Uncoated vs modern Leica lenses

[Jonathan R]

Would someone with appropriate technical knowledge please help clear up some Leica mythology that has been puzzling me?

James Ravilious famously preferred old uncoated Elmar and Hektar lenses because more modern coated Leica lenses had a 'biting contrast which I find alien to what I see'. In the foreword to 'An English Eye', Alan Bennett states that "the combination of older, uncoated Leitz optics, a light yellow filter, and compensating development provides a very long tonal range in the negative, and a slightly soft feel to the resolution of the image, which seems to fit the conditions in which Ravilious loves to work". As Ravilious was struggling for technical solutions during his career, it would be no surprise to learn that this was self-delusion; but is it?

My understanding of lenses is that because of internal scatter and flare, uncoated optics put stray light where it shouldn't be: i.e. into the shadows and mid-tones. Given identical film development, this presumably results in a less contrasty negative, but nothing that couldn't have been accommodated by adjusting development. I also assume that this stray light reduces shadow detail. Whether this makes the shadows more or less 'luminous' (which I have seen claimed elsewhere) depends - I guess - on what we mean by luminous. In my experience, modern Leica lenses produce shadows that can be printed down without losing life-giving textural detail.

What I find particularly hard to understand is the 'very long tonal range' ascribed to Ravilious' negatives. It's not as if one actually wants a long tonal range in a negative, and much of Ravilious' procedure seems designed to achieve the opposite. Surely the compensating developer would have limited expansion of negative density in the highlights, while the uncoated lenses would have limited the resolution of tones in the shadows? Would the effect of the yellow filter in deepening shadows have been to make shadows less textured; or by cutting down on the more troublesome blue wavelengths, would it have cancelled out some of the shortcomings of the uncoated lenses (as well as making the rendition of colours seem more natural)?

Ravilious is one of my favourite photographers. I don't want to emulate him, but I would like to understand. Any insights would be very welcome indeed.

 

[ic-racer]

Perhaps someone has mistaken the tonal range of the scene with the tonal range of the negative; or mistaken the tonal range of the negative with the tonal range of the film, or mistaken the tonal range of the negative with the tonal range of the print. Could be anything without seeing examples.

 

[Ian Grant]

Having tested some pre-WWII uncoated large format lenses a few weeks ago the actually design and the way the elements are grouped has the largest impact on contrast and flare. The less air glass surfaces the higher the contrast.

There seems to be some misunderstanding in the statement of a long tonal range in the negative as an uncoated lens cuts the range and so does using a compensating developer. What is really happening is it's his way of coping with scenes with a high contrast, there's far better ways with coated lenses that would yield better tonality and details in the shadows and highlights.

Ian

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No mythology, no even Leica here. I used Leica uncoated and not only Leica uncoated lenses.
Yes, it is very simple and exact description in OP:
"The combination of older, uncoated ... optics, a light yellow filter, and compensating development provides a very long tonal range in the negative, and a slightly soft feel to the resolution of the image". As long as you know uncoated lens limits.

 

[Ian Grant]

No mythology, no even Leica here. I used Leica uncoated and not only Leica uncoated lenses.
Yes, it is very simple and exact description in OP:
"The combination of older, uncoated ... optics, a light yellow filter, and compensating development provides a very long tonal range in the negative, and a slightly soft feel to the resolution of the image". As long as you know uncoated lens limits.

Unfortunately it's the other way around it's compressing a long tonal range scene into a lower contrast and shorter than usual tonal range negative.

Ian

 

[HiHoSilver]

'No helpful input to give, but the topic is of interest. If I want a softer rendering, my uncoated Ikonta does it well & the modern glass hasn't. I don't use softar or filtration to induce a softness though. 'Wish filters & such were easier to find for the old folder.

 

[MattKing]

Flare into the shadows might actually increase shadow detail - similar to how flashing may increase details in highlights on a print.

 

[calebarchie]

Unfortunately it's the other way around it's compressing a long tonal range scene into a lower contrast and shorter than usual tonal range negative.

Ian

Don't bother, he failed to even read the first sentence 'appropriate technical knowledge'. I think there is confusion regarding all mid-tone greys equating to 'long tonal range', not the case.

 

[RobC]

what I found very contrary when I watched the ravilious video was the presenter and his wife going on about how much he liked uncoated lenses which are far more prone to flare which he presumably liked the results of, and then showing all the gizmos and taping he put across the front of the lens to stop flare and any extraneous light getting into the lens. I'm not sure he understood.
Still, if he found lenses and methods that produced what he liked then all credit to him.

 

[Xmas]

what I found very contrary when I watched the ravilious video was the presenter and his wife going on about how much he liked uncoated lenses which are far more prone to flare which he presumably liked the results of, and then showing all the gizmos and taping he put across the front of the lens to stop flare and any extraneous light getting into the lens. I'm not sure he understood.
Still, if he found lenses and methods that produced what he liked then all credit to him.

As Ian suggests the amount of flare is dependent on lens design as well as coating technology.
Cosina Voighlander offered their 35 and 40 mm M mount /1.4 in single and multi coated...
Lotta people bought the single!
Today I am packing three Canon LTM from '60s for their adaptive contrast and highlight signature(artifice) and I use deep hoods as is necessary for single coated lenses.
Canon went for minimum air to glass surfaces medium contrast for their day.
Leica lenses were lower contrast.

 

[RobC]

yes modern lenses are capable of much higher contrast for a plethora of reasons inluding design glass type and different coatings.
But Ravlious complained of shadows getting blocked and determined he need uncoated lenses to solve the problem.
He could have just reduced his EI and dev to get the shadow and highlight densities he wanted but at the expense of some film speed which maybe he didn't want to sacrifice.
Or maybe he just was just one of those photographers who didn't get off on the technical stuff that people on web forums do and didn't realise he could that. As a result it may be he just resorted to using low contrast lenses which solved the problem for him.

The interesting thing is that it shows that all the stuff about resolution and good local contrast in a print is irrelevant unless you're specifically looking for it which 99.9% of people aren't. His prints would have looked very different if he'd gone for highest contrast lenses he could have laid his hand on.

But again, he used low contrast lenses and then spent a lot of effort trying to control the result of that by putting tape across the front his lens to stop any extraneous light.

I snaffled a copy of the video when it was online but it seems you have to buy a copy of it if you want to see it now so I can't post a link.

 

[guangong]

It would seem to me that modern films have higher contrast than films produced in the era of uncontested lenses, and therefore picture quality would be much better now than what these lenses were capable of then. Can it be that the contrast of many modern lenses are too extreme for the results desired by many? What do you think?

 

[RobC]

Yes some modern films have higher potential contrast but that was not the problem.
Grain structure and size can be much smaller now so the look can be different with different films. But yes modern film with modern lenses can look clinical in some peoples eyes. Manufacturers have always strived for better quality and their measures are resolution and contrast whereas the photographer may be looking for softness and subtlety. But at least you have the choice by slecting the right films. If you want the older look then HP5, FP4 and Tri-X anre probably the standards for today whereas if you want the clinical then Delta 100 is probably a good choice.

 

[Ian Grant]

It would seem to me that modern films have higher contrast than films produced in the era of uncontested lenses, and therefore picture quality would be much better now than what these lenses were capable of then. Can it be that the contrast of many modern lenses are too extreme for the results desired by many? What do you think?

With un-coated lenses films were processed to higher contrasts than we tend to use today, this was to compensate for the lower contrast lenses. So the other way around.

Now using modern lenses (coated and multi-cated) and films we have all the controls we need to cope with a range of different contrasts with exposure & development.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

With un-coated lenses films were processed to higher contrasts than we tend to use today, this was to compensate for the lower contrast lenses. So the other way around.

If you have ever printed from older, box camera negatives, you will know that this is true.

They tend to be developed to "bullet proof".

 

[Ian Grant]

If you have ever printed from older, box camera negatives, you will know that this is true.

They tend to be developed to "bullet proof".

And they don't print well on modern papers. I saw an exhibition of early work by Kertesz at the Barbican in London many years ago, the original contemporary prints were superb, small and jewel like.

A few years later I saw a larger Kertesz exhibition and the modern prints off the same negatives had lost their magic. We forget that the older papers complimented the heavier more contrasty negatives.

Ian

 

[RobC]

or maybe the printer just wasn't upto it.

 

[Ian Grant]

or maybe the printer just wasn't upto it.

