What is it about Artar Red Dot photos that look so good? It is almost impossible to tell much when an image has been scanned but most of the photos seem to have something that I can't put my finger on.
What is it about Artar Red Dot photos that look so good? It is almost impossible to tell much when an image has been scanned but most of the photos seem to have something that I can't put my finger on.
Generalizations are made because they are Generally true...
Barry, its all in your head.
It is a dialyte design -- 4 air-spaced elements. Very sharp and well corrected lenses. I have never noticed anything special or different about the images they make...not any kind of 'feel'...Kinda of neutral that way, which is fine for me, in fact I prefer it. Just a sharp lens with limited coverage, but nice local contrast.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
To get that "something" you have to press the red dot. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone else. :0
I always wondered what that Red Dot was for; now I know....thanks! I know this sounds stupid, but what kind of effect do you get when pushing the Gold Dot?...Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo
"Photographs don't lie, they just don't tell the truth" - Lawrence Clark Powell
You have to be at least 18 years old to experience that.I always wondered what that Red Dot was for; now I know....thanks! I know this sounds stupid, but what kind of effect do you get when pushing the Gold Dot?...
Would pressing that blue dot make that something even more special?
-RDA, like them for longer than normal focal length or close up images. They have extreme resolution if the individual lens is in proper OE condition, moderate contrast, nice out of focus rendition specially in barrel with the Goerz round iris, very uniform illumination with very low distortion.
These are one of my all time fave lenses with a look very much their own like a Dagor or ...
Most sought after in longer focal lengths for BIG film, often not like due to limited coverage and being f9 or smaller.
Bernice
In my previous life as a Leica photographer (wait, I still use my Leica), people go on and on about "Bokeh King" (a myth that the phrase originator regretted having made up) and "Leica glow." I guess the same thing happens with LF lens too...
There are more than a few LF lenses that have very nice 'Bokeh". Most are older, in barrel or older shutters patly due to the round iris and what that generation of lens designers values in optical performance.
The Bokeh thing is one of the reasons why some folks favor older LF optics over new. For others, Bokeh matters little. Kinda like favorite foods for a given individual.
Bernice
Oh, Bokeh matters to *me*. I'm just referring to the Leica 35mm Summicron V4 which was called the "bokeh king" by a writer and subsequently its worth is around $1500 currently while its brethren languish at about $1000 even though there really aren't much difference between them. To further add insult, the writer refers to the boken at F5.6 (Summicron are F2 lens) but of course no one bothers to read that part and shoot their "bokeh king" at F2... Oh wait, most of them in fact do not make images, but that's another story.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks