boojum
Mentor
A 2023 white Rhodies in peak bloom at Fort Columbia, Chinook, WA. M9/Amotal, ISO 160, EC -1, f/4.0. What I like about this lens is its dreamy, vague look, until you zoom in and see it is sharp. Link to full image"
DoK
Established
Your photos look quite contrasty. On the web, most photos on Amotal have a less contrasty, more dreamy look.
I wonder if any lenses have a rendering similar to Amotal? Maybe someone knows?
jonal928
Well-known
From the aspect of size, there is no substitute for the compactness of the ELCAN lens.
The build quality of this lens is one of the best you can get. And regarding the results following
the use of the ELCAN lens, this is of course a personal matter.
L1000062Summicron 1-2-50 Leitz S2 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr
**
The build quality of this lens is one of the best you can get. And regarding the results following
the use of the ELCAN lens, this is of course a personal matter.
L1000062Summicron 1-2-50 Leitz S2 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr**
boojum
Mentor
Consider the light. The camera is set up standard across the board, ISO 160 EC -1. The day was overcast, there was no direct sunlight, close to fog. The b;ossoms were in bushes which described darkness. Yesterday's sun may have been our summer. This is the PNW. The images are SOOC JPG's. If you follow the included link to where I post on Flickr you will find many other Amotal posts, in more sunlight. These are quite dreamy to me, fuzzy, vague and indistinct until you enlarge the photos and find them in focus. But regard the light. It defines what we do.
Here is one on a Pixii/Amotal: https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/5Q7059X487
M9/Amotal:
M9/Amotal:
I have no idea what you have seen on the web. These are M9 and Pixii SOOC. Both cameras have excellent color.
Cheers
DoK
Established
What's important to me is how Amotal works gently with light, while still having good and soft micro-contrast. And a smooth transition into the out-of-focus zone. These shots may have had different lighting conditions, and this is the "vision" of the authors
COOKE AMOTAL 50F2 05 by ★☆洪爺の銀鹽專賣★☆, on Flickr
COOKE AMOTAL 50F2 02 by ★☆洪爺の銀鹽專賣★☆, on Flickr
DSC03754 by jaggi Supapornpasuphat, on Flickr
COOKE AMOTAL 50F2 05 by ★☆洪爺の銀鹽專賣★☆, on FlickrCOOKE AMOTAL 50F2 02 by ★☆洪爺の銀鹽專賣★☆, on FlickrDSC03754 by jaggi Supapornpasuphat, on Flickr
DoK
Established
L1011789 by jaggi Supapornpasuphat, on Flickr
JAG00535 by jaggi Supapornpasuphat, on Flickr
L1002428 by jaggi Supapornpasuphat, on Flickr
DoK
Established
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I won't call it a "dreamy" lens. It is tack sharp, even wide open. I'll soon have some more pictures with it (I have to print them) so I repeat the shot already shown. It is at full aperture taken in a moving tram. The beauty of the lens is it's extreme sharpness at full aperture combined with a breathtaking bokeh. Typical for TTH lenses. Don't forget that the earliest Summilux lenses were made by TTH too. (TTH=Taylor, Taylor and Hobson).
gelatin silver print (cooke amotal 50mm f2) leica mp
Amsterdam, 2023
Erik.
Last edited:
boojum
Mentor
I will try to make this as simple as I can. I took a Leica M9 and attached a Cooke Amatol to it. I set the ISO to 160 and the EC to -1 and the camera to auto exposure. The White Balance was daylight. The lens opening was f/4.0. I photographed some extremely bright flowers against a dark green and shadowy background. The day was overcast and dull. This is all visible in the photos. What you see is what the camera saw. Clue, not all lighting is the same.
What are you trying to say? If you do not like the image, talk to Cooke. If you do not like how it was captured, talk to Leica. If you do not like the lighting , well, the light show was by God and his friends so take that up with them. What you see is SOOC JPG. What's the problem?
And with my limited command of English I think of the results with the Cooke, especially at wider f-stops as "dreamy", the "Cooke Look." I am willing to take instruction from you in English, especially on the adjectives as you seem to disagree with my choice. This is important to you so any help will be appreciated. Proost
What are you trying to say? If you do not like the image, talk to Cooke. If you do not like how it was captured, talk to Leica. If you do not like the lighting , well, the light show was by God and his friends so take that up with them. What you see is SOOC JPG. What's the problem?
And with my limited command of English I think of the results with the Cooke, especially at wider f-stops as "dreamy", the "Cooke Look." I am willing to take instruction from you in English, especially on the adjectives as you seem to disagree with my choice. This is important to you so any help will be appreciated. Proost
boojum
Mentor
To further illustrate the dynamic range/contrast in Rhododendron blossoms and their backgrounds here is another photo, this of red ones on a sunny day with the Hasselblad X2D and the XCD 55V. Reduced in size in GIMP. I am interested to learn the errors in this photo so please do not hold back. Between your knowledge photography and PNW horticulture I am sure you can be instructive. Thank you.
DoK
Established
I'd be very interested to see a photo of Amotal on the Hasselblad. I'm not kidding. Leica lenses work on X1D and X2D with an adapter. Not all cover the Hassy sensor, but it turns out interesting. No one has tried Amotal on the Hassy yet, there are no examples on the web. You might enjoy the experience. After all, you can shoot in a square format to avoid vignetting. The Chinese adapter is inexpensive, but opens up a wide range of possibilities for experimenting with lenses on this fine sensor
Last edited:
boojum
Mentor
I have done it. It does not either cover the sensor or impress. The XCD 55V is my preferred lens. And I am not kidding, if this really interests you, rent the XCD and an Amotal and shoot away.
FWIW the Jupiter works fine on the X2D. But the XCD 55V is my preferred lens. Good thing, it is all I have, or need.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
The Cooke Amotal was not designed to be used on a digital camera. In 1949 there were no digital cameras. It is a lens for film.
The same mistake is now made with the new version of the Speed Panchro. The Speed Panchro was designed in the 1930's for cinematography. Now people want to use the lens on digital cameras. Why do they want to do that? They seem not to understand that a digital sensor is something completely different than a piece of film.
Erik.
The same mistake is now made with the new version of the Speed Panchro. The Speed Panchro was designed in the 1930's for cinematography. Now people want to use the lens on digital cameras. Why do they want to do that? They seem not to understand that a digital sensor is something completely different than a piece of film.
Erik.
boojum
Mentor
Are you saying that all pre-digital lenses are not feasible on digital cameras?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
No, I am saying that the Cooke Amotal was not designed to be used on a digital camera. In 1949 there were no digital cameras. It is a lens for film.
The same mistake is now made with the new version of the Speed Panchro. The Speed Panchro was designed in the 1930's for cinematography. Now people want to use the lens on digital cameras. Why do they want to do that? They seem not to understand that a digital sensor is something completely different than a piece of film.
boojum
Mentor
In response I will recount a circumstance of when Dr. Samuel Johnson and Boswell were out for a walk. There was a rock in the road and Boswell told Johnson that philosophically Johnson could not demonstrate that the rock was there. Johnson kicked the rock and said, "The rock is there."
Regardless of your opinions on lens design I find that vintage glass works just fine on digital cameras. And if you are that steadfastly sure of yourself get off a letter quickly to Skyllaney and tell then to abandon their Bertele project now, before all is lost. I am sure they will be interested in your opinions on this matter as will others on this board.
I do not worship at the altar of developer and stop baths. Very few do. There may be a reason for this. I am scheduled for "Education Night" tomorrow at the local camera club. It will be on wet plate photography, bad photos taken on wet plate. What next, camera obscura and buggy whips? There have been "oohs and aahs" over a pinhole camera in this club.
Here is a digital mono, M8.2, 28mm, and a color one, just for fun. The lens is a "film" lens from 1957 (CANON 28mm f/2.8 - Canon Camera Museum)
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Yes, you are right!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I've been reading in my American Cinematographer that directors and cinematographers are complaining that modern cinema lenses made for digital cinematography are too clinical. They are searching for older lenses, including Carl Zeiss and Leica, made during the film era and having them converted to cinema camera mount for use on their digital gear. This has left companies like Panavision scrambling to redesign their newest lenses to give them more character. And judging by the latest ads in AC, they have apparently done just that. Not everyone wants aspherical lenses for still photography, either. I've bought my share of them, and now I'm rethinking that choice.
boojum
Mentor
We are walking the razor's edge here. Finding the point where accuracy and "charm" balance one another. I bought a series of vintage lenses in LTM as well as some M42 CV's. The CV's are nice and they are sharp but they are a little too much of each. I really like my two KMZ Jupiter 8's, a Canon f/1.8, a nice Canon 28mm and 35mm, and, of course. the Cooke Amotal. These lenses are accurate without being oppressive. The J8's do not have the Cooke Look but they do color well and describe shapes well suggesting a more 3D effect than some other lenses.
The vintage lenses take the edge off digital. YMMV
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
This is very true. Cooke, Panavision, Zeiss, Hawk and more all have new-ish lines of vintage lenses for cinematographers who want a less perfect look shooting film or digital but the benefits of modern, standardized mechanics. Some of these are modern lens designs, others are rehoused vintage lenses. The technicians at Panavision will "detune" the optics of a lens at your request to change things such as the bokeh, flare and contrast characteristics.
I recall reading that The Batman was shot on a larger format digital camera that would have a better low light response and shallower depth of field (the sensor sizes we're talking about are roughly full frame vs APS-C [close enough to the standard for motion picture film & digital]) but then bolted on a LOMO anamorphic lens with strong barrel distortion and blurry corners for character. When the editing and effects were all done, they printed a film negative from the digital file, then made an interpolative and scanned that interpositive to get the film grain and slight degradation from generation loss. The filmmakers were able to take the convenience and flexibility of digital cinematography and then dirty up and degrade the raw material to lend visual atmosphere to the story.