[Leica] Retro Blast... IIIA and a Summar

[bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)]

I'm not Ted, and I don't play Ted on t.v. - But good God, is this really a
serious question..."assume that the flat contrast is from the lens
alone...do you think a lens like this is more detrimental than adding to"
the photos? No, of course not, not unless you actually like flat, washed
out, gray images. There's a reason that Leica no longer makes the same
lenses it made in the 1930s! :-)


On 11/30/05 4:40 PM, "Richard" <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> wrote:

> At 09:48 AM 11/30/2005, Ted Grant wrote:
> 
>> Richard answered this question:
>>> The expressions are nice - but do we blame the gray pallor, the lack of
>>> contrast, the overall flatness, on the lens, the processing, or...;-0<<<
>> 
>> Richard said:
>>> The general grayness is.... NorCal in November. The lens definitely
>>> contributes to the lack of contrast and flatness. It is after all an
>>> ancient Summar at F2/2.8!! The film and the processing may have something
>>> to do with it too since a) the seller threw in 5 rolls of "expired" film.
>>> Since the package doesn't say when it expires, it may be really old film
>>> indeed, and b) this is the first time I have used DDX on TMAX-100.<<<
> 
> So Ted, here's a question: lets assume that the flat contrast is from the
> lens alone (which I will not be surprise about) and lets say the pictures
> themselves have some merits (e.g. nice expressions), do you think using a
> lens like this is more detrimental than adding to it? I mean, the pictures
> have certain characters because of the lens (e.g. certain soft portrait
> look?) but in your opinions, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
> use richard at imagecraft.com)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information