A Question about the First Leicas

[T42]

Hello Noel and Mark

Those are very salient observations.

I also think of that image from Normandy of Robert Capa's often when this subject of "resolution requirements" comes to mind. I certainly agree with the premise that the strength of the message trumps all else. And that 0.3 Mpxl image from the moon certainly is valuable beyond measure.

However, that 35mm image of Capa's pales technically when compared with the bulk of 35mm images appearing in LIFE in that time.

Why? Megapixels, resolution, or tonal range? I don't think so . . . which is why I honestly believe your question, while informed by the technical orientation of our day, misses the larger perceptual and cognitive issues that are at the heart of human perception of images.

Well, if I gave that impression, it's because I am having difficulty explaining what I want to know. Expressed in current technology terms, what is the minimum performance requirement needed to provide the majority of 35mm images appearing in LOOK, LIFE, or National Geographic in the mid 1930s?

About a year ago, I went into a portrait studio in a shopping mall near to where I live. It was a quiet time, and I asked the manager if I could see the setup being used. There were the backdrops, umbrellas, props, and other gear one might expect. I noticed a Nikon digital body on a tripod. I asked about it and was told that it was a D2H. Most of their work was being done with 4.1 Mpxls. None of the work I saw there looked pixellated or otherwise objectionable. However, I don't know what they may have done after shooting with post processing.

The answer I have been seeking seems as illusive as ever. So far, I would guess that the requirement to approximate those images from the early 30's is only several megapixels, plus an imagemaker who really knows what he is doing in terms of light, moment, and message.

 

[blockend]

The early Elmar might not fare so well, but could make fine images. That's really the most important consideration.

Absolutely. I'd suggest many 35mm photographers are not looking for the last word in optical resolution but something else, a hard to define character that some lenses have in abundance.

There's a lot talked about the Leica look and the Nikon look but having studied photographs printed in the period they were taken, I'd suggest the films and papers of their era were equally as important in creating popular conceptions of quality. Some early Leica images are no great shakes in terms of resolution but have good tonal separation, especially when printed on the matt fibrous photographic papers of that era.

As papers became glossier and more able to stretch the tonal range the demands of lenses differed and very sharp, very flat image rendition came into vogue. Old camera and enlarging lenses can offer some compelling results.

 

[Karl K]

I read an article by Erwin Puts which stated, in so many words, that a current 50mm Summicron stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 on the M7, when used with an extremely fine-grained microfilm, can produce negatives which are roughly equivalent to what a 39MP sensor can render. I tried to locate the article, but it was published a year or two ago, and I can't find it.
However, if we assume (dangerous word) that an old 50mm f/3.5 uncoated Elmar has half the resolving power of a modern Summicron, then 20 MP is possible with microfilm. Of course, nobody really shoots microfilm, so Puts' experiment is really not relevant to everyday photography.

 

[Galah]

One more example where I believe context and viewer perceptions trumps pixels and resolution...The "net information" content of the attached frame is probably no more than a 1/3 to 1/2 a mega-pixel. The tonal range is compressed and the contrast is low. Yet this image endures as one of the most powerful of its time. . . which is why I honestly believe your question, while informed by the technical orientation of our day, misses the larger perceptual and cognitive issues that are at the heart of human perception of images.

So, really, all we really need is a tin with a pin-hole and some photo-sensitive paper: the rest is just plain posing?

Thank goodness, now I can relax with the gear I already have and get on with making pictures!

 

[georg16nik]

.... Of course, nobody really shoots microfilm, so Puts' experiment is really not relevant to everyday photography.

As a matter of fact I do use microfilm for everyday photography and I use mainly Leica I, II, IIIc and russian rf's. You can check my gallery, if curious.

 

[T42]

As a matter of fact I do use microfilm for everyday photography and I use mainly Leica I, II, IIIc and russian rf's. You can check my gallery, if curious.

Hi Georg.

That's really neat stuff you do with your RF's. Thanks for sharing the images. Which Russian RF's you use? Zorki? FED? Kiev? What would be your first choice for a Soviet era RF if you had no camera and wanted to buy an FSU RF today?

 

[georg16nik]

Thanks Henry,
Along the Leicas, I use some FED NKVD's from 1939 and one Zorki Ic (1952).
If I had no camera and wanted to buy an FSU RF, then I would go for any FED I (up to If) - Its the closest to the original Leica II and most of the time well made camera.
Any camera from that vintage might need some CLA and patience but once its all set - You will love it
Some shots from my gallery were taken with FED NKVD with its original, matched uncoated 50mm f/3,5 lens.
In the USA, http://fedka.com/catalog/ looks like the best place to go for those beauties.
There might be some other reliable sources for those cameras as well..