The King of Mood

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

I have a 2-3 years backlog of negatives to print. This past week I have contact printed 350 sheets from the past 3 years. I’m not bad, it used to be 5 years.

What’s beautiful about this process is that I get to have the necessary distance to view my photography with a very cold and critical eye. I also get to see which lenses draw in what manner. I simply let the images talk to me.

And while I dive into the huge pile of contacts to sort them out, there are only a few heart-stoppers. Like “oh wait, wow, this looks very good! What lens is this?”. That’s about 10%, the remaining 90% is characterless.

Yes, I use a lot of equipment and I like to shuffle through them all.

For example, out of all my Rolleiflexes, there are two that always jump out. Always. The 3.5F planar for its Meaty images. Yes, meaty like a bone with a lot of meat, full, rich. And the 3.5F Xenotar; subtle tones, poetic, magical.

2.8E planar? 2.5e2 xenotar?Tele-Rollei? Xenars? Mamiya C? All good but They’re no show-stoppers.

For 35mm film, too. I swoosh through all the sheets without knowing which is which and they basically all look the same. Ok, the noctilux jumps out. The Canon 50mm f0.95 doesnt. The 35mm lux asph is cold, cron 35 asph is irreproachable but lifeless... so on. I won’t enumerate all my equipment but it’s all the top stuff and they’re not necessarily loud image makers. Yes, the 50 summicron apo is limpid and it shows throughout, but nothing to stop me from going to the next sheet.

But then there’s one lens that always makes me stop, even more than the Rolleiflex 3.5Fs. It’s like a punch in the face every time. An added Character, an extra mood, almost a scent. And when I look to see which lens made me stop, it’s always the same. The one and only: summaron 28mm f5.6.

Simply: it takes a normal image and gives it a mood. I can almost hear the images talk.

Do you need a character to your images? An added bonus that you thought bokeh would give you, but never does, actually? Apo and Asph don’t translate to better images and you feel you got caught up in the marketing scheme?

The Summaron-M 28mm: the King of Mood.

Huss · Mar 26, 2021

7 Artisans 50 1.1 for Leica M.
Wtulens 17mm f16 LTM mount.
Lomo Petzval lenses

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

Huss said:
7 Artisans 50 1.1 for Leica M.
Wtulens 17mm f16 LTM mount.
Lomo Petzval lenses

Nah.

Summaron 28mm it is. The oozing character is unmistakable.

Sure, petzval lenses but hardly good for regular use, are they? “Definitely King of Bokeh” for sure, though!

By the way regarding the 7 artisans 50 f1.1, what’s special about it? There’s a few contact sheets of this lens burried somewhere in my newest 350 contact sheets stack and I can assure you that my eye did’t stop at those. But it always does for the summaron. It’s like turning pages of a black and white photo book and stumbling on a few pages with color photographs, the summaron ooozes character.

Of course, I am not looking for an argument, I am merely sharing my experience.

Huss · Mar 26, 2021

The 7A @ 1.1 on film is so ethereal looking, and the nutty thing is that it disappears and totally sharpens up by f2. Even 1.4 is much different.
Wtulens - nothing like it if you want mood on a blazing sunny day in direct light.
Petzval? Sure not exactly quick/convenient to use.

Your Summaron? The Orion 15 28mm f6 goes toe to toe.

warden · Mar 26, 2021

NB23 said:
I have a 2-3 years backlog of negatives to print. This past week I have contact printed 350 sheets from the past 3 years. I’m not bad, it used to be 5 years.

What’s beautiful about this process is that I get to have the necessary distance to view my photography with a very cold and critical eye. I also get to see which lenses draw in what manner. I simply let the images talk to me.

And while I dive into the huge pile of contacts to sort them out, there are only a few heart-stoppers. Like “oh wait, wow, this looks very good! What lens is this?”. That’s about 10%, the remaining 90% is characterless.

Yes, I use a lot of equipment and I like to shuffle through them all.

