A large format film photographer who takes mostly landscapes recently described micro contrast to me and I wondered about micro contrast in digital photography. Gemini, the constitutional liar, says that modern lenses and sensors are made for sharpeness and sacrifice the micro contrast. The result is described as a "clinical look" as opposed to a more natural and three dimensional look that one finds for instance in film Leicas.
I shoot photos that are super detailed and the sharpness of m SONY A7 R3 is remarkable. But I began to wonder whether a dollop of old fashioned micro contrast would add even more texture to the fine detail. Gemini suggested a some lenses, A Voightlander for instance, that have beautiful microcontrast but which would have to be used with manual focus which I guess is OK. It also said that the glass covering the digital sensor was tailored for sharpness but could be replaces with a thinner glass that would not block the micro contrast coming through the lens.
I spoke to a photographer who uses both a film Leica and a modern digital camera and he was skeptical as was my printer. So I am asking the Luminous Landscape community to opine on this question.
