Diluted C41 Tested

[David Lyga]

David - some of the Eastman "Shirley" models were male!

NEVER saw one. I always wondered why there was such prejudice against male models. In fact, when POP PHOTO used to do lens tests, why did they have to use a live model at all? I would much prefer using a test chart so that uniformity is guaranteed and the subject does not change one iota. This method presides over the 'need for men to see a pretty girl' because we are after lens tests not a hen's nest. Sex has its place, but not with lens tests. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

I expect the examples I saw were specific to the wedding photography market - both male groom and female bride. More for the dark suit and white dress I expect.
And as for human models in lens tests, once you get past resolution charts, how the lens "renders" becomes of interest. And we are particularly attuned to how images of people are rendered.

 

[David Lyga]

I expect the examples I saw were specific to the wedding photography market - both male groom and female bride. More for the dark suit and white dress I expect.
And as for human models in lens tests, once you get past resolution charts, how the lens "renders" becomes of interest. And we are particularly attuned to how images of people are rendered.

To me, 'rendered' is simply an excuse for Leica to sell its lenses which cost about 20x other lenses which are just as good. I know that there are those who consider this statement to be a heresy of sorts, but that is my opinion. - David Lyga

 

[Donald Qualls]

"I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley!" -- Lesley Neilsen

 

[pentaxuser]

To me, 'rendered' is simply an excuse for Leica to sell its lenses which cost about 20x other lenses which are just as good. I know that there are those who consider this statement to be a heresy of sorts, but that is my opinion. - David Lyga

Well there is the "Leica Glow" David and before you ask, let me say that if you cannot see it then there is no way I can explain it. You either "feel it" or you don't"

How's that for an answer? My own feeling is that the answer has about the same legitimacy and helpfulness as the wife's answer to the concerned husband when he asks her what's wrong and she replies indignantly : "Well if you don't know then I am certainly not going to tell you"

We Brits of a certain age were brought up on what we call "end of the pier" jokes

pentaxuser

 

[David Lyga]

Well there is the "Leica Glow" David and before you ask, let me say that if you cannot see it then there is no way I can explain it. You either "feel it" or you don't"

How's that for an answer? My own feeling is that the answer has about the same legitimacy and helpfulness as the wife's answer to the concerned husband when he asks her what's wrong and she replies indignantly : "Well if you don't know then I am certainly not going to tell you"

We Brits of a certain age were brought up on what we call "end of the pier" jokes

pentaxuser

I think that a very interesting test of this 'rendering' would be to place TEN photographs before a dozen die-hard Leica devotees, whereby only ONE of these photographs (straight prints, no manipulations) would have been taken with a Leica lens and printed with a Leica enlarging lens. The others would have been taken with various Japanese mass market lenses of differing brands and all printed with an El Nikkor enlarging lens. THEN we would know whether there is any substantive truth to this obsession or whether its main impetus was, maybe, a subliminal fabrication tethered to both wishful thinking and a latent desire to be 'right' (in order to justify the outrageous cost).

People who become obsessed with things oftentimes are quire innocent, in an absolute sense, but, nevertheless, are willful followers of a hyperbole legitimatized by a brand of latent elitism. - David Lyga

 

[pentaxuser]

Dear oh dear, David. I can see that your are getting fixated with some form of commonsense testing to establish the truth. You must ignore these instincts and then, either you will imbibe the "Leica Glow" or you will not. This talent is not given to everyone. Just be pleased that some have it and trust them when they say that your negatives will have the "Leica Glow". Those who cannot see it deserve sympathy. They are disadvantaged and may even need to be helped in other ways as well

They are "down on their luck" as you Americans say and we need to help make their impoverished lives as fulfilling as possible

pentaxuser

 

[David Lyga]

Dear oh dear, David. I can see that your are getting fixated with some form of commonsense testing to establish the truth. You must ignore these instincts and then, either you will imbibe the "Leica Glow" or you will not. This talent is not given to everyone. Just be pleased that some have it and trust them when they say that your negatives will have the "Leica Glow". Those who cannot see it deserve sympathy. They are disadvantaged and may even need to be helped in other ways as well

They are "down on their luck" as you Americans say and we need to help make their impoverished lives as fulfilling as possible

pentaxuser

pentaxuser, you are beginning to be more talented in the humour department than is Matt. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

pentaxuser, you are beginning to be more talented in the humour department than is Matt. - David Lyga

What!?!

I will say David, that while I'm not a disciple of the "Leica Glow" religion, different lenses can result in different looking (rendered) photographs, particularly when you expand your horizons outside of the 24mm x 36mm format.
I refer you back to that environmental portrait I posted earlier in another thread (I believe). Pay close attention to how the subject is modeled and three dimensional. Most of that is due to the lighting and choice of aperture and background, but the rendering of the lens - in particular the transition from in focus to out of focus - does play a role.
That was shot on 6x4.5 by the way.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

your negatives .. have the "Leica Glow".

Is this an indirect of saying that the film is underexposed for glow in the negative means dark areas in the positive?

 

[pentaxuser]

Is this an indirect of saying that the film is underexposed for glow in the negative means dark areas in the positive?

No this is saying with whimsy that I admit borders on sarcasm that while Matt may well be right about different lenses giving different looking photographs, the Leica Glow is meaningless at best and BS at worst

pentaxuser

 

[David Lyga]

No this is saying with whimsy that I admit borders on sarcasm that while Matt may well be right about different lenses giving different looking photographs, the Leica Glow is meaningless at best and BS at worst

pentaxuser

Again, I am not an optical professional, but take ten photos, one of which was taken and printed with Leica optics; the other nine taken with various mass market Japanese lenses and all nine printed with an El Nikkor lens. Then present all ten photos to Leica die-hards and let them all pick out the 'glow'. If they all or most succeed, maybe there really is something to this theory, But I have a feeling that the game will be won by the cheaper Japanese lenses which perform no worse than what Oskar Barnack had envisioned. - David Lyga