Lens flare as "contrast contol" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taija71A

How do you propose to do this corresponding 'Contrast Correction' in the Darkroom.

---

If we include film exposure and development along with choice of paper and paper developer, we can spread the tones out.

We already do this, since no lenses give us as much contrast as the subject starts out with. It's just a matter of degree.

In BTZS testing, a correction is made for flare. In the end it affects what we consider our effective film speed, developing time etc.

Perhaps a BTZS adept could explain what happens when we allow "a much greater" correction for flare. I presume we lose more film speed and develop longer. Sounds like contrast control to me. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taija71A

__

I was just wondering...

How do you propose to do this corresponding 'Contrast Correction' in the Darkroom.
Just curious...

Thank-you!
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

---

Adjustments to film exposure and development techniques and perhaps different choice of paper contrast. A lens with tons of flair would require decreased exposure on film and increased development time for the final print to more closely resemble an image shot with a lens with very little flair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Pre-exposure or "flashing" is a rather poor option in my opinion because it muddies the microtonality in the shadows. I certainly understand it. Too blunt an instrument for me. I'd rather do more subtle controls via film development tweaks, careful lens choice, or perhaps unsharp masking. In other words, I like to have
my cake and eat it too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Me too. Back when I was learning the ZS I tested that technique rather extensively and no matter how I did it I never liked the "look" of it.

---

__

Like all other Techniques...
Pre-Exposure or Flashing can be as subtle or blunt -- As you 'choose' to make it.

If you find that it is not 'subtle' enough...
Then 'usually' the problem is... That you have added too much Pre-Exposure.
--
'Cake is Good'... But, we all know what happens if you eat 'way' too much cake! :D
--
Also, please remember...

That, there is nothing to say that you have to 'Pre-Expose' -- Your whole Sheet of Film.
It too can be done 'selectively' (*To a certain degree)...
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble

Adjustments to film exposure and development techniques and perhaps different choice of paper contrast.

---

Contrary to popular belief...

I don't believe that any of the techniques that you have cited...
Will have the 'exact' same effect.

*They of course are all Excellent tools... To have in your 'Reproitore'. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

I'm having that same schizophrenic debate in my own head right now. This time of year I sometimes covet soft open shadows rather than hard ones, and prefer
the older lens look. Guess I could pack both 360's for my Saturday walk

---

Edison/Mazda base flash bulb units with slaves. At least two, more is better. It can flash-fill a backlit forest. :)

.

Back to lens flare for a moment.

In the earlier days of video we struggled with blooming. You know what that is. Tiffen made, and still offers 'Contrast Filters' intended to lower contrast. These are not color-contrast filters. They are neutral.

I have also used them with MF film photography at dreaded high-noon light and they did the trick.

So, possibly a lens with the Tiffen filter(s) shown by the link above can be considered.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble

I would like to see a test of an uncoated (or any) lens known to have lots of flair vs. a multicoated lens of the same focal length and known to have extremely low flair. Then I'd like to see the differences in prints after contrast correction via fully analog wet process.

---

I have images made with an un-coated CZJ 135mm f4.5 Tessar and a 135mm f5.6 Symmar S, I wouldn't say that the Tessar had a lot of flare but there's very definite differences in shadow details and micro-contrast in darkroom prints there's a loss of detail with the Tessar.

At some stage soon I plan to test a few of my lenses side by side, I'm just finishing my new darkroom at the moment.

Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

... If we stick with an analog process or 16-bit digital capture,
can a flare-prone lens serve as a valid method of controlling contrast ?

---

__

Upon further consideration... I am going to 'refine' my answer slightly. :)
__

Quick Answer:

If we stick with an analog process... Can a flare-prone lens serve as a valid method of controlling contrast ?

Yes.
--

If we stick with 16-bit digital' capture... Can a flare-prone lens serve as a valid method of controlling contrast ?

Valid -- Yes.

Required -- *No.

*In today's 'Digital Age'...

I believe that it 'perhaps' has now become superfluous to our needs...
And can be handled easier (and just as well?)... In Post-production.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.

P.S.: Very sorry Ken...
That I introduced a different topic (*Pre-Exposure of Film) into your Thread.

I was just trying to be helpful...
________

This sort of question was addressed quite well by Adams in one of his 1950s books, probably 'The Camera'. (Sadly my copy is in storage far away, so i'm working by memory here.) Ansel, of course, was concerned with showing the differences between uncoated lenses and single-coated ones, multi-caoting was 20 years in the future then, but the lessons still apply.

How much flare do you really want to introduce? A few years ago, I tested my LF lenses and my old Canon FD lenses using a homemade "black box" in open sunlight. The box was about 18" square, painted black on the inside and out, with a 4" hole in the front that had a black cardboard lens shade that shielded it on 3 sides. My LF lenses (80s Schneider multicoated) registered .03 density over film base + fog. My Canon lenses gave .05 over fb+f, both measurements using a calibrated densitometer. How much flare would an uncoated lens produce in comparison? I have no idea, but I doubt it would be much more than one stop more than the coated lenses produced in "normal" lighting conditions. Yes, it might equate to a nice bit of fill light overall. It still would muddy up the mid and mid-high tones a little and compress the highlights a bit.