Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/09/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] WAS: Noctilux now: zits and fence on lens.
From: "Greg J. Lorenzo" <gregj.lorenzo@home.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:05:21 -0600
References: <45EDA71CFF25D411A2E400508B6FC52A056B9CAA@orportexch1.internal.nextlink.net> <007601c1469f$fe5963a0$56234d18@gv.shawcable.net>

Ted,

Adopt me!

Regards,

Greg

Ted Grant wrote:
> 
> David Rogers wrote:
> >>Over the years I've used played around with some pretty scratched
> > up lenses (front and rear elements). I've yet to identify degradation.
> Even
> > in the worst cases, if it shows up in the end result it's too subtle for
> my
> > eye. Thus, while even a tiny nick in an element causes me to cringe, it
> > doesn't seem to have much effect on the actual image.<<<
> 
> Hi David,
> How true, as some marks never show up on the final product.
> 
> When I shoot baseball little league, I work from behind the catcher and
> umpire fence with the lens wide open and the glass as close as possible, if
> not the metal part of the lens touching the fence and it never shows up!
> 
> Why?  Because the wiring is so close to the wide open lens it just dissolves
> into nothing and allows for some great photographs. In the same manner as a
> zit on the front element. I use ...280,  400 or 800 for much of this work
> making for wonderful real action photos that look like I was standing on the
> field without any fence between the players and myself.
> 
> I've also shot in this manner with the 100mm on an R8 and the effect is the
> same.... no cross marks of the fence in front of the glass!
> 
> A shot from last year of my grandson pitching was sold by Masterfile the
> stock agency that represents me for, $8000.00 US! :-)  My grandson (11)  and
> I have a deal... any photos of him sold we split 1/2 & 1/2. He gets a few
> dollars for some treats, he needs to see immediate benefits :-) and the rest
> goes into an education fund.
> 
> And even though the lens was against the chainlike fence the image was of a
> quality and sharpness good for an international product ad campaign.
> 
> So my point of this is to agree with you that scratches, zits, chainlink
> fence and sometimes dust most times have little or no effect on the quality
> of the image. Of course there is always a "perceived by the photographer
> image loss" However, most cases it's our imagination. :-)
> ted
> 
> Ted Grant Photography Limited
> www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:19 AM
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Noctilux
> 
> > Ted,
> >
> > >>However, my R 2.8 28 had this nice little zit burned right in the
> surface
> > after one episode and sure I was upset.
> >
> > But you know what? ...... it never showed anywhere from wide open to
> closed
> > right down! My good luck.  Did I sell it because I was a tad image lens
> > quality panicked?  Yep! And my buddy that I sold it to for a song has for
> > many years jazzed me about it because he's shot thousands of rolls of film
> > and at no time has he ever seen any degradation at all.<<
> >
> > I'm amazed at how badly a lens can be damaged without it showing up in the
> > results. >
> > Dave
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com> (RE: [Leica] Noctilux)
Message from "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com> ([Leica] WAS: Noctilux now: zits and fence on lens.)