,  I don't have any of those 1.4 or slower as my first choice
of Leica glass has always been "what's the fastest?"  When I got the
Noctilux I never considered any others after, no matter how many wiggilies
per mm they cut. I don't take pictures to consider the wigglies per mm, I
take pictures to make a living and get more assignments or photo projects
because I've come home with pictures that the folks paying the bill are
blown away with. Isn't that the bottom line of being a photojournalist or
commercial photographer?

I suppose some of you must think I'm a nut case the way I work, but my
picture taking has always been "feel and look" not technical. Sure I learned
how to develop film and make prints, but all the stuff of what a Leica lens
does by numbers has never been of interest simply because it's the finished
product that we look at and gets sold and future assignments..... not
whether its a Noctilux, Summilux or any other named lens.

It's using any of them until they're second nature in hand and mind of what
they can do stopped down or wide open! Do I shoot everything wide open? Of
course not, but I sure as hell will at the drop of a hat if I think going
wide open, fast or slow film, will give me a finished picture others will
suck air looking at what was captured.

> To open the discussion:
> Here's a couple of pictures I took on XP-2 at 400 and my 50/1.4 LTM
> Nikkor from the 50s (I've posted them before as PWIFLIs).
>
>    http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/charlie_xmas.htm
>    http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/paula_harpo.htm


My immediate and first impression of Charlie is.... his eyes and face are
out of focus as I see it on my screen. It appears you focused not on his
eyes but somewhere on the lapel of his jacket. By the way that may not be
the case in a real life print.

Paula is better from a focus point of where it should be and I like the
shot.. Why? Hell I just like it as it's neat!

> All were taken in the same room at 1/60 @ f/1.4
>Now, suppose I'd taken the same pictures:
>
> A.  With a Noctilux, 1/30 @ f/1.0 on 100 film like Delta 100<<<

And you focused on Charlie in similar fashion? He'd still be out of focus
only more so.

> B.  With Neopan 1600, 1/60 @ f/2.8
> C.  Same exposure, using a modern 50 Summilux or Voigtlander Nokton
> instead of the old Nikkor.
>
> How much would I have gained or lost in image quality? We've got two
> factors going here, the lens' performance wide open vs. the extra grain
> and loss of detail of faster films.<<<<<

What I see here are two interesting photographs, albeit one is slightly out
of focus. But they're both exposed properly, the film appears to have been
souped Ok and prints or scans look OK.

Pete there's a problem here! I can't write nor type fast enough to answer
all these questions. The bottom line is still... "do you like them? Are you
really happy with them?" Do you have the money to buy a Noctilux and if you
do, buy one! And it'll answer many of your questions by doing than us
telling. And all the typing of answers can be so much easier at a table with
a beer and french fries.;-)

> For instance, I don't have much textural detail in Charlie's eyebrows or
> Harpo's fur.  If I went to 1600 film, I would gain the resolution with
> the lens, but might lose it with the film, and I'd have more grain.<<<<

Do you really look that close at each photograph? Or are you content with a
very fine picture even if the hairs aren't all tiddilie perfect?

> (BTW, the window behind the first s double-pane.  So the bokeh of the
> 50/1.4 Nikkor is not as bad as it looks here)<<<

Pete look at the picture, who the hell cares about the out of focus bokeh
thingies as it's a damn fine photo, Paula and dog! That's the content and
that's what 999.99999% of people look at.. the content! And does it give
them a nice twitch in the gut because they see you're a very talented
photographer at capturing nice human moments? Of course that's what they
see. And that's what counts in the end.

I see this as a subject and discussion that could go on for next six months
and still have 1000 answers. Lets' organize a LUG beer party and talk it out
in two pints! ;-)

Not sure any of this helps, but I do hope so.
ted



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html