Uncoated lens and BW film development

[Dali]

Hi there,

For those who use uncoated and coated lenses, do you develop your films the same way whatever lens you use or do you adjust your process when you use an uncoated lens (assuming that your standard lab process is for a coated lens)?

Too, do you expose your film the same way (= same ISO) regardless the lens you use?

Thanks for your input.

 

[BrianShaw]

yes... same way.

 

[R.Gould]

Yes same exposure and development, makes no difference

 

[Jim Noel]

It can make a difference because of the light bouncing around between the uncoated elements.
I expose a little, maybe 1/6 stop, less and develop a little more, about 10%, with the old lenses, of which I have a good many. Development is usually by inspection so I don't always record times.

 

[pgomena]

I use the same exposure and development as for pictures with modern lenses. There is more flare in highlights and bright areas, but I just accept it as characteristic of the lens I used (old RR or anastigmat.) It does lend a bit of a different look, which is the point, after all. I don't see so much flare bleeding into the shadows that I adjust for it.

Peter Gomena

 

[Jeff Searust]

I expose a little, maybe 1/6 stop, less and develop a little more

Good Lord.... a sixth of a stop... I cannot even fathom a sixth of a stop shooting. I figure any entire image will encompass seven or eight stops from white to black so that would be something on the order of 1/40 or 1/50 of the total of an image--- we are getting into differences so miniscule I doubt if the average eye can tell the difference.

 

[Ian Grant]

Modern films and uncoated lenses together with modern papers (or scans) need no different exposure.

However in the past with older thick emulsion films it was quite different. Pre the early 1960's films speeds were half todays speeds for the same emulsion, dev times were much longer but the papers of the day had characteristics that matched the negatives. This along with uncoated lenses gave that old fashioned feel.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I notice a higher film speed with older lenses. Probably due to flare. If I shoot with my Voigtlander Nokton on the Leica, or my Hasselblad, I shoot Tri-X at 200. When I use the Summitar on the Leica, I get a full EI 400 out of Tri-X and in my prints I get a similar amount of shadow detail this way. I'm not sure that this is scientifically correct, but it sure helps for consistency from print to print.

Naturally I also develop the Summitar negatives longer, due to lower contrast overall and to compensate for the exposure.

- Thomas

 

[cliveh]

No change, or it negates the reason for using an uncoated lens in the first place.

 

[albada]

I notice a higher film speed with older lenses. Probably due to flare. If I shoot with my Voigtlander Nokton on the Leica, or my Hasselblad, I shoot Tri-X at 200. When I use the Summitar on the Leica, I get a full EI 400 out of Tri-X and in my prints I get a similar amount of shadow detail this way. I'm not sure that this is scientifically correct, but it sure helps for consistency from print to print.

Naturally I also develop the Summitar negatives longer, due to lower contrast overall and to compensate for the exposure.
- Thomas

Thomas, I suspect that the flare from the uncoated lens has the effect of pre-flashing your film. The extra light biases the shadow-exposure upwards a little, lifting the shadows out of the toe, which in effect boosts speed.

Mark Overton

 

[Ian Grant]

Thomas, I suspect that the flare from the uncoated lens has the effect of pre-flashing your film. The extra light biases the shadow-exposure upwards a little, lifting the shadows out of the toe, which in effect boosts speed.

Mark Overton

My experience is that some lenses 1930's/40's age badly they used newer optical glasses which suffers from aging. It affects mainly Zeiss and Leitz optics and only a few fast designs. So f2 Summars, f3.5 Tessars, Novars in my case but it's a wide spread issue.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

no adjustment! a typical exposure and development process has more variation than the difference in lens coating accounts for. Therefore,there is nothing that warrants an adjustment, because, it would be like chasing wind mills!

 

[Dali]

I notice a higher film speed with older lenses. Probably due to flare. If I shoot with my Voigtlander Nokton on the Leica, or my Hasselblad, I shoot Tri-X at 200. When I use the Summitar on the Leica, I get a full EI 400 out of Tri-X and in my prints I get a similar amount of shadow detail this way. I'm not sure that this is scientifically correct, but it sure helps for consistency from print to print.

Naturally I also develop the Summitar negatives longer, due to lower contrast overall and to compensate for the exposure.

- Thomas

This is what I suspected looking at my negatives... Shadows are not deep as they should and the contrast is not so dynamic. So increasing slightly the IE and developing a little longer would make sense.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Never understood the deal with buying the newer lenses that were uncoated. Aren't most contrast filters coated anyway?

 

[Harold33]

no adjustment! a typical exposure and development process has more variation than the difference in lens coating accounts for (...)

In addition, I think it's more a matter of contrast than a matter of coating: the contrast of two recent multi-coated lenses by the same manufacturer such as Zeiss Sonnar 1.5 and Planar f/2 may be quite different. Also the contrast of old uncoated lenses such as Hektor and Elmar.

As a matter of fact, I wonder if the differences of contrast are only differences of contrast: with my low-contrast uncoated Summar of 1935 there is an obvious additionnal exposure in the shadows compared to my Summicron of 1982 (internal diffraction, I guess). As a result, there is something like a 1/3-1/2 stop increase in speed with the Summar. Sometimes (not always), I see the same difference between my "old" Nikkkor 1.4/58mm (single-coated) of 1959 and the recent and very contrasty Nikkor 1.8/50mm. It's not a real speed increase because there is no additionnal exposure in flat overcast light, but it can make a real difference when I use alernatively old and recent lenses on the same film.

 

[ic-racer]

If you are using a lens with a lot of flare and don't increase your film development time or print on a harder contrast paper, you will have dark-gray blacks and light-gray whites. However, maybe that is what you want.

 

[pierods]

It can make a difference because of the light bouncing around between the uncoated elements.
I expose a little, maybe 1/6 stop, less and develop a little more, about 10%, with the old lenses, of which I have a good many. Development is usually by inspection so I don't always record times.

I also do 1/6 th of a stop less. Unfortunately, my exposure time must then be of 1 day, so that I can dial in 1/6th of a stop on my camera....

 

[RalphLambrecht]

in addition, more contrst is a subjective preference, because, it increases apparent sharpness.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you are using a lens with a lot of flare and don't increase your film development time or print on a harder contrast paper, you will have dark-gray blacks and light-gray whites. However, maybe that is what you want.

That's my experience too. Just judging visually from my prints.