[Leica] Contrast WAS IMG: PAW 35 dlridings

[dlr at dlridings.se (Daniel Ridings)]

G Hopkinson wrote:
> Daniel, charming scenery. You haven't entirely sold me on the old Elmar, 
> except maybe the shot of the curtained window. Lovely
> subtle tones work well there. Do you prefer the softer contrast and 
> veiling for the atmosphere in the contre-jour bicycle shots? 
> Cheers
> Hoppy

Such philosophical questions you ask!

I never thought of it that way. I don't walk around with a lot of 
equipment so it is rarely the case that I use one lens over another 
because I "prefer" it. It is usually just what I have with me. I always 
have the Leica IIIf with me, no matter what. Even my wife notices if I 
get into the car and she doesn't see it. She'll make a remark that I've 
forgotten something.

I use the various stuff because I still have a childish fascination for 
things photography. Never really grew up :-)

But ... now I'll get philosophical ... I do prefer low contrast to high 
contrast. I can always add contrast, but it is hard to take away. I 
don't have a comparable shot from this week, but if you look in my shoebox:

http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/Shoebox/2007v35/07v35-0015.jpg.html

There's one of Ewa. It's not even a high contrast scene. But the 
background is almost gone to black.

That was a higher contrast rendering Nikkor (28mm AIS).

The most modern Leica lenses I have are from the 1970's, so I can't say 
much about them.

But it just dawned on me. I have a similar shot taken at the same time 
of the day on the same path:

http://www.dlridings.se/paw/2007/13.html

I wouldn't say that a modern (17-55 Nikkor) lens does so much better.

There are certain situations that are simply going to wipe out on you. 
Your choice is not in lenses, but whether or not you take the shot.

I take the shot.

Best,
Daniel