Realist vs. The World

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx>]

P3D Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:
> 2. Second, there is the film factor... If his images appear more contrasty,
> perhaps you should ask him what film he is using... I would not be
> surprised to hear that he is using the current contrasty E-6 films (Velvia,
> etc).

I'll add exposure to the list. Bracket a shot with an exposure a third or
two thirds of a stop under, and suddenly you've added lots of snap,
saturation and "romance" to that flat, lack-luster slide you used to blame your
camera lens for (which was probably a third of a stop or more overexposed in the
first place!). The soup you get the slides processed in makes a difference,
too. As does even the slightest amount of flare in those 50s lenses.

That being said, my testing and my work leads me to state that some lenses
are contrastier than others. Lens design (and execution) does make a
difference, and images from my Planar, Summacron, Xenotar, Tessars, Xenar,
Xenons, Canon FDs, Ektars, David Whites, Cassars, Anastons, Amatons, etc etc
all look different on a any number of different indicies, contrast included.


> 4. Regarding lens resolution, etc., first I have not seen a difference
> between my Realist and SLR slides taken with a variety of Minolta lenses.
> Second, even if the SLR lenses are sharper, you cannot see the difference
> in projection.

My two cents: modern _high performance_ lenses will be sharper and appear
sharper _on_some_tell-tail_images_ than 50s lenses. This is especially true
with regard to coverage out to the corners. Does every image benefit from
increased corner resolution? No, in fact, it is often a disadvantage, and
some lenses are even engineered to yield softness around the edges. Does
every image benefit from center sharpness and contrast? Clearly not. Many
portraitists spend their professional lives learning to be good wrinkle
removers, and many a shot benefits from a zero diffuser in front of the lens.
It's the old story... the right tools for the job, skillfully put to good creative
use. But this does not change the fact that not all lenses are created equal.
 
> 5. Regarding contrast, I have found my Realist lenses to be as constrasty
> as the SLR lenses... I use the same film in both cameras and cannot say
> that the SLR lenses result in more contrasty pictures.

See above. I'll also note that my Ilex Realist slides look different from my
David White 2.8 slides, which look different from the Ektar Realist I've been
testing. And with the tremendous amount of individual variation found in 50s
cameras, I hesitate to make generalizations...
Further (Braise yourself, Bridgett!), most consumer zoom lenses are crap...
I'd take a good 50's camera over most run-of-the-mill zooms anyday... and
some of the primes are almost as bad!

> Above all, it is the photographer behind the pictures... Certain tools
> (macro Realist, etc.) will create unusual pictures that look very
> interesting at first... I was very impressed with my first 7-p SLR images,
> hyperstereos, etc., but after the novelty wears out, it's up to the
> photographer to keep creating interesting images...

Amen.

> Dr. T. goes WEB!!!
> Please note new email address: DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

He's everywhere. He's everywhere. 8)


Eric G.
egoldste@xxxxxx


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1304
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
***************************