>>4143814Apochromatic lenses are corrected for the three peaks in visible wavelength. If you use really old lenses, as I have, or cheap shitty lenses, like I did when I ripped a Polaroid Colorpack II lens out to test it (three elements; less glass; more UV), you'll end up with a reasonable amount of chromatic aberration. Chromatic aberration is the visible result of the peaks of visible wavelengths not being focused to the same point. As far as my very scientifically uneducated understanding goes, this is part of why very old lenses are blurry. Chromatic aberration manifests as blurriness in BW. Early film (and the film I use) was orthochromatic, because it only included the base chemistry of film (silver halide); increasingly insensitive to light past about 550nm or so, probably reducing this issue a bit.
>It's interesting because basically no one does it because it looks so unflattering to a lot of people.The perennial complaint of many women I've photographed, whom have always been shown my body of work beforehand and agree to do it anyways.
After this latest round with my friends, and the guy I shot last night, I'm realizing that my new focus compensation tables are pretty shit. It's a bummer. I got new equipment just to derive them. I don't think I have sufficient accuracy across my measurements (extension scale on camera rail, laser rangefinder) to make a decent function. I'm still overshooting compensation, which leads to me to fall short of the subject. Somehow, before all this, when I was guesstimating, I nailed focus perfectly so many times. It is almost as if I was blessed, and now I am cursed or overburdened with intent.
