*ALL Black & White Photographers* Learn this fact & improve your B&W Photos www.flickr.com... www.flickr.com... IF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS, YOU CAN MAKE A KIND DONATION OF $2 OR $5 VIA PAYPAL TO EMAIL: kenw111@insightbb.com
What I find most puzzling for someone so tech savvy and intelligent beyond most, is ... why can’t you use the wonderful technology we have to day to show more clearly your opinions and observations? Looking at a Mac screen 10 feet away is as useful as a solar powered torch 😳 Still hooked on your channel though 😁
There are lots of things that became normal in the era when colour film became more mainstream and began to supplant black and white. It became important for the refraction of each wavelength to be set so that light came to a focus at the same point - the focal plane. Good optical designers were already hitting that mark pre colour film and everyone else needed that sorted if they weren’t. Films became panchromatic and that made tones a real way to impart plasticity in two dimensional images in black and white images. So, good black and white lenses would aim to be apochromatic and tonal. Colour film arrived and most lenses were considered to be lacking contrast for colour. The film was made more contrasty and lens coatings were applied to maximise lens contrast. There then came two philosophies; Tonal lenses vs. contrast lenses. German lenses could discriminate between very similar tonal values. Japanese lenses from certain manufacturers went for resolution in line pairs per millimetre, the LPPM race pushed many towards designs with higher contrast. They resolved line pairs per millimetre well, made colour images more vibrantly and had a benchmark measurement for resolution to beat naysayers over the head with. The irony is that if a tonal lens distinguishes between two very similar tones side by side, the virtual line separating those two tones is infinitely thin, it’s an interface. That tonal discrimination was in fact creating amazing resolution. Poor lenses can have high LPPM scores because they have short tonal ranges and low tonal discrimination. Amazing lenses have a tonal range tailored for the medium, fine tonal tonal discrimination and would pass the LPPM test. Zeiss lenses are amazing lenses and the Hasselblads, Rolleis and Contax’s have that Zeiss look. The CZ Jena lenses fit into the same genre. Their colour richness is due to the combination of tonality and resolution. When people use vintage lenses they get the benefit of tonality over contrast. They get richer colours and better plasticity. Using lanthanide glasses and simple formulae optically manages refraction and stops tonal edges overlapping and blurring. Multicoating to stop off axis light bouncing around between elements and to improve transmission gave us even better image fidelity. Pentax shared Super Multi-Coating with Zeiss and collaborated on some key lens designs with Zeiss here and there. Zeiss has remained the gold standard benchmark for serious lenses.
It'a all about micro contrast, I agree. As a B&W photographer it's all about the glass. Shoot only primes. I respect Fuji lenses more than my old Zeiss primes. Oh and fuck filters!
@@mtryambon A great composition in bad light is a mediocre image. A mediocre composition in stunning light is a good image. Combine the two and you have a winner
Jonathan Grinstead Even color , digital doesn't match Kodak Crome slide film at all! Or Fuji Velvia, but digital is very flexible in terms of ISO and gives the opportunity to experiment without waste film. That is my personal opinion of course.
Great in depth info. How would I know the micro contrast for each lens? Some manufacturers do not reveal this. In addition, which Fujifilm lenses are better at micro contrast? Do you have a list?
Thanks man! I'm gonna take off of my bag : nikon 18-35 D 4,5-5,6 , nikon 35-70 2,8 nikon 80-200 2,8 D push pull. I' m going to put in : nikon 28 2,8 Serie E , nikkor micro 60mm 2,8 , nikkor 85 f 2 ais , nikkor 105 mmf 2,8 micro and nikkor 200 mm f 4 ai. Thanks for the lessons about microcontrast, prime lenses, manuaual fucusing and more. Alessio from Rome👍👍👍
Totally agree with you my friend. I buy several "vintage" lenses. Micro contrast is my main thing to look for. Probably they won't match my fuji for sharpness under scrutiny but the feel they give with quality simple glass...amazing!
Hey man loved this video! Which Fuji 23mm appears to have the best micro contrast to you? The f2 or the 1.4? Also of all the fuji glass lineup, which one would you rate the best for this purpose? Thank you very much :)
I appreciate the education. I always thought what you're describing was the result of the dynamic range (or lack of) of the sensor. I didn't realize the lens could be the culprit. Makes sense now that I think of it. Thanks!
the glass is the most important, not the sensor. invest in the best lenses you can buy, they are not always the most expensive but the best designed. Less elements the better unless it has a good design, Zeiss Biogon series is a good example of multi lens element design. Leica Summicron is a good example of fewer lens elements. Nikon Nikkor 180mm f2.8, any vintage is a masterpiece of low element design to this day.
Please learn how to put your monitor image directly in your video please. Your points are lost when you shoot video of a monitor, at an angle, to make a point. You preach using very technical arguments, yet use primitive ways of showing examples. Photography is visual - video is visual. Use the technology available - otherwise save some money and move to radio.
remember when started photography we where told to use grey card when getting right exposure. also, a lot of different light conditions to judge.so, basics are better than type of lens used.my first camera was a box brownie.some good memories.
Of course a camera sensor sees photons, that is exactly how it records light. It collects photon strikes which, in turn, create a charge that is then converted into digital data by the ADC. I don't understand at all why you would try and refute that. Of course, those photon strikes are then converted into electrical signals, but to say that a camera sensor does not see photons is totally inaccurate
The newer Nikkor produces a Black & White image...The older Nikkor produces a Black, Grey and White image...and that ladies and gentlemen is the difference 😃😉 Micro contrast is neither black or white...it's the stuff in between ☺
Theoria - I like your level of conviction. Just want to mention that at 4:44 in the video you praise the lens on the right then later you trash it? Also you say that the # of elements determines the micro contrast of the lens as in less elements is better quality. Sounds good however the Sony kit zoom lens 28-70 had 8-9 elements and the Sony Zoom lens 24-105 G OSS has 14-17 elements and the many more elements 24-105 beats the less elements 28-70 kit zoom hands down in every way possible. Please explain that. P.S. Sorry to rock your boat bro.
hi Ken, what if we reduce the contrast in the post processing, can we get a photo with micro-contrast pop-up? Sorry I am new to photography and do not know the answer.
Isn't the trioplan meyer optic they were pushing really hard on KS a 3 element lens? 100mm? Have you tried that out? That's one of the lowest element counts I know of.
not comparing it to anything specific, it has bad microcontrast. Discerning eyes can see it in COLOR, but everyone can see it when you convert them into high res B&W shots. for BW shooters, bad microcontrast lenses are just crippling your BW photography, its fubar'd out of the gate
Ken - 2 questions: what do you think of the zeiss touit 32 f1.8 for Fuji? I also have a chance to buy a used Fuji 351.4 cheaper than the 35f2 for the xt20. which one do you think I should buy? all for low light travel photography instead of the 18-135 or 18-55. I was also testing the sony zeiss 16-70mm f4 lens on the sony A6300 since that is the perfect travel zoom range for me but finding it is very soft and doesn't have the zeiss pop. what gives??
great to know. what about the sony 16-70 zeiss glass constant f4? I really love the Fuji system but this lens zoom range is perfect for me especially with the constant f4
Hi Ken, What would you say if you compare nikon ais 105 f2.5 and nikon 105 f2 d in terms of micro contrast. Nikon Ais 105 f2.5 has 5 elements, 3 groups where as Nikon 105 f2 d has 6 elements,6 groups. What I learned from you is more glass (glass is evil) causes less micro contrast but what about the effect of optical design (or glass tech and quality) on micro contrast. I really don't care about the auto focus by the way and I was planning to save some more money but I would like to know if 105 f2 d is a so much better alternative in many ways then I would spend for it happily of course. Thanks a lot, Kerim
Great information...Will you include how to then find lenses that are higher quality or in this case have better microcontrast? Or is it not that easy? Newbie here.
I'm on a Sony A6300 (I know they over heat haha, they are much better after the firmware update) What is a good f2 or higher E Mount lens that is around 35mm with OSS and autofocus? I have a feeling there aren't many choices. This is for video and photos...I want this lens for lower light scenarios. I have the 10-18mm Sony wide angle already. Is this even a good question? haha Thanks, Your friendly newbie.
hi Justin, ignore the technical stuff, you tube is best place for finding what you want from your photography. look at some famous photographs some from pre war years. you learn by mistakes.the big companies want to sell equipment. all with bells and whistles. find a camera you like, and learn everything about it.
You must be lucky that you convert B&W output of the "stuff".The Milky way would be amplified on things like Leica Monocrome....I can't imagine how ugly that would be.....
Another favorite 'micro-contrast' test subject is our own fugly bony feet. There's more detail and shading gradation on a couple gnarly old toes than a freshly hewn oak log. Try it!
The Fuji 16mm 1.4 has 13 lens elements, whereas an old classic like the C/Y Zeiss 28mm 2.8 only has 7. Would you say the latter has higher microcontrast?
HELLO. I JUST ordered a 50 mm fuji 2.0 3 days ago. didns arrive yet.. because you said it had a excelent micro contrast. i was in the doubt of bying the 56 or the 35 can you please easy my mind and tell me if i made the best choice? thanks friend.
Hi Ken . I'm trying to profile my camera to the sekonic 758 and just keep on getting the message " the set level does not exist in the image, change the level to one that exists in the image in order to calculate" . Do you have any idea what that means? I've . followed your guidance . I've been through forums and the sekonic manual but no luck
Yes I watched your video and also a few others after being freaked out and unable to find any help. I read the entire sekonic manual. I followed exactly directions photographing passport . Then took them into lightroom , cropped them and exported as jpegs. Been through it over and over again. Where can I find out what the error message even means
well their manual is SHIT and even THEY admit that , seriously, they admit it….. lightroom what????? you dont use lightroom to calibrate the Sekonic, you just drop the images into the Sekonic software to be profiled
no , i shot them raw initially then took them into lightroom and cropped them and white balanced then exported as jpegs. I only used lightroom after having already got this message from the sekonic dts software. lol .. I really didnt try and calibrate the meter IN lightroom!!
A hologram is not 2 dimensional. It contains phase information and thus inherently 3 dimensional. An image becomes 2 dimensional when it loses phase information.
Theoria Apophasis as you state, a 'photographic pressing' of a hologram is 2 dimensional. A true hologram, by definition, and fundamental principals is 3 dimensional because it contains phase information. You are describing a representation of a hologram. You are not speaking about an actual hologram. Words are important and precise. Go look at the original research papers on holography (which is lensless, and therefore by your set of rules where less glass is better, the most accurate form of image recording).
just over 50 years ago bought a yashica camera.only film stock available then.been going through old snaps recently. was amazed at the sharpness of lens. guess its horses for courses. find digital ok, but its not film.
Do you have a video explaining more about how an image sensor registers electrical charge, not photons further? I am more of a film maker, but this stuff totally applies. Love your vids btw your so honest
yes, i do, its intertonal has less microvoltage and lenses with tons of glass suck up the low power intertonal light which defines microcontrast if it DOES NOT make it to the sensor, obviously its NOT gonna get registered
who me? :P I DO know im the only APE on youtube thats an expert on both light , more expeirence than god with lenses, and knows a junk lens from a great one. turns out thats 'useful' info :P