No it's well know that papers have evolved since the 1920's and 30's to match modern films and processing. The modern Kertesz prints (of pre-WWII negatives) were excellent they were larger and lacked the feel of the original contemporary prints which were printed quite small on long gone warmtone pares.

Ian

 

[Jonathan R]

No it's well know that papers have evolved since the 1920's and 30's to match modern films and processing. The modern Kertesz prints (of pre-WWII negatives) were excellent they were larger and lacked the feel of the original contemporary prints which were printed quite small on long gone warmtone pares.

Ian

I don't get the sense that we have lost anything in old materials. Surely the tools exist today to get any effect you want, if you spend enough time and have the skill? I went to the Tony Ray Jones exhibition in London last year. He was allegedly extremely fussy about printing his negatives. I was disappointed to find them all rather small and very dark. I remember feeling the same at a Bill Brandt exhibition years ago too. Likewise, I have an original Frank Sutcliffe print, which is very nice but much murkier than a print made from the same plate onto modern materials. Sutcliffe was clearly a very skilled printer, but I reckon he would have chosen modern materials if he had had the choice. Maybe Bill Brandt wouldn't have changed. I think Tony Ray Jones could have improved his printing technique (but not his eye for a photo!).

Ravilious wasn't a complete technophobe. Apparently he spent ages in the 1990s studying the Ansel Adams books. He clearly knew the look he wanted to achieve and discovered a way to do it. What I am trying to understand is whether his was the only way to get that effect, or just one awkward way.

I am pondering whether flare would act like flashing to increase shadow detail, as MattKing suggests. Surely flashing improves highlight detail by lifting the highlights off the toe of the characteristic curve (of the paper) onto the straight-line portion? So in the negative I can see that flare might achieve the same for the shadows, opening up tonal differences; but so would lowering the EI, as RobC says. But I find it hard to believe that this would result in more shadow texture, because at the same time flare is reducing the difference between adjacent patches of shadow tones. As I said, my experience is that modern Leica lenses resolve far more detail in the shadows than older lenses I used to own.

The funny thing is that despite his efforts to obtain more shadow and highlight detail, Ravilious' photos don't seem to have unexciting squashed mid-tones - far from it.

Pity I missed the film - would have loved to see that.

 

[RobC]

Flare will reduce resolution but at the same time increase the shadow densities. Not quite the same as saying increase detail.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't get the sense that we have lost anything in old materials. Surely the tools exist today to get any effect you want, if you spend enough time and have the skill? I went to the Tony Ray Jones exhibition in London last year. He was allegedly extremely fussy about printing his negatives. I was disappointed to find them all rather small and very dark. I remember feeling the same at a Bill Brandt exhibition years ago too. Likewise, I have an original Frank Sutcliffe print, which is very nice but much murkier than a print made from the same plate onto modern materials. Sutcliffe was clearly a very skilled printer, but I reckon he would have chosen modern materials if he had had the choice. Maybe Bill Brandt wouldn't have changed. I think Tony Ray Jones could have improved his printing technique (but not his eye for a photo!).

Ravilious wasn't a complete technophobe. Apparently he spent ages in the 1990s studying the Ansel Adams books. He clearly knew the look he wanted to achieve and discovered a way to do it. What I am trying to understand is whether his was the only way to get that effect, or just one awkward way.

I am pondering whether flare would act like flashing to increase shadow detail, as MattKing suggests. Surely flashing improves highlight detail by lifting the highlights off the toe of the characteristic curve (of the paper) onto the straight-line portion? So in the negative I can see that flare might achieve the same for the shadows, opening up tonal differences; but so would lowering the EI, as RobC says. But I find it hard to believe that this would result in more shadow texture, because at the same time flare is reducing the difference between adjacent patches of shadow tones. As I said, my experience is that modern Leica lenses resolve far more detail in the shadows than older lenses I used to own.

The funny thing is that despite his efforts to obtain more shadow and highlight detail, Ravilious' photos don't seem to have unexciting squashed mid-tones - far from it.

Pity I missed the film - would have loved to see that.

My point is that modern papers suit modern films, for modern contemporary work we've lost little and in most ways have far superior materials.

What we have lost are the wonderful (old style) warm tone papers that used to be made, they went for environmental reasons because they used Cadmium salts in their emulsions. Modern materials get nowhere close.

It's also important to realise how a photographer wants his negative interpreted, that may be why Suttcliffe printed the way he did. I remember being asked why I'd printed an image dark and heavy by Roger Taylor (Photo Historian/Professor), I said I made it at dusk that's what I saw and that's what I want to say, and yet I could have made it look like bright daylight in a print.

Ian

 

[AlanC]

When James Ravilious began work as a photographer he seemed to have had very clear ideas about how he wanted his photographs to look. He wanted a rich effect of silvery greys with overall low contrast and detail in the shadows and highlights. But he didn't know how to achieve this, and the results he was getting with his modern Leica lenses were too harsh too high in contrast, and his negatives were difficult to print. This was made more problematic by his preference for shooting into the light. He eventually sought help from a local professional phptographer, Brian Allen, who suggested giving more exposure and less development, in a compensating developer; dilute perceptol. This, in combination with a switch to older, uncoated lenses gave Ravilious the look he was after. A light yellow filter was used. Its purpose was to help render tones in the print more like the eyes see them. All this is explained in great detail in the excellent book An English Eye the photographs of James Ravillious, written by Peter Hamilton.
Hamilton uses the phrase "a long tonal range" to describe the resultant negatives, but in the context of the text, it is obvious that what he means is negatives with detail right up into the highlights, and right down into the shadows.
It is definitely not the case that Ravilious liked flare, as has been suggested here. His preferred older lenses were prone to it, and to combat it he covered his lens hood with black tape then cut out a rectangular hole of a size that cut out any light falling outside the film frame area.
Ravillious knew exactly what he was after, and learned how to achieve it. He was also an excellent printer. But above all he was a wonderful photographer. To suggest that he could have done it better if he had known what he was doing, or had different materials, is plain silly.

Alan

 

[Jonathan R]

No-one is suggesting he could have done better, Alan. I think you are mis-reading posts. He was a wonderful photpgrapher. My mission with my OP was to understand how his methods worked and whether they were the only way.

 

[Ian Grant]

No-one is suggesting he could have done better, Alan. I think you are mis-reading posts. He was a wonderful photpgrapher. My mission with my OP was to understand how his methods worked and whether they were the only way.

It's more the case that there are other approaches which can be used. to achieve similar results. Ravilious chose hi own way of working.

The chosen lenses mentioned Hektor and Elmar both have 6 air glass surfaces the 4 internal ones are the most critical in terms of lowering contrast. Having used an un-coated Tessar for a couple of years as well as doing tests including an other Tessar more recently it's the drop in contrast that's most noticeable.

These show what I mean:

First a very clean 165mm f5.3 CZJ Tessar

Then a 1913 120mm f6.8 Goerz Serie III Double Anastigmat Dagor, with only 4 air glass interfaces, 2 internal contrast is high.

I also tested a Goerz-Ihagee Dialyte, 8 air glass interfaces - 6 internal, and there's a further significant drop in contrast compared to the Tessar.

So using an uncoated lens like an Elmar or Tessar has a marked effect on negative contrast which can be compensated for by developing to a higher contrast or printing on a harder grade of paper. I found comparing my uncoated Tesar to a 1950's CZJ T coated version a similar difference to the Dagor exaple here. There definitely a slightly different feel to the images I shot with the uncoated lens high lights and shadows on't have quite as much detail, but the lens did work well in very contrasty lighting, o there's some logic in the way Ravilious was using uncoated lenses. For me though its not the best way.

Ian

 

[AlanC]

Ian, thanks for your response. I have a feeling that this is all a matter of degree. Because Ravillious had a preference for low contrast lenses, people who haven't actually seen any of his original prints probably think that his prints are actually low in contrast. This , as I am sure you know, actually isn't the case. I was lucky enough to see a big exhibition of his work in Devon. And recently had the chance to closely examine a print in the house of a local photographer whose family had a personal connection with Ravillious. This was the print on the frontispiece of the book An English Eye. You don't look at these prints and think they should have been done on a harder grade. They look just right. Restrained, and with silvery tones, but full blacks too. Certainly not low in contrast. A lot like Blakemore's prints, actually, which we have discussed before.
I believe the printer in Paris - you will know his name - who did the printing for HCB and Koudelka, said that HCB had a preference for not too much contrast, but Koudelka liked more. So in the end it's probaby all down to individual taste.

Alan