Uncoated vs modern Leica lenses

RobC · Mar 30, 2016

I think he was an artist first and not a tech head engineering type who get off on formulas. His idea of what made a print look good was probably very different from those trying to create technically perfect prints. To paraphrase the old saying, a fuzzy image of a sharp concept is better than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. His concept was of a soft and silvery landscape which could be said to be a sharp concept, at least in his mind, if you get my meaning.
Today there is a preference for far more visual impact from contrast than there was in earlier days I think.

AlanC · Mar 30, 2016

But Rob, his prints were pretty much technically perfect.

Alan

RobC · Mar 30, 2016

I've never seen his prints in the flesh and I'm a contemporary printer so maybe my peceptions are modern perceptions. Its all highly subjective.

blockend · Mar 30, 2016

Jonathan R said:
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!)

I didn't see the exhibition but heard there were complaints that the joint Martin Parr/Ray-Jones exhibition had Parr (or more likely his assistants) printing TRJ's work much larger and very differently. I like the way Tony Ray-Jones printed, and think photographers increasingly follow art gallery practice of printing huge, without any reason. Perhaps some of TRJ's negatives were underexposed, and he had to compensate in the printing, which would explain the print density and blocked in shadows?

Papers have changed, though I haven't tested new ones exhaustively. Agfa Portriga had beautiful warm tones - almost too much so if developed in warm tone developer - as did their Brovira, but they were banned for their cadmium content. Kodak fibre papers also leant a negative a classical appearance I have never successfully reproduced since. The magnum printer (whose name escaped me for the moment) agreed that he couldn't get the same tonality with modern papers. Trent Parke prints superbly. I've seen him with a Leica and an EOS 1, soft and sharp, high contrast but with rich midtones.

mdarnton · Mar 30, 2016

RobC said:
Today there is a preference for far more visual impact from contrast than there was in earlier days I think.

Unfortunately, the unsophisticated viewer will always prefer it louder, whatever it is, and will be in the majority, yes. In spite of what you hear on top-40 radio, classical music is as good as it always was, for instance.

calebarchie · Mar 30, 2016

mdarnton said:
Unfortunately, the unsophisticated viewer will always prefer it louder, whatever it is, and will be in the majority, yes. In spite of what you hear on top-40 radio, classical music is as good as it always was, for instance.

And then there is the trend to object the trend, just do whatever!

chip j · Mar 31, 2016

In the 20s, Paul Strand was complaining that he couldn't get good papers anymore.

Ian Grant · Mar 31, 2016

AlanC said:
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

There's an interesting aspect to print contrast and the overall tonality of much British landscape photography that that comes from the late 1960' and early 70's and the printed images seen in publications. Most photographers (outside the Camera Club world) were influenced by the published images of work by the great American and European photographers often never having seen any of the original prints.

Ravilious was outside the academic Landscape fraternity a and not included in the article in Ten8 magazine "Where the Wild Things Went" which I have somewhere, he is featured separately in the same Landscape issue though. The tendency was for long tonal rage prints compared to camera club styles of high contrast and heavy burning and dodging, example being John Blakemore, Thomas Joshua Cooper, John Davies, Fay Godwin etc.

The choice of uncoated lenses is really the strange one, but you're right that even with lower contrast lenses the resulting prints needn't be any lower in contrast. I fact I have some images in my current exhibition set (shot in Greece& Turkey) made with an un-coated lens and they sit happily alongside images shot with coated and Multi-Coated lenses.

Ian

baachitraka · Mar 31, 2016

Ian Grant said:
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

Amazing prints by Suttcliffe.

DcAnalogue · Apr 1, 2016

RobC said:
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.

The video is here (with a free trailer): http://banyak.co.uk/#/james-ravilious

guangong · Apr 1, 2016

I still have an unopened box of Agfa brovira that I bought in 1980 from Olden. The nanny police have not only deprived photographers of warm toned papers but painters are now deprived of cadmium oil paints. Frankly, I have never heard of a photographer or painter dying from cadmium poisoning. Gone are the cadmium reds, oranges and yellows. Isn't it fascinating that only photographers and artists are ignorant of photographic and painting technique!

Ko.Fe. · Apr 1, 2016

guangong said:
I still have an unopened box of Agfa brovira that I bought in 1980 from Olden.

I have two unopened, but soon. #4 is marvelous for regular prints and I like #2 for lith (where Leica, uncoated lens doesn't matter at all )

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Apr 1, 2016

I love uncoated lenses because you see the glass directly. I bought my first summitar uncoated and nobody can claim its low contrast or stray light effect. Uncoated Leica is a crown jewel , it turns the thick glass , glazed paints , long range tones to an scandinavian sculpture , some colors especially the blues and vermillon and skin colors are tan and matchless. There is no low thing with leitz lenses. But 1990s lenses and nowadays , Leica is another story.
I found older Leicas are like faberge enamels - tonal and color - at morning , at night they are like wild oil painting and modern summicrons colors looks like fancy new banknotes with lots of fluorescent colors with again very long grades and lots of suprising details.

mdarnton · Apr 1, 2016

DcAnalogue said:
The video is here (with a free trailer): http://banyak.co.uk/#/james-ravilious

Thanks for the link! Bought it.

Jonathan R · Apr 2, 2016

Ian, I find it difficult to judge the difference between those two photos. Shadows (e.g. under the eaves) with the Tessar seem to have more detail and softer edges, but this could be because the sun brightened for the second shot with the Dagor.

Alan, I can't help feeling that you are defending the wonderful Ravilious against an attack that hasn't happened!

Ian Grant · Apr 2, 2016

Jonathan R said:
Ian, I find it difficult to judge the difference between those two photos. Shadows (e.g. under the eaves) with the Tessar seem to have more detail and softer edges, but this could be because the sun brightened for the second shot with the Dagor.

Yes I was concerned that there may have been a slight variation in the lighting however I did check the Tessar gain later when it brightened up and it was still about the same in terms of the drop in contrast. Yes the shadows appear to have more details but if you are working with B&W negatives and correct the contrast it leads to muddier shadow details.

Ideally it need more controlled tests on B&W film rather than the lenses on bellows on a DSLR, that needs consistent lighting etc and will have to wait until the summer

I also tested an old RR lens and the contrast wasn't far different to the Dagor, it was slightly better than the Tessar.

Ian

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Apr 3, 2016

Ian , I did not get your point , do you want more and more contrast from an lens ?
I want more detail , longer grades , classy colors , strong colors at night , lots of spatial detail and lens must sense the 3d and reflect it.
I never thought about contrast , I am using Leica for last 25 years and it gives out everything perfect. I love zeiss triotar and planar , not anything else. I think planar cant match with any leica lens but triotar is awesome. Cooke , Wollensak will be my next lenses. I have a small Goerz. I have an LOMO Anamorphic Cine Lens and use it daily. Contrast hunting is childish to me. I think British Watercolor artists used too much white thick paint in their sea paintings and may be you want the same. I love low contrast of old Leitz and used high contrast of modern summicron. I think I dont rate alone sunmicron as a high contrast but skin tones are excellent , you can feel the water and oil in skin very gently and more importantly ,colors classifies as their chemistry , telephone box , plastic box , textile , brick , wood , marble etc all very different and their appearance are different.
I think nobody can mess with leica , so serious work , product.

mdarnton · Apr 3, 2016

Yes, I find modern lenses and their too-high contrast to be a liability, not a benefit, except in strongly backlit situations where they can render subjects clearly as if they weren't backlit at all. Otherwise, no--they tend towards harshness in so many ways. I'm pretty sure Ravilious felt the same way, and when I saw his work it immediately resonated with me in that respect.

Ian Grant · Apr 4, 2016

mdarnton said:
Yes, I find modern lenses and their too-high contrast to be a liability, not a benefit, except in strongly backlit situations where they can render subjects clearly as if they weren't backlit at all. Otherwise, no--they tend towards harshness in so many ways. I'm pretty sure Ravilious felt the same way, and when I saw his work it immediately resonated with me in that respect.

It depends on what your definition of a modern lens is, most would probably say that the advent of Multi-Coating heralded an new era in lens design, reality is it really just meant lenses liken zooms with many more elements became more practical and less prone to flare.

Personally I think of modern lenses as being coated, usually newer improved designs, so post WWII and I use quite a variety. I've never had a lens that I've ever thought was too contrasty or harsh, I have however seen the differences between 35mm Japanese optic and Leitz lenses which I prefer along with Rodenstock, Schneider and Zeiss LF lenses for similar reasons. It's not the coatings here that are affecting the look it's the difference between Leitz and particularly Nikon design criteria and plenty has already been written on the subject.

In practice I've no issues using coated or multi-coated lenses but wouldn't rely on an uncoated lens as a method of controlling contrast, there's too many other more effective controls we can use.

Ian

baachitraka · Apr 4, 2016

Un-coated Triotar in my Rolleicord IIa is indeed very special for me.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Apr 4, 2016

baachitraka said:
Un-coated Triotar in my Rolleicord IIa is indeed very special for me.

I really worship to three element lenses. I had been found a complicated site about comparison 5-4-3 elements lenses and more elements only distorts the view. Site was about history of zeiss lenses and after triotar , everything was messing. I have a polaroid 350 with cooke copy ,another camera is goerz triple elements and I saw many triotar pictures - some terrible , some better than elmar -. I dont know why but it sees lots lots more detail like an microscope , more than and different than eye sees. I love creative lenses , more color , more grade , suprising details , more 3d.

baachitraka · Apr 4, 2016

May I request to share that site? I do not know what distortion do you meant when adding more elements to the lens design.

Yes with right lighting triotar can deliver magic in MF. I personally prefer diffused light in the park but I have hard time to convenience my wife to pose for me though.

Ronald Moravec · Apr 4, 2016

I have an uncoated and coated elmars, 3.5 I have done the same scene with both lenses, same time, same exposure.

The coated picks up more shadow detail. The uncoated finds the some of the darks further up the tone scale, but is incomplete.

Highlights are blown with uncoated and are very printable with coated.

My thin looking bluish coated Summar seems to make nice lowish contrast monochrome prints. When I printed Ciba Chrome, I used this lens, Ektar 100 pulled to 50. Slides are ugly, really ugly. Ciba prints beautifully with no masking for burn/dodge. They look like normal C prints on pro film.

baachitraka · Apr 5, 2016

I don't have any experience shooting color negatives/slides using un-coated lens. But I am happy shooting portraits in black and white, in diffused light or in over-cast day.

Uncoated vs modern Leica lenses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency