If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Someone said in alt.photography that "film" lenses are designed to focus
the different color wavelengths differently to make up for the layered emulsion in film. Thats BS.. Thanks all to answered. It sounded like a load of crap, but I'm no expert. -- Mark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:07:35 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:
I heard there is a coating on the rear element to prevent reflections off the sensor for digital lenses though I've not seen any example of these reflections so I assume it's quite a minor issue. Wouldn't film do the same thing? It's shiny plasticy stuff after all. Not as shiny. BTW, you wouldn't necessarily see the reflections, they can manifest as a general lack of contrast. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:07:35 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:
I heard there is a coating on the rear element to prevent reflections off the sensor for digital lenses though I've not seen any example of these reflections so I assume it's quite a minor issue. Wouldn't film do the same thing? It's shiny plasticy stuff after all. Not as shiny. BTW, you wouldn't necessarily see the reflections, they can manifest as a general lack of contrast. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: Martin Francis wrote: Further, the film companies have differing emulsion build up designs, including Fuji "4th layer" in some negative films. I never heard of needing special lenses for that... Or special lenses for black and white... Good point. I seem to remember a special three-layer B&W film from perhaps the late 1960s or early 1970s. I have never used it, but I read the reviews of it with great interest. Each layer was a different ISO, and by selective color filtration in the enlarger, you could select the layer which had what you wanted. IIRC, the review showed a shot of a clear glass light bulb, in operation, and from one layer, you could get the image of the glass envelope (with the filament vastly over-exposed), while from another, you could get an image which showed detail of the glowing filament. But, granted, this is an extreme example, and as far as I know, the film had a very short life in the market -- just too special purpose. :-) Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mr. Mark wrote: I heard there is a coating on the rear element to prevent reflections off the sensor for digital lenses though I've not seen any example of these reflections so I assume it's quite a minor issue. Wouldn't film do the same thing? It's shiny plasticy stuff after all. The film itself is (that is the plastic backing material), but the emulsion which faces the lens is typically a matte gray prior to development. Thus it is not capable of specular (mirror-like) reflections. There is also typically a darker coating on the back of the film to reduce reflections from particularly bright highlights which can punch through the emulsion and reach the back. This is dissolved in the processing of the film. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
DoN. Nichols wrote:
I seem to remember a special three-layer B&W film from perhaps the late 1960s or early 1970s. I have never used it, but I read the reviews of it with great interest. Each layer was a different ISO, and by selective color filtration in the enlarger, you could select the layer which had what you wanted. IIRC, the review showed a shot of a clear glass light bulb, in operation, and from one layer, you could get the image of the glass envelope (with the filament vastly over-exposed), while from another, you could get an image which showed detail of the glowing filament. But, granted, this is an extreme example, and as far as I know, the film had a very short life in the market -- just too special purpose. :-) I love trivia like that. People tried to achieve new things in smart ways. Like you say, a little too special for a market that demands fast access to the film and reasonable turnaround. That film seems to have required too much post processing to be any fun to use. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:49:50 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: DoN. Nichols wrote: I seem to remember a special three-layer B&W film from perhaps the late 1960s or early 1970s. I have never used it, but I read the reviews of it with great interest. Each layer was a different ISO, and by selective color filtration in the enlarger, you could select the layer which had what you wanted. IIRC, the review showed a shot of a clear glass light bulb, in operation, and from one layer, you could get the image of the glass envelope (with the filament vastly over-exposed), while from another, you could get an image which showed detail of the glowing filament. But, granted, this is an extreme example, and as far as I know, the film had a very short life in the market -- just too special purpose. :-) I love trivia like that. People tried to achieve new things in smart ways. Like you say, a little too special for a market that demands fast access to the film and reasonable turnaround. That film seems to have required too much post processing to be any fun to use. Cheers, Alan. Ilford XP1 = garbage. It had supressed grain but was so finicky when it came to contrast it wasn't worth using. -Rich |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Ben Rosengart" wrote in message
BTW, you wouldn't necessarily see the reflections, they can manifest as a general lack of contrast. I hadn't considered that. Thanks. -- Mark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
From my personal evaluation of film lenses on digital ...
.... it seems to be a generational thing. Some particular coatings that have a desired effect on film have a negative effect with digital. My Pentax SMC 30/2.8 is outstanding for both film and digital, as are the newer Pentax-F 50/1.7 and Pentax-FA 50/1.4. But the "A" series lenses (Pentax-A 50/1.7, 35/2, and 100/2.8 [non-macro]) are only average lenses. There's some color fringing toward the edges unless I correct the white balance. So the answer is yes and no. Some film lenses don't perform well with digital. But some do. It's not necessarily because they were film lenses. There is a correlation, but it is not a causal relationship. Conversely, digital lenses should always perform well with film, especially with traditional b&w with its single-layer emulsion. In the Pentax world, the new Pentax-DA 40/2.8 is a tempting new offering, well-suited for both fomats. (But I'm not quite ready to shell out $399 for it.) Yes, it's another pancake. And a pretty one at that. Collin KC8TKA |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On 31 May 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Cheesehead wrote:
Conversely, digital lenses should always perform well with film, Well, watch out for "digital" lenses that project a smaller image circle. You'll get *severe* vignetting on a film camera. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |