Florian, It would be interesting to see a comparison of the postwar coated Summitar to the modern Summilux or Summichron (modern, not vintage). Thanks for an informative and interesting video.
You're right. The shots taken with the Summilux and processed look... well... processed. I've been shooting Leica since the late 1990's and over the years have picked up a good number of vintage Leica LTM lenses. They are still out there and the prices aren't all that bad with the exception of some of the old exotic lenses. Still, they can be had so why not pick up a few more vintage lenses and use on the M10 cameras? That's what I do, except my Leica M digital camera is the Leica M Type 262. The Leica LTM 73mm f/1.9 Hektor lens is a very interesting lens, as is the 28mm f/6.3 Hektor.
Any vintage lens can be fitted to any mirrorless body, just about, so do that. For processing- you basically want to emulate flaws. I dont think Photoshop is the answer. Maybe Darktable , where you can go more directly into specifics? Or more likely some hardcore coding… When we shot with film, taking the shot was only half the process. The darkroom was the other half. I dont subscribe to this “doing it in camera” nonsense. You capture an image on a sensor. The camera processor runs an algorithm to produce a raw file, and then it runs some more algorithms to spit out a jpeg or whatever. That processor is limited by the available power (battery) and so a reasonable compromise is chosen. And the camera can not interpret your artistic intent. You improve on that by taking the raw file and processing it on a computer- the digital version of developing your film. I personally dont like many of the gaudy landscapes you see people produce in post, but to each his own. Point is, just like you would choose a certain film in the old days, so you can set a certain processing recipe in post to get the “look”, and then you can process it further to accomplish your intent-just like Adams did when he dodged and burned his images in the darkroom… Thanks for sharing. Amazing how tricky it gets to achieve what you are after. And how perfect lenses - what we all demand - are not always the best for all applications?
With the „doing it in camera“ I basically mean creating a look without post processing - for me the results are most of the time much more satisfying than doing it in post. Even more satisfying is the whole process of shooting. It is closer to what it was when I started… I never had my own darkroom, so I had to do „my look“ the moment I took the photo. Maybe that’s why I am so fascinated by the look of the Summar… I basically just have to take a photo and it looks old… and you are right, the perfect lenses we all demand somehow had me forget about what you can creatively achieve by picking a flawed glass.
I like the original look from the older lens .The modern lens to me looks like a pastiche .Subscribed .
thank you! And welcome!
Florian, It would be interesting to see a comparison of the postwar coated Summitar to the modern Summilux or Summichron (modern, not vintage). Thanks for an informative and interesting video.
Your welcome...Thank you for watching! If I get my hands on a postwar coded Summitar I am happy to do a comparison...
You're right. The shots taken with the Summilux and processed look... well... processed. I've been shooting Leica since the late 1990's and over the years have picked up a good number of vintage Leica LTM lenses. They are still out there and the prices aren't all that bad with the exception of some of the old exotic lenses. Still, they can be had so why not pick up a few more vintage lenses and use on the M10 cameras? That's what I do, except my Leica M digital camera is the Leica M Type 262. The Leica LTM 73mm f/1.9 Hektor lens is a very interesting lens, as is the 28mm f/6.3 Hektor.
Thank you for your suggestions… I will definitely look into those!
Any vintage lens can be fitted to any mirrorless body, just about, so do that. For processing- you basically want to emulate flaws. I dont think Photoshop is the answer. Maybe Darktable , where you can go more directly into specifics? Or more likely some hardcore coding…
When we shot with film, taking the shot was only half the process. The darkroom was the other half. I dont subscribe to this “doing it in camera” nonsense. You capture an image on a sensor. The camera processor runs an algorithm to produce a raw file, and then it runs some more algorithms to spit out a jpeg or whatever. That processor is limited by the available power (battery) and so a reasonable compromise is chosen. And the camera can not interpret your artistic intent. You improve on that by taking the raw file and processing it on a computer- the digital version of developing your film. I personally dont like many of the gaudy landscapes you see people produce in post, but to each his own. Point is, just like you would choose a certain film in the old days, so you can set a certain processing recipe in post to get the “look”, and then you can process it further to accomplish your intent-just like Adams did when he dodged and burned his images in the darkroom…
Thanks for sharing. Amazing how tricky it gets to achieve what you are after. And how perfect lenses - what we all demand - are not always the best for all applications?
With the „doing it in camera“ I basically mean creating a look without post processing - for me the results are most of the time much more satisfying than doing it in post. Even more satisfying is the whole process of shooting. It is closer to what it was when I started… I never had my own darkroom, so I had to do „my look“ the moment I took the photo. Maybe that’s why I am so fascinated by the look of the Summar… I basically just have to take a photo and it looks old… and you are right, the perfect lenses we all demand somehow had me forget about what you can creatively achieve by picking a flawed glass.