"rendering is clinical" - huh???

[uroman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What does it mean when someone says that a lens has rendering that is "clinical".

If you placed the same shot by two lenses side-by-side, could you really explain what it means to be "clinical"?

[Jeff S]

The term is often used for modern lens design that is so free of imperfections, aberrations, etc. that the rendering is ultra-precise and lacking "magic," whatever that is. Another similar term one hears often is sterile; perhaps realistic, but lacking character, is another way to state it. The term is, in other words, generally used pejoratively and synonymously with words like cold or antiseptic.

 

No lens of course is perfect, but many feel that some older designs lent more romanticism and "glow" to the image through blurriness, flare and other effects that modern lens designs attempt to eliminate.

 

Of course, one person's clinical is another person's nirvana. The differences in taste at times mimic the tired film/digital debate.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

There have always been people who take up photography, not because they are interested in the medium, but because they do not have the talent and the self-discipline to learn to paint.

 

A hundred years ago they were called Pictorialists. They claimed that the sharp pictures made by the new-fangled anastigmat lenses were too sharp, vulgar (i.e. they looked like photographs, not like fuzzy romantic salon paintings) and, probably, clinical and sterile. So they took up pinhole photography, They smeared Vaseline on their lenses. They kicked the legs of the tripod during exposure. They treated their glass plate negatives with sandpaper. And they invented devious printing techniques like bromoil to introduce the desired fuzz and the lack of detail. There were soft-focus lenses galore.

 

Eventually, they were ridiculed to death. Sharpness, clarity and light became the watchwords of the time. But in the 1950's, Pictorialism returned. Now the tack was different however. Photographs should look, believe it or not, more 'photographic'. Specifically, that meant that they had to be so grainy that they looked like printed on light-sensitive macadam. Also, there should be as few halftones as possible. People tortured their negatives, sometimes cooking them in undiluted Rodinal, to achieve the sought-after 'photographic' look. This was the 'modern' look. And today some people impart fake film grain to their digital files, by software. Just the same thing, really.

 

Needless to say, there were yokels who had not caught the message. They were catered for by studios that sold them soft-focus prints run through mangles that imparted a fake canvas texture to them, so that they would be Real Art, fit to hang above the sitting-room couch.

 

Now, if you had told Ansel Adams or Edward Weston or any other real photographer that their lenses were too 'clinical' and sharp, they would have said "huh" and then guffawed. Their lenses were not sharp enough. They were willing to stop down to f/64 to get images that were sharp enough, and they called their mini-movement "the f/64 school".

 

The problem is not that lenses are too sharp – those early anastigmats were not that sharp, really – but that some people hate photography, and still they will not leave it alone. But I do not understand what they are complaining about. You can still buy soft filters of various strengths to suit your tastes, if those are your tastes. But that would perhaps be a too overt admission of their aberration.

 

Well, Vaseline is still available.

 

The old man who has seen most of it with his own eyes

[Washington]

Tell me about it! Lord, the pure so called ‘’esthetic’’ non-sense and invented terminology

to describe it is just pure crap.

I remember when the term ‘’image’’ was coming into vogue. I said to myself the ‘’image’’

they are talking about is what some jerk things of himself walking about with a great

big lens.'' Awww, hell: I don’t have to tell you - you know.

[thighslapper]

Here we stray into the murky area of Photography as 'art' versus 'realism'.

 

Don't go there.......

 

You can take sharpness etc. out of an image once you have it, but you can't stick back in what wasn't there in the first place .... at least not without adding artifact to some extent.

 

There is a great deal of woolly romanticism and nostalgia attached to all this ... and a fair element of self delusional justification for using what are essentially poor optics......

 

As Lars implies..... get the best lens you can.... then buy the vaseline.....

[Washington]

thighslapper,

I agree with what you have said.

I have always been interested in photos I admire and could care less about the

equipment. It’s just silly to think one has to spend boo-coo bucks to find perfection.

I recently viewed photographs taken with $50 Jupitar Lenses…. they were lovely!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These are technical forums, and we are trying to describe the way images look in words. I find the term clinical quite descriptive and free of negative connotations.

We could be having thie same discussion in a HiFi forum.

[Washington]

I used to hang around with an artsy bunch in NYC who would spend 1/2 an hour

using words to describe a piece of work that was right in front of your face.

Why?

Should it not speak for itself?

This is visual art…. not a novel.

[250swb]

I like to start making an image with a perfect clinical lens, one that doesn't vignette (much), is sharp across the frame, doesn't flare, little or no distortion etc. But I know that doesn't make a photograph on its own. A perfect lens rarely makes a perfect photograph. And that is why Edward Weston and Ansel Adams and almost any great photographer spent/spends so much time in the darkroom or issuing instructions to technicians. If you have a clinical lens, one without faults, it is ready to be bent to your will, rather than starting with a lens with faults that you embrace and follow. Either way is OK, but just do something, make a human decision, don't think a photograph pops out the camera fully formed, avoid going 'ooooh, ahhhhhh, its a Summilux photograph...'

 

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Actually I like "clinical" (i think of them as "precise") lenses, but then I am a great fan of the Magic Realists in painting..

[Washington]

Steve,

You really mean a ‘’clinical lens’’ is a lens without faults?

When was this term made up?

[pgk]

Clinicality = Accuracy = Reality as far as I am concerned.

 

For technical photography clinicality is usually praised, but for general photography there are as many opinions about whether accuracy in an image is good or bad as there are photographers (or photographers who think about it anyway).

 

As I come from a scientific background I actually do like 'clinical' lenses, but I also have some older designs which I enjoy using precisely because they interpret the world in a less precise and sometimes more endearing way.

[MarkP]

 

Well, Vaseline is still available.

 

 

For the wanker, or his lens?

[Washington]

Paul,

Take my word for it: this is the first time I have heard this term. I am simply

astonished.

Certainly I can have no opinion on a term I know nothing about.

But, in 50 years of photography, I have never heard of such. So, where did

this one come from????

[Lord Fluff]

Some lenses have a way of imparting something appealing, which is not to do with accuracy or sharpness, while other lenses do not.

 

Since no lens is perfect there will be imperfections that are generally appealing, and others that are not so endearing. The appealing imperfections are often called 'magic'.

 

I have a 35 Cron Asph, and a 35 Lux Asph. Even at similar apertures the Lux does something to the recorded image that I like, which the Cron does not - and 'clinical' is a shorthand for that, which may not be entirely accurate, since both are good performers technically. All I know is that to my eyes the Lux adds a little something, which may be imperfection, that makes me like the results just a little better.

[budrichard]

I suspect but have not traced the origin of the word 'clinical' used to describe how a lens performs, to be from a Reviewer seeking to separate himself from the mainstream of equipment reviewers and the term caught on among the individuals that either could not interpret objective information supplied by the manufacturers or looking for subjective criteria to describe lens performance. Terms such as 'clinical' and 'bokeh' have no objective measurement criteria and exist in the mind of the observer.-Dick

[Doc Henry]

This term is appropriate to me if you want to talk about the accuracy or sharpness of a lens .In Ophthalmology surgery we have Leitz magnifiers or microscopes that helps us a lot by the sharpness and rendering in general compared to other brands of equipment !

Henry

[lct]

The way i understand it in audio and photo, the term "clinical" means cold or lifeless more so than accurate or without fault. In that sense, technical perfection does not imply clinical rendering per se. As "perfect" as they may be some high-end systems tend towards the highest resolution where others privilege contrast, depth and/or warmth in reproduction.

[pgk]

The way i understand it in audio and photo, the term "clinical" means cold or lifeless more so than accurate or without fault..

Well I have often heard the term 'clinical precision' used which means as far as I know, with cold precision - ie imparting nothing beyond accuracy, which would actually fit in well in an audio context. A musical performance which is 'clinical' would be one which reflects the music as written but which fails to add musicality - its is precise and absolutely accurate but not necessarily particularly pleasant to listen to. Same can be true for lenses.

 

The 'cron and 'lux mentioned by Lord Fluff are interesting examples as the 'cron is actually a more precise lens with less distortion than the 'lux. It is also a less stressed design and the 'lux will have more imperfections as a result of its faster aperture. So it can deliver a more accurate, precise and 'clinical' result at times.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bbbonthemoon]

A lens that shows all small details of someone's face, exaggerating every detail, like wrinkles, birthmarks and etc, with excessive micro-contrast.