[Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 10:48 PM -0400 10/27/06, Walt Johnson wrote:
>I've always labored under the assumption slower, thin emulsion films 
>have steeper curves and consequently are higher contrast. I wished 
>it were possible to find some Tri-X circa 1970 because these newer 
>films really seem to lack depth. They  are certainly sharp as hell 
>and grainless but also toneless  compared to what once was. I picked 
>up a collapsible a few years back with the usual haze that can be 
>hard to see. Leitz redid it for me and image wise it compares with 
>my late model Summicron.
>I sure can;t help but feel the look we all knew and loved related to 
>film and developer rather than lens characteristics.
>
>Walt

To a certain extent, I agree. My main B&W films for the last couple 
of years have been Delta 100 and HP5+; the former I shoot at 200 and 
the latter at  640, using the same metering that causes me to rate 
Tri-X at 400. Both are souped in Xtol 1:3, with my usual development 
of minimal stock solution and less and less agitation at the end, to 
allow the extended shadow development that gives me my extra (real) 
speed and keeps the acutance high.

Until I started treating Delta 100 in this way I always found it to 
be lacking in both a proper shoulder and toe; it was all a 'straight 
line curve'. Blocked highlights and no detail in the shadows. It 
still doesn't come close to the tonal range I was able to get from 
FP4, but I had to shoot that at 64 and it had way larger grain. I 
might as well shoot Tri-X and put it in D-76.

To get a proper 'old lens' look, you need to shoot with a box camera, 
or at least minimally coated lens on 6x9 Verichrome pan. You can't 
get a longer or more forgiving tonal range! When I hear people 
talking of never having taken a bad shot with a camera from the 50's, 
I know they were shooting VP. When that film went, a lot of values, 
both tonal and otherwise, went with it.

To you first point; yes, slower, thinner emulsions have steeper 
curves and especially less shoulder and toe space. The latter two 
characteristics are the results of a variety of grain sizes, which 
faster, thicker, non-tabular film have. Tabular films get a good deal 
of their finer grain/sharper appearance from having a thin emulsion 
with very controlled grain sizes, but that makes it difficult to 
avoid blown highlights and inky shadows. VP had a very thick 
emulsion, with every grain size imaginable. It was a quite grainy 
film for 125 ASA, but wow! the tones.

Old lenses had less contrast (in general) due to a whole variety of 
factors, including coatings. This would cause light scatter into the 
shadow areas, 'pre-flashing', or rather flashing-on-the-spot and 
giving the shadows more detail. Highlights still had to fend for 
themselves, and depended on film forgiveness.

>Alastair Firkin wrote:
>
>>Ah, at last I can offer an opinion ;-) I have the collapsible 
>>Summicron on my M3. It is a lens I choose above others when I want 
>>a  slightly 1960's feel to the result: using this lens with Plus  X 
>>like  film makes images I recognise, gives a feeling that is 
>>different to  the more modern glass: I suppose its "softness" and 
>>would suffer in  lens tests, but it would have been perfect for 
>>your "grab" shot the  other day of the two people kissing.
>>
>>Others will prefer Tri X, but I never liked Tri X. Being a contrary 
>>bastard, I really disliked the high contrast grainy images my peers 
>>were making in the 1970's and therefore always bought Plus X Pan 
>>---  I use mainly APX 100 for the similar feeling now.


-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com