This a big subject Micro-Contrast. I am sure some of you know about this: I started reading about Micro-Contrast last night by accident. I have had frustration wondering why my cheaper...

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I started reading about Micro-Contrast last night by accident. I have had frustration
wondering why my cheaper Lieca I got for my birthday took such stunning pictures.
I was looking at my b&w shots from a little in 2003. I like Zeiss lens.
Reading MICRO-CONTRAST, THE BIGGEST OPTICAL LUXURY OF THE WORLD last night
made me feel real stupid. My creative eye could see the difference. But I was in the dark.

This online article defined the asset:
Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to communicate the richness and vibrancy of the inter-tonal shifts between the brighter to darker part of a very same color onto the sensor. A lens with great micro-contrast has much richer colours and tone transitions compared to a weaker one. It's one of the attributes that people refer to the 3d-pop. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with resolution (measurable sharpness).

The lens makers today are working to make most lens sharp the sharpest. And a lot of very good expensive lens from Canon and Nikon and Sony all of them are selling sharp. I have some of my shots are up on my wallfrom the Leica and they were with a Micro-contrast lens. I have the Sony 55mm Zeiss lens fun lens. Great bokeh but not Micro-Contrast. Most pro's know this.

I was looking at the Sony RX1 with a fixed lens and it has micro-contrast and FF. A trippy camera no viewfinder. This shooter says my 70 200 F4 is good. But many of the great Canon lens were changed
to go sharp. I won't call it dynamic range. But rich colors and tone transitions is what my eye craved.
This article online will be an eye opener for some.
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

Largobob

I am not an expert in optics. I do know which images that I like, or don't like.....

When I was a teen, I shot with a Speed Graphic, given to me by my dad. It had all the bells and whistles at the time (double extension bellows, both leaf and focal plane shutters, etc), including a pre-war Carl Zeiss lens...the lens was actually "liberated" in the war. I will swear that, the lens would resolve two eyelashes on a tic at 50 yards. The images were amazing.

Some Comments:

First, that outfit was designed to expose 4x5" negs. My camera was fit with a 3.25 x 4.25 " back. It may have been my first "crop sensor" camera? Hey, the smaller film was cheaper and images were outstanding....

Pre-war German Zeiss glass was world-class premier "contrasty glass." It was obvious...it made a statement....it produced incredible images. Major manufactures of lenses make their own glass. The formulation of the glass makes a HUGE difference.

You can design, you can grind, you can position lens elements, you can hipe your product all you want....but if the glass isn't right....oh well.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Thanks Bob
Very interesting.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Thanks, good to know since I was considering an "ART" lens. I now need to do more research on this

twice_shooter

The Angry Photographer (youtube) has been preaching micro contrast for years. Newer lenses are sometimes “ruined” in the effort to make them sharper. In a sense, sharpness is a selling feature partly because you can test it and produce a value on a chart. Micro contrast is more of the nuance and quality of the image the lens produces. Very good article, btw. Thanks.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

twice_shooter wrote:

The Angry Photographer (youtube) has been preaching micro contrast for years. Newer lenses are sometimes “ruined” in the effort to make them sharper. In a sense, sharpness is a selling feature partly because you can test it and produce a value on a chart. Micro contrast is more of the nuance and quality of the image the lens produces. Very good article, btw. Thanks.

Perhaps its like the emperor's clothes.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Thanks for posting this article. There is an undefinable quality to my older collections of lenses that I see but has been unexplainable til now. Same with some Fuji lenses. Funny the writer didn't mention Pentax lenses at all-old or newer.
Anyway, very interesting and another thing to keep in mind when purchasing new.

Tom Daniels wrote:

I started reading about Micro-Contrast last night ... (show quote)

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

These were taken with LEICA DIGILUX 2 made in Japan in 2004. It was a poor mans Leica not expensive.
No PP. Surprise the last 2 photos were taken kn2016 with the SONY DSC-RX100M4 the little powerhouse.
I have been really interested in b&w for personal work recently. Hope you find this interesting.

(Download)

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Tom Daniels wrote:

Thanks Bob
Very interesting.

This author said "art" lens are good and have a big reputation. Almost none have micro contrast.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

The sad part is most lens and cameras like the RX1 and new version are very expensive.
Monochrome cameras start at 7k.

Low Budget Dave

Good article. I would also add that you can play tricks on your eye and create the same impression as micro-contrast, if not the exact same thing. There was an excellent article in Exploring Exposure a few months ago that provided a quick tutorial:
https://exploringexposure.com/blog/creating-micro-contrast-in-photoshop/

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Exploring Exposure is great. Thanks

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Really good post.... As I progressed through the years from Canon to my current Olympus setups I always kept looking back at the images coming out of my antiquated Sony DSC-R1 with the 24-120 Zeiss lens and wondering why They looked so appealing and actually somehow looked better than I was getting from my newer setups.... I think sometimes we are blinded by new technologies and new features and lose site of the appeal quality of the images taken by so called outdated cameras. After reading more on micro contrast I went back and reviewed some of the images captured by this 14 year old camera with its superb Zeiss lens and was amazed at the beauty of not only the sharpness but also how the tones and colors beautifully blended. I am going to reacquaint myself with this superb camera/lens combination and really work it out, especially in landscape and long exposure situations as lens speed is not its forte. Thanks so much for the focus on micro contrast and older lenses. I always liked the look of Zeiss but never really associated micro contrast with that look. Sometimes maybe newer is not always better. Cheers, Bob

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Thank you for the article, hadn't thought of micro contrast. Wonder if it's like 'replace color' in Photoshop. When I shoot a long Tele shot and get haze, I process the blacks with 'replace color' feature, selecting a partial area of hazy black areas and darken them. One can do that several times in the same area varying to fussiness intensity. Understood this is work, where as the lens may have done that instantly.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

petercbrandt wrote:

Thank you for the article, hadn't thought of micro contrast. Wonder if it's like 'replace color' in Photoshop. When I shoot a long Tele shot and get haze, I process the blacks with 'replace color' feature, selecting a partial area of hazy black areas and darken them. One can do that several times in the same area varying to fussiness intensity. Understood this is work, where as the lens may have done that instantly.

It is a sad truth that our newer lenses are trading character for sharpness, it is also interesting how many social media sites have filters that subdue these qualities even further and people love them? To me these filters remind me of a hazy lens needing cleaning.
I decently gravitate to micro contrasty lenses like Leica and classic Zeiss.
I bought the Zeiss 18mm milvus and it he’s low contrast to my disappointment, but where these flatter lenses shine like sigma,milvus, etc is at night they rule at night.