Radical departure

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hope this doesn't sound pretentious, but I'm aware that it might, but here goes anyway: when I take a photograph I want it to reflect as accurately as possible the reality that I've chosen to record. Like looking through an open window. That means as little aesthetic appeal as possible should come from the lens or the camera which should get as close as possible to being invisible.

 

I'm also aware of all the choices I make when creating a photo, which make a true representation (or repeat) of reality impossible. But I'd like to get as close as I can, so any lens that adds aesthetic appeal to a photo ( by means of nice rendering or whatever) diminishes it by adding imperfections or visual elements that were not present in the reality I'm trying to record.

 

Perhaps that is not what others mean by "character" or even rendering, but it's how I interpret it and would welcome being corrected.

[pop]

I hope this doesn't sound pretentious, but I'm aware that it might, but here goes anyway: when I take a photograph I want it to reflect as accurately as possible the reality that I've chosen to record. Like looking through an open window. That means as little aesthetic appeal as possible should come from the lens or the camera which should get as close as possible to being invisible.

 

I'm also aware of all the choices I make when creating a photo, which make a true representation (or repeat) of reality impossible. But I'd like to get as close as I can, so any lens that adds aesthetic appeal to a photo ( by means of nice rendering or whatever) diminishes it by adding imperfections or visual elements that were not present in the reality I'm trying to record.

 

Perhaps that is not what others mean by "character" or even rendering, but it's how I interpret it and would welcome being corrected.

What you describe is called a "lens without character" by many here. I happen to share your preference for "invisible" lenses which render the scene as similarly to plain viewing as possible. I think the world has enough character as it is so it does not need to have added any by the lens.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[otto.f]

I hope this doesn't sound pretentious, but I'm aware that it might, but here goes anyway: when I take a photograph I want it to reflect as accurately as possible the reality that I've chosen to record. Like looking through an open window. That means as little aesthetic appeal as possible should come from the lens or the camera which should get as close as possible to being invisible.

 

I'm also aware of all the choices I make when creating a photo, which make a true representation (or repeat) of reality impossible. But I'd like to get as close as I can, so any lens that adds aesthetic appeal to a photo ( by means of nice rendering or whatever) diminishes it by adding imperfections or visual elements that were not present in the reality I'm trying to record.

 

Perhaps that is not what others mean by "character" or even rendering, but it's how I interpret it and would welcome being corrected.

It's about time you show us the lenses that you own

[pico]

David, my preferences come from an era of lesser lenses exacerbated by terrible eyesight which is barely correctable to normal. The only time I can get close is viewing a print at normal viewing distance. Three-D reality is already abstract IRL.

Edited December 11, 2016 by pico

[Peter H]

It's about time you show us the lenses that you own

 

 

I've mentioned them a number of times. You make it sound as though I'm keeping secrets.

 

I currently own the following Leica M lenses:

24 Elmar 3.8 ASPH

28mm Summicron ASPH 

35 Summicron ASPH

35 Summilux ASPH FLE

50 Summilux ASPH

75 Summicron ASPH

90 Elmarit M 2.8

 

I have owned previous non-ASPH equivalents  of all of these except the 90, and others in the past, including wider and longer.  And too many other lenses of other makes, some M fitting and many, many other types, and Leica R lenses.

[Jeff S]

What you describe is called a "lens without character" by many here. I happen to share your preference for "invisible" lenses which render the scene as similarly to plain viewing as possible. I think the world has enough character as it is so it does not need to have added any by the lens.

 

Reminds me a bit about discussions regarding stereo/speaker systems.  Speaker monitors are designed not to add coloration, rather to play back sounds without added warmth, etc. But speakers must interact with other stereo components, with the recording itself (the orchestra sound and mic'ing and then the making of the disc/CD, etc) and then interact with the listening room and with the listener's ears.  

 

So too with lenses; they're only one part of a much larger workflow chain, including the camera (and film/sensor/software), especially if the end result is a print that then must be lighted/displayed, and ultimately subject to different viewer's eyes.  No real way to isolate variables, and 'reality' is ultimately is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Reminds me a bit about discussions regarding stereo/speaker systems. Speaker monitors are designed not to add coloration, rather to play back sounds without added warmth, etc. But speakers must interact with other stereo components, with the recording itself (the orchestra sound and mic'ing and then the making of the disc/CD, etc) and then interact with the listening room and with the listener's ears.

 

So too with lenses; they're only one part of a much larger workflow chain, including the camera (and film/sensor/software), especially if the end result is a print that then must be lighted/displayed, and ultimately subject to different viewer's eyes. No real way to isolate variables, and 'reality' is ultimately is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

 

Jeff

I wouldn't quarrel with any of this Jeff, but none of that argues against the attempt to get as close as I can to a natural and realistic representation of the scene, accepting as I have the subjective point from which I start.

 

This is not an extremist position. I acknowledge that I choose what to photograph, from which angle and all the rest of it. I just want as little to come from outside the subject and my interpretation of it as I can reasonably manage.

[pgk]

So too with lenses; they're only one part of a much larger workflow chain, including the camera (and film/sensor/software), especially if the end result is a print that then must be lighted/displayed, and ultimately subject to different viewer's eyes.  No real way to isolate variables, and 'reality' is ultimately is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

 

But workflows can either diminish or enhance characteristics of major components. And just as musicians can appreciate a fine performance for its musicality so too photographers can appreciate an image which utilises relevant characteristics that enhance the subject. So just as an example; the 75mm Summilux stopped down produces images with plenty of fine detail, but detail which has a subtle, smooth transition to its edges, relative that is to images from the 75mm Summicron, which produces fine detail with a more distinct transition to its edges. The difference is subtle but it exists. Adding in any small amount of unsharp masking to images from these lenses will by either diminish the subtlety of the smooth transitions of the Summilux or exaggerate the harsher transitions of the Summicron. So its possible to play to a characteristic. Which is more 'accurate' is as said in the eye of the beholder.

[Guest]

There is always some objective truth in either position, in this case what Jeff and Peter say. However, does this translate into anything useful without showing photographs of what you mean? And then what sort of photographs? One end of the spectrum would be lens test photographs, to show lens properties that can be objective judged. But that seems no more than the tenor of this discussion. The other end of the spectrum, more interesting, would be photographs of what one is trying to accomplish. But that would depend on the type of photography. Again, there a different ends of the spectrum, even just showing, say, landscapes: at one end, hugely detailed, high resolution landscapes that some would consider nothing more than extended lens tests; the other end, expressionist high contrast landscapes that some would consider could be shot through the bottom of a Coke bottle. As, pgk says, "Which is more 'accurate' is as said in the eye of the beholder" — and depends on emotional or artistic impact.  Still discussing, on the basis of looking at photographs, how certain lenses accomplish what the photographer seeks would, in my view, be more fruitful.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited December 11, 2016 by Guest

[pico]

I suggest you all explore the view of near blind and aesthetics.

There is a view that a 'thumbnail' can reveal more than a full-blown image can.

It is about simple, elemental content, not resolution.

.

Edited December 11, 2016 by pico

[lct]

Matter of tastes as always. Some people like showing subject matters the way they are (or they believe they are) "objectively". Others will find that boring or dull eventually. What's reality actually? Is it reality we like showing or the way we perceive it? When i photograph people i like do i feel the need to show all their skin imperfections? If so i will choose a 50/1.4 ash or a 75/2 apo for instance but otherwise i will take a ZM 50/1.5 or a Summilux 75/1.4.

[pop]

I suggest you all explore the view of near blind and aesthetics.

There is a view that a 'thumbnail' can reveal more than a full-blown image can.

It is about simple, elemental content, not resolution.

.

Being an eclectic, I can appreciate both a naturalistic likeness of the real world and many kinds of abstractions or distortions. However, I find it easier to produce a distorted or reduced view from a complete, realistic one than the reverse. Not being rich, I decided to buy myself a set of lenses which can do realistic likenesses.

 

The scale of an image matters immensely, of course. Some properties of an image might remain hidden from sight if viewed from too close up. 

[pico]

I wouldn't quarrel with any of this Jeff, but none of that argues against the attempt to get as close as I can to a natural and realistic representation of the scene, accepting as I have the subjective point from which I start.

 

That is admirable considering an individual's motive and can help create a cogent series of photographs, however it depends upon the public's feeling of 'realistic representation' which almost certainly cannot be quantified, verified in any meaningful way. It is impossible to individualize your view from the gestalt.

.

[harmen]

What aperture or dof is most realistic? It's fascinating how art can evoke stronger when it is simultaneously both as realistic as possible and with entire parts missing. It's when it's somewhat realistic, but not quite there that it is merely an attempt.

[Peter H]

What aperture or dof is most realistic? It's fascinating how art can evoke stronger when it is simultaneously both as realistic as possible and with entire parts missing. It's when it's somewhat realistic, but not quite there that it is merely an attempt.

You can take a photo in an attempt to say "look at this: I want to share my feelings about this scene/subject with you". Or you can try to say "look at this. What do you see?" Both equally valid but distinct approaches to photographic expression

 

There are other things you can say of course. But these two approaches seem to me to encapsulate the extremes of what we are talking about here.

[lct]

What do you see? Asking people around me, they rarely see details. 

[Peter H]

What do you see? Asking people around me, they rarely see details.

Do you mean when they look at photographs or when they look at the world in general?

[lct]

Both perhaps but when they look at photographs certainly.

[pgk]

If you haven't read it then "Visual Concepts for Photographers" by Stroebel, Todd and Zakia (Focal Press) is well worth a read despite its age (1980).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

That is admirable considering an individual's motive and can help create a cogent series of photographs, however it depends upon the public's feeling of 'realistic representation' which almost certainly cannot be quantified, verified in any meaningful way. It is impossible to individualize your view from the gestalt.

.

 

 

These are the things that make me passionate about photography, and, ultimately, indifferent about cameras and lenses.

 

We are drawn to the spectacular, the beautiful, the rare, strange or outstanding; things full of meaning, perhaps threatening, puzzling or uplifting, promising or reminiscent or otherwise significant and full of potential to become memorable. These are the things that we try to capture and make permanent, both for ourselves and for other people.

 

But the reality of most of our lives is that we are surrounded by things generally regarded as too mundane to be worthy of a photograph. Yet these are the things that are the substance of our lives. The details that people overlook, the things that never establish themselves as visually significant, and certainly not worth recording because they are commonplace and dull.

 

I'm drawn to these things in a way that it's hard to explain.

 

I have a very detailed memory of childhood, as many of us do. I remember the texture of the wall outside the church that I used to run my hand along as I walked to school, or the pulley for the clothes line that hung in my aunt's tiny shared back garden. And the lines painted round the spot reserved for bins behind the flats we lived in...and so on, and on....

 

I wish I had photos of these things. I would trade all the sunsets and safaris and snow-topped mountain peaks for one of them.

 

I would trade every moody portrait of a singer bursting her lungs in passionate reverie for a photo of the chipped bowl I used to eat my breakfast cereal from, or the shop my Grandmother bought it from. Not for the sake of nostalgia, though it is present, but because I want to recognise what life really is, or at least what I feel is the essence of being alive. When we search for beautiful or wonderful things we are ignoring much of what life is. Photography, uniquely, can deal with this anomaly.

 

I am increasingly drawn to medium format high resolution cameras just because they can help me record the tiny insignificant detail that I want, though a phone camera or a box Brownie or Instamatic can do a job. I have no time for bokeh and other "artistic" effects because they are artifice and a distraction to me. They can be beautiful and I do not decry them in other people's work, but they mean nothing to me, so I want small apertures, infinite depth of field, everything clear and sharp and in focus and as accurate as the inaccurate art of photography can make it.

 

The things that are all around us and removed from our photography by means of selective focus and careful framing and composition: these are the things I want to record.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Peter H