/p/ - Photography » Thread #3117060

[29 / 10 / ?]

75KiB, 1024x576, FastVSslow-web-1024x576[1].jpg

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:01:27 No.3117060 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3117070 >>3117072 >>3117075 >>3117077 >>3117086 >>3117098 >>3117230 >>3117233 >>3117406 >>3117520

Are lenses today faster than old lenses? How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age? Does film even go above 1600 iso?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 17ba924046a04142a5ef0f7f7182f84e.jpg, 62KiB, 560x373

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:30:11 No.3117069 Report

Quoted By: >>3117073

lenses have gotten slower on average, but they have gotten extremely sharp

sadly a lot of modern lenses don't have the same kind of character as most older lenses, just neutral tones, neutral colors, and ungodly sharpness

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2017011401.jpg, 684KiB, 917x1280

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:35:36 No.3117070 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
Fast glass has always existed, like pic related. Modern glass isn't any faster than film era ones relative to their price level, and there isn't such a need for fast apertures with digital as there was with film because you can always get that extra stop with higher ISO. Film gets quite grainy at 1600, but can be pushed above that. As for how you used to deal with it, you just had to git gud with using flash.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:38:12 No.3117072 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
You got the best exposure you could considering the subject (e.g. the rate of a moving subject would give you the slowest shutter speed you could use), then you pushed the hell out of the film in development/used longer exposures when printing from a negative to coax out more detail at the price of grain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:41:44 No.3117073 Report

Quoted By: >>3117076

>>3117069
This, the "film look" comes from the characteristics of the film, the lens, and the choices made by the photographer at the time of exposure and development. With digital you just take the flattest, most neutral exposure possible and then edit everything in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:47:34 No.3117075 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
>Are lenses today faster than old lenses?
Most modern lenses are zooms which are slower than primes. There were fast old lenses but they were downright awful wide open. Speed was more important back then because of slow film speeds. Today ISO is good at high speed so speed is less important. Fast lenses have to be good if not close to perfect wide open which means huge lenses with a lot of optics.

>How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age?
Flash was usually de facto for a lot of fields. Some film can be pushed. You are always sacrificing quality for speed though.

Does film even go above 1600 iso?
Yes.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO here's your camera fam..jpg, 115KiB, 442x425

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:48:57 No.3117076 Report

Quoted By: >>3117089

>>3117073
nuh uh

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1499020597363.jpg, 1MiB, 1261x1280

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 03:50:25 No.3117077 Report

Quoted By: >>3117261

>>3117060
Have to remember that no glass is perfect, and so some of the light entering the lens will bounce around the lens at odd angles and just be converted to heat. How much light actually makes it to the lens is called a T-Stop. If you have a lens with 3.5 F-Stop, then in a perfect world it would have 3.5 T-Stop, but we don't live in a perfect world. So it might really be 4.5 T-Stop in reality, on a lens labeled 3.5 F-Stop. How old lenses compare to new lenses is something I don't know but I do know that modern IS (like in Canon EF lenses) adds additional lenses for the light to pass through and causing more attenuation of light, however minor this attenuation might be.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sony_sel55f18z_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_ (...).jpg, 104KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 04:08:06 No.3117086 Report

Quoted By: >>3117118 >>3117126

>>3117060
> Are lenses today faster than old lenses?
The good, higher-end lenses today usually have better transmissivity (t-stoppage) and are actually sharp wide open.

The vast majority of 25+ years old lenses are not really sharp wide open.

But of course they did feature large apertures, too. Making your lens' aperture large isn't the hard part, after all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 04:13:18 No.3117089 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117076
Why not use the fuji? It has the same thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 04:36:46 No.3117098 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
>How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age?
They used a flash.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 05:41:22 No.3117118 Report

Quoted By: >>3117439

>>3117086
That's usually my problem with lenses, they're pretty bad wide-open, so I don't even want to pay the premium on a fast lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 05:51:14 No.3117125 Report

Quoted By:

fuck it, my alcatelidol ultra have a camera with aperture of focal angle of 3.5mm, suck it bitches

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 05:54:29 No.3117126 Report

Quoted By: >>3117439

>>3117086

>lens is sharp as fuck (for 1.8, which is meh)
>still chromabs like a bitch

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 12:00:24 No.3117230 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
>He has never pushed Tri-X to 12800

How else would you achieve so much grain that your photo looks like a gravel driveway

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 12:18:57 No.3117233 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
>How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age?

People just didn't take snapshits in poor lighting conditions.

It's not like today where you have to post new pictures on snapchat every 10 minutes.
People only took pictures when it was worth the film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1484148176369.jpg, 48KiB, 400x400

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 13:39:21 No.3117261 Report

Quoted By: >>3117513

>>3117077
>tfw someone else posts your photo on /p/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 20:34:16 No.3117406 Report

Quoted By: >>3117445

>>3117060
Yes film goes over 1600, but it was grainy as hell. We used to hyper 400 film so you got the speed with finer grain.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 610fa84d09b6215229a128576224ede6.jpg, 7KiB, 330x330

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 21:25:56 No.3117439 Report

Quoted By: >>3117492

>>3117118
No - if you do pay the premium on a modern prime or zoom, it generally will be very sharp wide open. That *is* a good part of the reason why you'd pay more.

>>3117126
Not as bad as most older lenses. Plus easily corrected in camera or in post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 21:40:57 No.3117445 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117406
what does hyper mean in that context? something with the development process?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 23:09:08 No.3117492 Report

Quoted By: >>3117692

>>3117439
>easily corrected in camera or in post
eg. if you correct a purple fringe area that covers several pixels, you will be left with a desaturated halo around whatever edge it was present

with heavy chromabs, the correction will be visible

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 7nJaKlM.jpg, 106KiB, 720x960

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 23:33:33 No.3117513 Report

Quoted By: >>3117514 >>3117595

>>3117261
I liked it so I saved it, what county did you take that in. I asked in the other thread but no answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 23:34:36 No.3117514 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117513
*country

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jul 2017 23:44:17 No.3117520 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117060
>Are lenses today faster than old lenses?
No. Maybe at the extreme end engineers have made faster lenses, but consumer grade primes are the same. Kit lenses are generally slower than primes, so if you think about lenses in general i guess they have gotten slower.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Jul 2017 01:37:58 No.3117587 Report

Quoted By: >>3117596

can anyone post an example of a photo that is not sharp and/or features chromatic aberrations?

I ask because I use some vintage lenses that I've seen people claim are not sharp wide open but I don't know how undesirable this really is, particularly for 35mm film where I doubt it's that noticeable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Jul 2017 02:45:04 No.3117595 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117513
Finland. Took it last fall with a Nettar on expired Provia.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Smena 33.jpg, 642KiB, 1440x964

Anonymous Thu 20 Jul 2017 02:51:01 No.3117596 Report

Quoted By: >>3117694

>>3117587
Some old cheap triplet lenses are really soft wide open, but most decent SLR primes from the film era aren't bad. Typically they have swirling bokeh and vignetting wide open, but center sharpness remains pretty decent. Chromabs are mostly a problem with teles only.

Pic related is a cheap Soviet triplet wide open (T-43 4/40).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Jul 2017 09:26:16 No.3117692 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117492
Lateral cromabs can be corrected with very little traces left since it's done by stretching color channels, not by desaturating false colors. Longitudinal cromabs can leave you with halos, yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 20 Jul 2017 09:27:32 No.3117694 Report

Quoted By:

>>3117596
This photo seems limited by film grain, not by lens sharpness.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches