[Lowell Goudge]

A few portraits with the SMC Takumar 85/1.8 (on Sony A7III)
Shot in natural light, no flash or reflectors etc.

The middle shot seems to have a loss of contrast in the middle, is this rear element reflection off the sensor? I don't get that with my 85mm/1.9 tak

[tim60]

The middle shot seems to have a loss of contrast in the middle, is this rear element reflection off the sensor? I don't get that with my 85mm/1.9 tak

I have had a very similar effect with an Auto Tak 35/3.5, which I replaced with the SMC version. It affected under all lighting conditions. The effect seemed to be reflection between the sensor and a smooth, silvery finish metal ring around the rear element. Later versions of the 35/3.5 have that ring finished with ribbing and a matte black finish. I also had a similar effect when the rear metal tube fell out of my SMC 200/4. That was restored to proper condition by gluing the tube back in.

[abw]

The middle shot seems to have a loss of contrast in the middle, is this rear element reflection off the sensor? I don't get that with my 85mm/1.9 tak

TBH - I have no idea - I was shooting it to very bright sun and couldn't really see a thing lol.
But I liked the effect.

[Lowell Goudge]

TBH - I have no idea - I was shooting it to very bright sun and couldn't really see a thing lol.
But I liked the effect.

With or without the hood? These lenses really need a good hood

[niceshot]

Some Auto Takumar 35/2.3

nice coloration, luv it . Also you couldn't pick a Better Lens

[niceshot]

here is a shot of this Beast with An Inverted Front Element

[edom31]

SMC Tak 35/3.5 on K-50

[tim60]

here is a shot of this Beast with An Inverted Front Element

Curious how it seems to have almost a line of in focus vs out of focus.


Interesting effect that draws attention to centre image. Also, rather like some of the very old photos, 100 years ago.

[goatsNdonkey]

Curious how it seems to have almost a line of in focus vs out of focus.


Interesting effect that draws attention to centre image. Also, rather like some of the very old photos, 100 years ago.

It's a kind of focal vignetting.

---

There are some very old photos I find inspiring, though I haven't tried to emulate them particularly yet. But they do remind me of a very different value set than we are used to now, when it comes to both exposure and focus. They are in a book of early photographs by Edward Steichen. In many of those photos, there may be just one small place where their is a patch of true white in the entire picture, and perhaps another small place (if there even is one) that is in sharp focus. His emulsions were quite grainy as well, so you might say the pictures had a tangible and sedimentary atmosphere to them, not that this necessarily weighed them down. The effect is quite memorable, as anyone who has seen his famous portrait of the sculptor Rodin, would know.

[Dartmoor Dave]

There are some very old photos I find inspiring, though I haven't tried to emulate them particularly yet. But they do remind me of a very different value set than we are used to now, when it comes to both exposure and focus. They are in a book of early photographs by Edward Steichen. In many of those photos, there may be just one small place where their is a patch of true white in the entire picture, and perhaps another small place (if there even is one) that is in sharp focus. His emulsions were quite grainy as well, so you might say the pictures had a tangible and sedimentary atmosphere to them, not that this necessarily weighed them down. The effect is quite memorable, as anyone who has seen his famous portrait of the sculptor Rodin, would know.

The ability to use grain as a creative tool is one of the key things that I think we've lost in the digital era. Digital noise just isn't the same, and camera makers have quite rightly worked hard to eliminate it at higher ISO settings. But I really wish there was also some work being done on trying to make digital noise look better, in the same way that the grain from films like Tri-X was a genuinely beautiful expressive tool, especially when pushed.

I know you can add fake film grain in post processing, but it's never looked even remotely convincing the couple of times I've tried it. I suppose what I'm asking for is some sort of in-camera menu option to choose between the cleanest high ISO possible or to have some noise that looks similar to film grain.

[niceshot]

The ability to use grain as a creative tool is one of the key things that I think we've lost in the digital era. Digital noise just isn't the same, and camera makers have quite rightly worked hard to eliminate it at higher ISO settings. But I really wish there was also some work being done on trying to make digital noise look better, in the same way that the grain from films like Tri-X was a genuinely beautiful expressive tool, especially when pushed.

I know you can add fake film grain in post processing, but it's never looked even remotely convincing the couple of times I've tried it. I suppose what I'm asking for is some sort of in-camera menu option to choose between the cleanest high ISO possible or to have some noise that looks similar to film grain.

That is so true , about the grain in film. I agree it adds a certain element to it.

[paulh]

Super Tak 35/3.5 on *ist D:

[abw]

With or without the hood? These lenses really need a good hood

always with (original) hood

[paulh]

along the walkway - Super Tak 35/3.5 on *ist D:

[Canada_Rockies]

along the walkway - Super Tak 35/3.5 on *ist D:

Your walking partner must be hiding ...