For example, out of all my Rolleiflexes, there are two that always jump out. Always. The 3.5F planar for its Meaty images. Yes, meaty like a bone with a lot of meat, full, rich. And the 3.5F Xenotar; subtle tones, poetic, magical.

2.8E planar? 2.5e2 xenotar?Tele-Rollei? Xenars? Mamiya C? All good but They’re no show-stoppers.

For 35mm film, too. I swoosh through all the sheets without knowing which is which and they basically all look the same. Ok, the noctilux jumps out. The Canon 50mm f0.95 doesnt. The 35mm lux asph is cold, cron 35 asph is irreproachable but lifeless... so on. I won’t enumerate all my equipment but it’s all the top stuff and they’re not necessarily loud image makers. Yes, the 50 summicron apo is limpid and it shows throughout, but nothing to stop me from going to the next sheet.

But then there’s one lens that always makes me stop, even more than the Rolleiflex 3.5Fs. It’s like a punch in the face every time. An added Character, an extra mood, almost a scent. And when I look to see which lens made me stop, it’s always the same. The one and only: summaron 28mm f5.6.

Simply: it takes a normal image and gives it a mood. I can almost hear the images talk.

Do you need a character to your images? An added bonus that you thought bokeh would give you, but never does, actually? Apo and Asph don’t translate to better images and you feel you got caught up in the marketing scheme?

The Summaron-M 28mm: the King of Mood.

That was a fun read, thank you.

I don't think I have a real standout lens but one I can certainly recognize for an attractive signature is my Zeiss ZM 50mm Sonnar. It suits me.

cjbecker · Mar 26, 2021

NB23 said:
I have a 2-3 years backlog of negatives to print. This past week I have contact printed 350 sheets from the past 3 years. I’m not bad, it used to be 5 years.

What’s beautiful about this process is that I get to have the necessary distance to view my photography with a very cold and critical eye. I also get to see which lenses draw in what manner. I simply let the images talk to me.

And while I dive into the huge pile of contacts to sort them out, there are only a few heart-stoppers. Like “oh wait, wow, this looks very good! What lens is this?”. That’s about 10%, the remaining 90% is characterless.

Yes, I use a lot of equipment and I like to shuffle through them all.

For example, out of all my Rolleiflexes, there are two that always jump out. Always. The 3.5F planar for its Meaty images. Yes, meaty like a bone with a lot of meat, full, rich. And the 3.5F Xenotar; subtle tones, poetic, magical.

2.8E planar? 2.5e2 xenotar?Tele-Rollei? Xenars? Mamiya C? All good but They’re no show-stoppers.

For 35mm film, too. I swoosh through all the sheets without knowing which is which and they basically all look the same. Ok, the noctilux jumps out. The Canon 50mm f0.95 doesnt. The 35mm lux asph is cold, cron 35 asph is irreproachable but lifeless... so on. I won’t enumerate all my equipment but it’s all the top stuff and they’re not necessarily loud image makers. Yes, the 50 summicron apo is limpid and it shows throughout, but nothing to stop me from going to the next sheet.

But then there’s one lens that always makes me stop, even more than the Rolleiflex 3.5Fs. It’s like a punch in the face every time. An added Character, an extra mood, almost a scent. And when I look to see which lens made me stop, it’s always the same. The one and only: summaron 28mm f5.6.

Simply: it takes a normal image and gives it a mood. I can almost hear the images talk.

Do you need a character to your images? An added bonus that you thought bokeh would give you, but never does, actually? Apo and Asph don’t translate to better images and you feel you got caught up in the marketing scheme?

The Summaron-M 28mm: the King of Mood.

Good read, ya got some work ahead of ya.

ic-racer · Mar 26, 2021

When I'm looking at negatives, I can't really tell which camera or lens was used, unless I can identify irregularities in the frame opening.

awty · Mar 26, 2021

The Holga 120N optical lens is all character.

Down Under · Mar 26, 2021

Playing with cameras and lenses is not what I seek in my photography.

