Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, I ran a photo lab in the US Army during the Vietnam War and I find this to be the opposite of my experience. We would use 4 element Rodenstock enlarging lenses on some of our Omega D2 enlargers, and 6 element Rodagon lenses on others. The prints made with the Rodagon lenses would exhibit higher resolution and contrast and "MORE" visible grain. Some of my photogs used Nikons and some used Leica M4s. The Leica lenses would exacerbate this effect and I would sometimes have to use tricks such as black nylon stockings or diffusion filters under the lens for a percentage of the exposure in order to reduce this effect. Developers and differences in agitation can also increase the grain effect. I would generally compromise and find a workable solution. And by the way, a couple of the "Old Timers" refused to use the "new-fangled" 35mm "toy" cameras. They would shoot with a 6x9 Graflex with Carl Zeiss optics or 4x5 Speed Graphic and therefore, never had to worry about grain. (They also missed many shots). Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabinergroup.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Lenses and grain > On 6/12/05 2:13 PM, "feli" <feli2@earthlink.net> typed: > >> Maybe someone has more insight in to this, but I've noticed a pattern >> here. >> >> I shoot Tri-X 99% of the time. >> >> I bounce around between three 50's- a DR, pre-ASPH Lux and current Cron. >> >> Now, call me crazy, but I swear that the grain is more pronounced with >> the current Cron, than with the DR. I wonder if this is do to the >> higher contrast fingerprint of the current Cron. Perhaps it is a micro >> contrast issue? In that respect the DR is a lot more mellow than the >> current Cron. >> >> Anyone? >> >> >> feli >> > According to the way I think of it; it's the opposite. > > Say you have an old flat lens. > You make a print with it and it comes out flatter than your normal stuff > from most your other lenses on that roll. > So you've got to jack up the contrast by using a higher contrast filter or > paper to get it to look right. > And that's going to add grain to that image. > So I believe the use of such older flatter glass makes for images in > effect > which have more grain. > You've got to use snapper paper to compensate for the flat image and that > makes for increased grain. > > Hence the opposite. > Using a snappy lens makes for an image which can be printed with less > filtration, (not a whole lot of extra magenta) as the image has more > inherent contrast in it in the first place. The negative I think of as > being > "more clear". Less phlegm to cut through. > So a modern high end optic would result in an image which not only excels > in > any number of ways optically. But also in a print which would have less > pronounced grain. > > This is how I've experienced it and think of it. But I've not READ it to > be > true from other sources. But If I'm wrong I'd love to hear why. > > > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 371 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!