rscheffler wrote:
Mitch - the tonality of your recent images is gorgeous. I\'ve had very brief experience with the 50 Cron Rigid, and my impression of it was that while not anything special technically at wider apertures, it had a very pleasing, moderate tonality with rich colors and was sharp enough without being harsh. On the MM I would expect its moderate contrast results in file with rich mid tones that offer a lot of post processing leeway. It\'s a lens I\'m keeping on my informal \'to get\' list. I suppose waiting for one at a bargain price I can\'t resist. ...
Ron - Thanks for the kind words. I think you\'re essentially spot-on about the Dual Range Summicron/Rigid lenses ((Nos. 11318/11118), with the exception that the reduction in contrast is mainly \"in the field\" and only at f/2.0 — at least according to an old article, that used to be available online, by Seth Rosner in the LHSA magazine Viewfinder: in has, it seems better resolution than all the Summicron-50s, except the latex ASPH version that I have not tried. In any case, I prefer how it renders to the latest version to the latest pre-ASPH version. The build quality is the best I have seen: simply amazing.
Speaking of the richness of tones, I\'ve been wanting to say something about a new way of processing (both M-Monochrom and B&W from the M9 that I\'ve adopted using Silver Efex (SEFEX) under Lightroom, based on the ideas of this short video clip:
The clip shows the method this photographer uses for XT-1 files and for producing a high-contrast look, but it can of course be tuned for the M-Monochrom or the M9 and for a lower contrast look. For example, I use the Tri-X preset rather than the TMax 400 used in the clip — and I reduce the Silver Efex grain setting somewhat. The basic idea of flattening the original file that you put into SEFEX is very good.
Generally, I use Silver Efex for any picture that I care about. SEFEX adds an element of \"randomness\" — maybe \"contingency\" is a better word for this — in the way processing and printing film does and, therefore, yields more interesting results. However, SEFEX can be a nightmare when you first start using it and search through the myriad of presets and sliders to get the combination that you want. The ideas in the above video provide a quick and effective method of using SEFEX. I have concluded that an important element in using SEFEX is the setting of the Fine and Midtone Structure.
Actually, before I bring a file into SEFEX, I try a few VSCO presents (mostly Tri-X 400-, Neopan 1600- or Neopan 400--), depending on the contrast range in the DNG file, to see the general look that I want when working with SEFEX. After the file has gone through SEFEX, I make some final adjustments, including any dodging or burning, in Lightroom.
rscheffler wrote:
Mitch - the tonality of your recent images is gorgeous. I\'ve had very brief experience with the 50 Cron Rigid, and my impression of it was that while not anything special technically at wider apertures, it had a very pleasing, moderate tonality with rich colors and was sharp enough without being harsh. On the MM I would expect its moderate contrast results in file with rich mid tones that offer a lot of post processing leeway. It\'s a lens I\'m keeping on my informal \'to get\' list. I suppose waiting for one at a bargain price I can\'t resist. ...
Ron - Thanks for the kind words. I think your essentially spot-on about the Dual Range Summicron/Rigid lenses ((Nos. 11318/11118), with the exception that the reduction in contrast is mainly \"in the field\" and only at f/2.0 — at least according to an old article, that used to be available online, by Seth Rosner in the LHSA magazine Viewfinder: in has, it seems better resolution than all the Summicron-50s, except the latex ASPH version that I have not tried. In any case, I prefer how it renders to the latest version to the latest pre-ASPH version. The build quality is the best I have seen: simply amazing.
Speaking of the richness of tones, I\'ve been wanting to say something about a new way of processing (both M-Monochrom and B&W from the M9 that I\'ve adopted using Silver Efex (SEFEX) under Lightroom, based on the ideas of this short video clip:
The clip shows the method this photographer uses for XT-1 files and for producing a high-contrast look, but it can of course be tuned for the M-Monochrom or the M9 and for a lower contrast look. For example, I use the Tri-X preset rather than the TMax 400 used in the clip — and I reduce the Silver Efex grain setting somewhat. The basic idea of flattening the original file that you put into SEFEX is very good.
Generally, I use Silver Efex for any picture that I care about. SEFEX adds an element of \"randomness\" — maybe \"contingency\" is a better word for this — in the way processing and printing film does and, therefore, yields more interesting results. However, SEFEX can be a nightmare when you first start using it and search through the myriad of presets and sliders to get the combination that you want. The ideas in the above video provide a quick and effective method of using SEFEX. I have concluded that an important element in using SEFEX is the setting of the Fine and Midtone Structure.
Actually, before I bring a file into SEFEX, I try a few VSCO presents (mostly Tri-X 400-, Neopan 1600- or Neopan 400--), depending on the contrast range in the DNG file, to see the general look that I want when working with SEFEX. After the file has gone through SEFEX, I make some final adjustments, including any dodging or burning, in Lightroom.
rscheffler wrote:
Mitch - the tonality of your recent images is gorgeous. I\'ve had very brief experience with the 50 Cron Rigid, and my impression of it was that while not anything special technically at wider apertures, it had a very pleasing, moderate tonality with rich colors and was sharp enough without being harsh. On the MM I would expect its moderate contrast results in file with rich mid tones that offer a lot of post processing leeway. It\'s a lens I\'m keeping on my informal \'to get\' list. I suppose waiting for one at a bargain price I can\'t resist. ...
Ron - Thanks for the kind words. I think your essentially spot-on about the Dual Range Summicron/Rigid lenses ((Nos. 11318/11118), with the exception that the reduction in contrast is mainly \"in the field\" and only at f/2.0 — at least according to an old article, that used to be available online, by Seth Rosner in the LHSA magazine Viewfinder: in has, it seems better resolution than all the Summicron-50s, except the latex ASPH version that I have not tried. In any case, I prefer how it renders to the latest version to the latest pre-ASPH version. The build quality is the best I have seen: simply amazing.
Speaking of the richness of tones, I\'ve been wanting to say something about a new way of processing (both M-Monochrom and B&W from the M9 that I\'ve adopted using Silver Efex (SEFEX) under Lightroom, based on the ideas of this short video clip:
The clip shows the method this photographer uses for XT-1 files and for producing a high-contrast look, but it can of course be tuned for the M-Monochrom or the M9 and for a lower contrast look. For example, I use the Tri-X preset rather than the TMax 400 used in the clip — and I reduce the Silver Efex grain setting somewhat. The basic idea of flattening the original file that you put into SEFEX is very good.
Generally, I use Silver Efex for any picture that I care about. SEFEX adds an element of \"randomness\" — maybe \"contingency\" is a better word for this — in the way processing and printing film does and, therefore, yields more interesting results. However, SEFEX can be a nightmare when you first start using it and search through the myriad of presets and sliders to get the combination that you want. The ideas in the above video provide a quick and effective method of using SEFEX. I have concluded that an import element in using SEFEX is the setting of the Fine and Midtome Structure.
Actually, before I bring a file into SEFEX, I try a few VSCO presents (mostly Tri-X 400-, Neopan 1600- or Neopan 400--), depending on the contrast range in the DNG file, to see the general look that I want when working with SEFEX. After the file has gone through SEFEX, I make some final adjustments, including any dodging or burning, in Lightroom.
rscheffler wrote:
Mitch - the tonality of your recent images is gorgeous. I\'ve had very brief experience with the 50 Cron Rigid, and my impression of it was that while not anything special technically at wider apertures, it had a very pleasing, moderate tonality with rich colors and was sharp enough without being harsh. On the MM I would expect its moderate contrast results in file with rich mid tones that offer a lot of post processing leeway. It\'s a lens I\'m keeping on my informal \'to get\' list. I suppose waiting for one at a bargain price I can\'t resist. ...
Ron - Thanks for the kind words. I think your essentially spot-on about the Dual Range Summicron/Rigid lenses ((Nos. 11318/11118), with the exception that the reduction in contrast is mainly \"in the field\" and only at f/2.0 — at least according to an old article, that used to be available online, by Seth Rosner in the LHSA magazine Viewfinder: in has, it seems better resolution than all the Summicron-50s, except the latex ASPH version that I have not tried. In any case, I prefer how it renders to the latest version to the latest pre-ASPH version. The build quality is the best I have seen: simply amazing.
Speaking of the richness of tones, I\'ve been wanting to say something about a new way of processing (both M-Monochrom and B&W from the M9 that I\'ve adopted using Silver Efex (SEFEX) under Lightroom, based on the ideas of this short video clip:
The clip shows the method this photographer uses for XT-1 files and for producing a high-contrast look, but it can of course be tuned for the M-Monochrom or the M9 and for a lower contrast look. For example, I use the Tri-X preset rather than the TMax 400 used in the clip — and I reduce the Silver Efex grain setting somewhat. The basic idea of flattening the original file that you put into SEFEX is very good.
Generally, I use Silver Efex for any picture that I care about. SEFEX adds an element of \"randomness\" — maybe \"contingency\" is a better word for this — in the way processing and printing film does and, therefore, yields more interesting results. However, SEFEX can be a nightmare when you first start using it and search through the myriad of presets and sliders to get the combination that you want. The ideas in the above video provide a quick and effective method of using SEFEX. I have concluded that an import element in using SEFEX is the setting of the Fine and Midtome Structure.
Actually, before I bring a file into SEFEX, I try a few VSCO presents (mostly Tr-X 400-, Neopan 1600- or Neopan 400--), depending on the contrast range in the DNG file, to see the general look that I want when working with SEFEX. After the file has gone through SEFEX, I make some final adjustments, including any dodging or burning, in Lightroom.
...