Which camera and lens I used at the time of shooting the original image means little to me. What I want from the image is everything and that is what I set out to do.

I stopped making contact sheets in 2004 when I bought my first large-screen PC and good scanning and post processing systems. to me, using up enlarging paper for tiny images is useless. I prefer looking at my images on a big screen, not squinting at postage stamp photos with a magnifying glass.

For me, post processing is where it all begins to shine.

I have spent years perfecting my 'PP' techniques to produce the glowing colors of 1950s-1960s Kodachrome and Ektachrome.

I shoot with Nikkors, Zeiss, Voigtlander and Rodenstock lenses. My B&W films are developed to suit the look I envisioned during the shoot. Australian light is harsh, and it takes a lot of fine-tuning in development to tone down the strong highlights without blocking the shadows. But it is doable.

We all have our own personal ways of doing things. I am not saying my way is the best or even better than yours - it's just how I do it.

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

awty said:
The Holga 120N optical lens is all character.

Not really. The best description would be “muddy”, although “muddy” also describes lenses with no coating

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

I didn’t use to write notes on my negative sleeves and it was a mistake because while printing, I used to Love some images and dislike others. There is a particular set of images that I would love to remember which lens shot them. I suspect it’s the Nikkor-S 5cm f1.1 which I sold.

I also Discovered, throughout an earlier batch of about 300 Negatives, that FP4 is absolutely fantastic. That’s really too bad because 5 years later, and many different films later, I realize that I should have stuck with FP4 instead of having switched to TMX for the subsequent years. Same for a few lenses...

ozmoose said:
Playing with cameras and lenses is not what I seek in my photography.

Which camera and lens I used at the time of shooting the original image means little to me. What I want from the image is everything and that is what I set out to do.

I stopped making contact sheets in 2004 when I bought my first large-screen PC and good scanning and post processing systems. to me, using up enlarging paper for tiny images is useless. I prefer looking at my images on a big screen, not squinting at postage stamp photos with a magnifying glass.

For me, post processing is where it all begins to shine.

I have spent years perfecting my 'PP' techniques to produce the glowing colors of 1950s-1960s Kodachrome and Ektachrome.

I shoot with Nikkors, Zeiss, Voigtlander and Rodenstock lenses. My B&W films are developed to suit the look I envisioned during the shoot. Australian light is harsh, and it takes a lot of fine-tuning in development to tone down the strong highlights without blocking the shadows. But it is doable.

We all have our own personal ways of doing things. I am not saying my way is the best or even better than yours - it's just how I do it.

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

Notes on the negative sleeves: camera, lens, developer, date...

ic-racer said:
When I'm looking at negatives, I can't really tell which camera or lens was used, unless I can identify irregularities in the frame opening.

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

Huss said:
The 7A @ 1.1 on film is so ethereal looking, and the nutty thing is that it disappears and totally sharpens up by f2. Even 1.4 is much different.
Wtulens - nothing like it if you want mood on a blazing sunny day in direct light.
Petzval? Sure not exactly quick/convenient to use.

Your Summaron? The Orion 15 28mm f6 goes toe to toe.

Please don’t get me wrong: the Summaron is not a noveltyblens, it is exceptionally sharp and just a great image maker. I have printed many 20”x24” from it and they all have the WOW factor that I wasn’t expecting. I personally could use it as a Landscape lens. Yes, I love vignetting/falloff.

i’m interested in the Orion and the hektor 28 f6.3, but I like the summaron 28 so much that I asked my wife to throw it in my grave when I die (with a few of my rolleiflexes, and a pastrami Brick).

To be honest, I wasn’t expecting this from the summaron. I was only expecting fun handling... not smashingly fine images.

gone · Mar 26, 2021

For painters, turning your finished painting against a wall and not looking at it again for a year is a time honored tradition. As you mentioned, you get to see it w/ new eyes that way. That's not my style of photography or painting though, so what works for me is to tape prints all over the wall and see what they look like when viewed against each other. It's always a surprising experience.

awty · Mar 26, 2021

NB23 said:
Not really. The best description would be “muddy”, although “muddy” also describes lenses with no coating

Thats mood, your confusing the two. Sharpness only concerns photographers.

