Voigtlander 50/2.5 Color Skopar

It's an old friend's birthday today so I had to dig up a photo to send him ...


You're Only As Old As You Feel - Santa Clara 2022
Leica M10 Monochrom + Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5
ISO 160 @ f/3.4 @ 1/500​

Yeah, that'll do. ;) :D

G
 
Erik van Straten said:
Godfrey, the Color Skopar 50mm f2.5 seems to vignette on the M10. Or is it the shade?
Click to expand...
I was using only the short default shade, not the deep shade, so that isn't a factor. Most of the vignetting is from my rendering ... I often add some vignetting and otherwise manipulate the illumination across the field of view for a given scene to help direct the eye in a quiet way to what I am intending for the photograph.

But the question piqued my curiosity as I hadn't specifically tested for the CS50 falloff on the M10-M body. So I pulled out a tripod and the CS50, as well as the Summicron-M 50, to do a quick'n'dirty falloff test ...


Color-Skopar 50/2.5 vs Summicron-M 50/2 : Fall-off
Leica M10 Monochrom
ISO 400, EV +1, Aperture priority, raw capture
No editing​

From this test, I can see that from wide open to minimum aperture, the behavior of the two lenses is pretty closely matched for falloff, regardless whether the Summicron-M 50mm lens profile is enabled or not. I can also see that the Color-Skopar 50 tends to incite the M10-M light meter to set exposure about a half-stop down from the Summicron-M 50.

Since I'm of the camp that tends to set 2-stops-down-from-wide-open for most of my photographs, closing down further or opening up wider either for effect or due to lighting dynamics of a specific scene, I'd say that the Color-Skopar 50/2.5 does not exhibit more than a minor amount more falloff than my other 50mm lenses in general use. :)

G
 
The lens of the camera vignettes, but the lens of the enlarger vignettes too, so the vignetting of the enlarger cancels out the vignetting of the camera. Positive/negative.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
The lens of the camera vignettes, but the lens of the enlarger vignettes too, so the vignetting of the enlarger cancels out the vignetting of the camera. Positive/negative.

Erik.
Click to expand...
I'd never thought of this but it makes sense. With a negative image, light becomes dark and dark becomes light. When the light from the enlarger passes through, the vignetting from its lens darkens the parts of the negative where the taking lens vignetting made the image brighter. When it's projected onto paper in a positive image, it has the effect of brightening the vignetted corners. Brilliant!
 
Erik van Straten said:
I think when printing analogue the light falloff disappears in part because the enlarger produces light falloff too!
Click to expand...
It's been too long for me to remember the details, honestly, but I know that my rendering notions for printing changed a lot when I went to all-inkjet printing. A lot of what I reach for when rendering now was either a part of the materials' nature when I printed in the wet lab, or actually go in the other direction due to the different nature of an inkjet printer engine.

The end goal, of course, is a satisfying print no matter how you produce it, and I know for a fact that I'm much more proficient in image processing than I was as a wet lab printer. It's a different skill set. :)

G
 
To my taste the shots of Godfrey above have too much light fall off. It immediately stands out. I guess this effect is easy to remove in Photoshop.

A shot made with a Leitz Summicron 50mm f2 collapsible at full aperture and enlarged with a Leitz Focomat llc has quite a lot of vignetting too.

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 collapsible) leica m3

Erik.

View attachment 4816607
 
Erik van Straten said:
The lens of the camera vignettes, but the lens of the enlarger vignettes too, so the vignetting of the enlarger cancels out the vignetting of the camera. Positive/negative.

Erik.
Click to expand...
Got it, it is the negative film showed more translucency around the corners and the enlarger lens pass less light around the corners
 
Erik van Straten said:
To my taste the shots of Godfrey above have too much light fall off. It immediately stands out. I guess this effect is easy to remove in Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Which shots are you referring to, the test exposures or the photograph of the skeleton reposing in a front yard? The latter is a rendered interpretation—whether you like it or not is purely a matter of personal preference. The former are unedited and display what the lenses produce... ;)

I do tend to like a little bit of vignetting, but how much depends on the particular photograph and what I'm intending with the rendering. I adjust it when I'm editing.

Lenses produce what they produce. And yes: light fall-off is easily adjusted in image processing, with any number of image processing applications (not just Photoshop). I haven't used Photoshop in nearly a decade now.

G
 
Sheesh, just saw this thread again ... since February! Yike.

Really like this last photo, Erik.
And yes, sometimes I like a lot of vignetting, other times not. I often add a little... :)

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top