multi-coated vs. single coated modern lenses

[Jordan]

I knwo there are a ton of threads with almost the exact same title, howver none have really answered the questions I need answered. So here I am asking you great people of this forum to help. Ok so I recently purchased a Phillips Explorer 8x10 after 3yrs of 4x5 work. It is truly great and I am lucky enought to work at a place where I have access to some very nice DeVere 8x10 enlargers. Being as I work at this certain place and print b&w for a living I have developed a very good eye and appreciation for good shadow detail. I just wanted to put that in there because I'm sure someone may think I don't know what I am looking for and whether I know how to make a good neg or a good print. Anyow, I have been using a friend's 250 fujinon, which I believe is only single coated aand not getting some somewhat blocky shadow detail. I am in the the market for a lens of my own and want to know if the coating on a g-claron or the fuji I spoke of would have any less ability over a multi-coated lens in producing this shadow detail I speak of. I like the idea of the g-clarons and the fuji as they are relatively light weight and in a copal 1, but if I can't the desired results due to their lack of coating then I would carry around a heavier lens. I mainly make urban/suburban landscape photographs along with architecture ones as well. Thanks in advance you guys. Hope everyone is well.

Jordan

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're not getting good shadow detail, the problem is much more likely to be underexposure than a lens issue. Unless you want the look of a diffuse lens, I wouldn't count on flare to spray light into the shadows.

Remember that when you move up to 8x10" from 4x5", you're going to be in bellows factor territory much more often (and with longer exposures reciprocity territory as well). If you develop film by a different method, that could also be an issue.

[Jack Flesher]

is only single coated aand not getting some somewhat blocky shadow detail.

That's kind of a double-negative; you are saying you're NOT getting BLOCKY shadow detail with the single-coated Fuji... Since blocky shadows are generally the opposite of good shadows, I therefore assume you are getting the kind of shadows you want with the Fuji?

If I've understood you correcty, then your result would hold with convention for single-coated lenses in that they typically generate more open shadows. I shoot with G-Clarons and can confirm that do indeed produce sightly more open shadows than my multi-caoted lenses.

If however you meant the opposite, then I agree with David that the issue is more likely under-exposure of the negative.

Cheers,

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Hi Jordan!
I would suggest that you look into your combo of film and developer, as this has very much to do with the problem you describe. Then different papers also gives very different response to what is in the low and high range of the negative.
Keywords here are "toe" and "shoulder".
As a matter of fact, if you would suffer from lack of "multicoating effect", your shadows would contain more detail. This because of the flare would cause the shadows to be given an ever so slight exposure which would lift the low shadows a little bit into more exposure.
What happens when a lens isn't coated enough is that the flare lowers the overall contrast. The shadows doesn't suffer in more from this, rather the highlights which will be blown out.

[Ole Tjugen]

What happens when a lens isn't coated enough is that the flare lowers the overall contrast. The shadows doesn't suffer in more from this, rather the highlights which will be blown out.

Uncoated lenses can work like a "pre-flashing" of the film, giving more shadow detail.

This picture was shot with an uncoated lens. An identical exposure (Both lenses on the same Speed Graphic, so the exposure time was identical) with a coated lens had blocked shadows.

Late single-coated lenses were single-coated because they could get away with it. A tessar-type lens like the 210/6.1 Schneider Xenar has six glass-air surfaces; a Plasmat derivative has eight, and a typical zoom lens for 35mm format has 20. Where would a miniscule improvement in coating quality have the most impact?

[Jordan]

Well thank you guys a ton. I was being told from a fellow I work with that the tonal range was great with the multi-coated lenses and that shadow detail would be a lot less with the single coated lenses. You guys may be right that I may have over-developed my new negs a hair or so. I really do appreciate all of your input. I guese I have one more question: Would the tonal range between the mulit-coated and single coated be the same? Thanks in advancce again.

Jordan

[Robert A. Zeichner]

There is no question that modern lenses with improved multicoating can contribute enormously to reduction of contrast reducing veiling glare. Does this mean that single coated and uncoated lenses aren't capable of satisfying results? I don't believe so. With the proper lens shade, marked improvement in contrast have been achieved and demonstrated in comparison tests I have done and written about in a recent article for PhotoTechniques magazine. The trick is to eliminate as much non-image-forming light from entering the lens in the first place. Not only does this reduce lens-induced veiling glare, it eliminates bellows flare at the same time. It is particularly helpful with lenses that have huge image circles. These lenses "see" way more than ever reaches the negative, particularly with panoramic formats. Consider this: with 5x7 film, a lens with coverage that just touches the edges of the film, over 40% of the light entering the lens never reaches the film! The use of an adjustable shade in which the field of view can be "cropped" very close to the edges of the desired image will eliminate these problems. I suggest reading the article for details on construction of such a shade.

One other thing to consider is exposure. Very often, shadow areas are under exposed, particularly when minus development is given to lower the density of the highlights. While protracted development has mostly the effect of keeping the higher zones from becoming too dense to easily print, it also affects the thinner areas of the negative albiet to a lesser extent.

Another consideration would be the use of unsharp masks to increase the local contrast of the lower zones. Properly done, it will bring to life, shadow detail that otherwise would go unnoticed.

[Kirk Fry]

If you don't use a properly adjusted compendium bellows it will make very little difference if your lens is multi super coated or not, the internal bellows flare will overwhelm any coating effect. A large coverage circle will bounce around inside your camera and hit your film and fill in your shadows. Try it, you will see.

K

[Gene McCluney]

Some of the most beautiful 8x10 format images ever made, by some of the worlds most respected photographers (Weston, Adams), were made with UNCOATED lenses. Coating is just a feature that helps control flare in situations where flare is possible.

[Ken Lee]

What Gene said.

It just might be that for large format, the technology reached maturity almost 100 years ago, and that subsequent improvements have been at best, incremental. (Shhh... Don't tell the the customers.)

Here's a night shot that really shows off the latest in optical design:

Icy Night, Alfred Stieglitz, 1893