Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] PAW 35, Street by Night
From: richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard)
Date: Tue Aug 30 02:09:04 2005
References: <6.1.0.6.2.20050830004718.05c48e28@192.168.100.42> <BF39EAC8.51B8%philippe.orlent@pandora.be>

At 01:51 AM 8/30/2005, Philippe Orlent wrote:

>Is this a testshot, Richard?
>
>If not, I think it needs something happening in the foreground to make it
>more interesting. One person walking towards you  in medium to close medium
>could have done the trick. (at about the golden section, smallest rectangle
>on the right)
>
>If it is a testshot, it is an interesting shot for analysis:

Hi Philippe, everything I do is a testshot :-). Actually, it's a 37th frame 
shot. I know I have one shot left and there it goes... I wish I have the 
talent of GB etc. What I really like about this picture though is the 
details and the tone and the lights... May be it's old news to you old 
timer B&W shooters, but to me it's new all over again.

I agree it needs a stronger focus in the foreground. I try to make hay with 
timing the walker and the car lights. The scene seems to me harmonizes 
reasonably well...

>A  bit of lens flare (right below corner). Was it shot with or withoout
>hood?

With the built in hood but there are couple lights right in front and on 
top of it, including the car's head lights of course. Since it's the 37th 
frame, I said, what the heck, lets see how it performs with the bright 
lights everywhere.


>If you shot this one at full aperture, the 'Lux is indeed incredibly sharp
>all over. Did you put it on hyperfocal?
>Even then, sharpness at that aperture would only start at about 59m/200ft.
>So the foreground would suffer from lens blur.

I focused around the middle of the cross walk, I think.

>1/15th seems a bit low, too, since there is no motion blur.
>I did a comparable shot last winter, and if I remember correctly, I shot it
>at 1/15th or 1/8th at f.2 (Summicron 50) on a 200 ASA film.
>So that would be 1/30th or 1/15th on a 400 ASA film.


Well, this is about 10PM with usual lighting from the streets and cars. 
Taken Saturday night so not too much of a moon light. ASA400 for sure. I 
know I have set the shutter as reasonably low as I dare, which is usually 
1/15 or 1/30. I haven't tried 1/8 much.

>Transposed to one more stop open, would lead to 1/60th or 1/30th with the
>Summilux. And 1/60 could indeed exclude most of the motion blur.

But can the 1.4 aperture gives that much depth of field?

>Which still not includes the non existing lens blur in the foreground.
>So hyperfocal is out of the question.
>So you focus probably was put on the middle of the street, between
>foreground and background.

Yup!

>Still very sharp, though (looking at this jpeg). I was surprised myself to
>see the results of my comparable shot: also pretty sharp all over.
>
>Is this due to low light conditions? Does sharpness extend when there's less
>light? Does anyone know this?

Hmmm..... interesting question! Thanks for the analysis!


// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 


In reply to: Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] PAW 35, Street by Night)
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] PAW 35, Street by Night)