Hard to beat fp4@80 iso in ilfosal 3 for character..

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

awty said:
Thats mood, your confusing the two. Sharpness only concerns photographers.

Hard to beat fp4@80 iso in ilfosal 3 for character..

I choose my ikoflex with Novar T over my rolleiflexes on many occasions because I love that particular Novar T, but no, a Holga is not among any of this.

I threw mine in the garbage...

Pioneer · Mar 26, 2021

I love my old, uncoated Leitz Elmar 50 f3.5.

I adore my Pentax M 50 f/2.

My Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex's 75mm f3.5 Zeiss Opton Tessar makes me happy.

(Is anyone seeing a trend here?)

Simple lenses for simple folk.

They all draw very nicely to my eye.

But lately my favorite lens has been my Carl Zeiss ZM 50mm f2 Planar. I have learned it is a very sharp lens when stopped down but it can also be moody and gentle when wide open. The ZM 50mm f1.5 seems to get all the press but the Planar is a better walk around lens in my humble opinion.

I rarely say never, but I don't think I will sell any of these lenses real soon.

There is no doubt that lens choice is important, but what really catches my eye in my pictures when I do it right is the light. That is what excites me. It could have been captured by the lowly meniscus lens on my Kodak Brownie for all I care. If the light is right the picture becomes memorable.

The light is what I like.

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

jawarden said:
That was a fun read, thank you.

I don't think I have a real standout lens but one I can certainly recognize for an attractive signature is my Zeiss ZM 50mm Sonnar. It suits me.

Yes indeed, the Sonnar. I own a supposedly rare one “sonnar west germany Ltm”. Wobbly and all but definite character.

NB23 · Mar 26, 2021

cjbecker said:
Good read, ya got some work ahead of ya.

Yes! And I love every minute of the time in my Darkroom, spent alone with myself away from the world.

NB23 · Mar 27, 2021

I never change lenses while shooting so one negative is always from one single camera/lens combo. And I write notes on the printfile negative holder header.

The notes are:
Date
Subject/Theme/Project
Camera
Lens
Film
Developer with dilution, and temp.

Old Gregg said:
How do you know which lens was used when looking at a negative? I am struggle (but succeed) at keeping notes for medium format rolls, but completely fail with the 35mm format, especially if a lens was swapped mid-roll.

On the other hand... do I really care? I do not notice any difference between lenses, any lenses. Never, not once, noticed any "dramatic" difference between two lenses of the same focal length + same aperture. Maybe minor variations in how OOF areas are blurred, but never found that difference interesting/tangible.

Pioneer · Mar 27, 2021

Old Gregg said:
Isn't that true for like... 100% of all lenses out there?

You're right Old Gregg. All lenses are pretty much the same.

Patrick Robert James · Mar 27, 2021

I can see the differences between the various lenses I use. A Canon LTM 50 1.4 is different from a Pentax-M 50 1.4 is different from a CZ prewar Sonnar is different from a Contax Zeiss 50mm Planar.

I don't really have a "favorite" lens since it changes all the time. I'm mostly using the Canon 50 1.4 on rangefinders right now. I might go back to my converted Pentax or the prewar Sonnar. I am mostly a 50 guy these days.

I know what Ned is getting at though. Some lenses just "work" when you see the images, and that is different for every person.

DonW · Mar 27, 2021

My Rollei 3.5 tessar does it for me

Nicholas Lindan · Mar 27, 2021

I don't think it is the lens or camera that makes the image (except in the rudest mechanical sense). NB23's work in the "Post your street photography here" thread would be just as great if it were made with a $5 junk store Argus.

Maybe what influences our work is the way we feel about the camera and the lens we are using. I know when I feel good about the tools I am using that I do better work.

The King of Mood

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency