Garry Winogrand's M4...

BAC1967 said:

Humidity with film in it is also a possibility.

Click to expand...

+1

Ko.Fe. said:

Here is another one. Looks like crappy wide lens, wide open with filter attached.
http://ccp-emuseum.catnet.arizona.e...ate:flow=053392fe-80b7-47f4-9f80-fed24acda677

Click to expand...

I hadn't come across that shot before, but it's very good. It treads a fine line between the mundane and the weird I respond to. The vignetting adds to the sense of impending threat.
On the subject of vignetting, Atget used cameras that were antiques and had been abandoned by almost everyone, and he deliberately vignetted in camera to draw the eye to subjects he wanted the viewer to consider.

blockend said:

I hadn't come across that shot before, but it's very good. It treads a fine line between the mundane and the weird I respond to. The vignetting adds to the sense of impending threat.
On the subject of vignetting, Atget used cameras that were antiques and had been abandoned by almost everyone, and he deliberately vignetted in camera to draw the eye to subjects he wanted the viewer to consider.

Click to expand...

My street photography after taking pictures of streets with DSLR for years started with film Olympus XA camera. But I wasn't here yet with it because I only scanned. I joined Russian rangefinder forum where they have good Gallery with cameras in pictures parameters and link to camera user reviews. Almost every XA street or else shot I have posted in their Gallery was with added in PP vignetting. I was adding it, because I liked it a lot
Couple of years later one forum member asked which camera for the street. I suggested XA, the answer was - "I looked at your XA pictures in the gallery, but didn't liked XA lens, it has heavy vignetting."

Ko.Fe. said:

Almost every XA street or else shot I have posted in their Gallery was with added in PP vignetting. I was adding it, because I liked it a lot
Couple of years later one forum member asked which camera for the street. I suggested XA, the answer was - "I looked at your XA pictures in the gallery, but didn't liked XA lens, it has heavy vignetting."

Click to expand...

I got comments about distortion of elmar 5cm f3,5. Actually it is the cheap 20€ scanner that adds the distortion (negative is not flat in the holder).

darkosaric said:

I got comments about distortion of elmar 5cm f3,5. Actually it is the cheap 20€ scanner that adds the distortion (negative is not flat in the holder).

Click to expand...

That's why it is impossible to judge a lens from an internet scan of a negative. Too many variables of focus and distortion, contrast and density.

Xmas said:

You cannot judge lens performance looking at a published print, with no provenance.
Yes all lenses vignette to a degree more or less.
The Canon 28mm /2.8 is pretty good with a low profile canon filter, even on E6.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about judging a lenses performance...read my post again. I said when I see an "image, I try to imagine
the negative and the circumstances".

Ko.Fe. said:

Here is another one. Looks like crappy wide lens, wide open with filter attached.
http://ccp-emuseum.catnet.arizona.e...ate:flow=053392fe-80b7-47f4-9f80-fed24acda677

Click to expand...

I have to give him credit for making a photo that will cause the viewer to be forever perplexed. Why are some looking up and others looking forward. What are they looking at? Why is there a puff of smoke in the background? It looks like a botched snapshot, but it is very clever and shows vision.

Theo Sulphate said:

I have to give him credit for making a photo that will cause the viewer to be forever perplexed. Why are some looking up and others looking forward. What are they looking at? Why is there a puff of smoke in the background. It looks like a botched snapshot, but it is very clever and shows vision.

Click to expand...

I just finished today my first round of studying of his photography via on-line archive. I provided this example not to talk about his photography, but to the thread about his camera.