Lord Fluff Posted August 8, 2011 Share #41 Posted August 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) You mean showing what's actually there? Agreed, this is an unforgivable sin in polite society. It's more than when you think of someone, you don't tend to centre on these things. After all a portrait is an impression of someone, not an autopsy. Thankfully the vogue for ultra-contrasty 'warts-and-all' portraits has passed - I found these had far less to say about their subjects than the works of those who chose to go a little deeper than a lurid examination of the skin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Hi Lord Fluff, Take a look here "rendering is clinical" - huh???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bo_Lorentzen Posted August 8, 2011 Share #42 Posted August 8, 2011 +1 with bocaburger saying "My philosophy is, until I can produce photographs with the artistic merit of a Bresson, I don't need sharper lenses than he had " Second, I am starting to feel more than a little disturbed with the number of HiFi audio equipment analogies used. Clearly there are a large enough demographic in this forum who both own and operate (more or less, in my case, successfully $10.000 worth of camera + lens) but also who have experience with multiple similarly priced music systems. Quick raise your hand if you have received 3 or more solicitations for the NG around the world plane tour. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 9, 2011 Share #43 Posted August 9, 2011 It's more than when you think of someone, you don't tend to centre on these things. After all a portrait is an impression of someone, not an autopsy. Thankfully the vogue for ultra-contrasty 'warts-and-all' portraits has passed - I found these had far less to say about their subjects than the works of those who chose to go a little deeper than a lurid examination of the skin. Agreed, a portrait (in contradistinction to a passport mug shot) is not just the sum of the subject's warts. But that is the point. A good portrait brings over something of the sitter's personality. But what has the lens to do with that? That has to do with the photographer's rapport with the subject, and that is not a matter of optics. Who would claim, when asked outright, that aspherical Leica lenses are bad at reproducing personality? Seen any Personality MTF graphs lately? No, those graphs, if they were possible, would record the PMTF of the photographer. But the photographer prefers to talk about the lenses. If photographs come out 'clinical' in any bad sense, in the sense of emotionally flat, non-empathic, trivial – then the fault is with the photographer, and to blame it on the lens is not much more meaningful than blaming it on the camera strap. "Monsieur van Gogh, what brand of brushes do you use?" I do not know if your pictures are emotionally resonant, or sterile or 'clinical'. But whatever they are, I will insist that your confessed preference for visible chroma, spherical, etc. etc. – for that is what it all boils down to – is irrelevant to the end result. The old man from the Age of the Tessar P.S. Just two afterthoughts. Bocaburger's point that some people are technical hobbyists, and that they should be left in peace with their hobby, is valid – as long as they do not insist that their hobby is obligatory for us other people. And second, the August issue of the LFI has an interesting article that compares visually old and new 50mm lenses for the M, from the Rigid Summicron to the Summilux ASPH. Especially the comparison between the Summiluxes v. 1 (1959), v.2 (1962) and ASPH (2004) is revealing. L.B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted August 9, 2011 Share #44 Posted August 9, 2011 I will insist that your confessed preference for visible chroma, spherical, etc. etc. – for that is what it all boils down to – is irrelevant to the end result. You can insist away old chap, you're not the one paying for my work. I can assure you that the 'look' of certain gear is very much relevant to the people who book me (at least to some degree). As an example - some of my last wedding was shot with a pre-asph 50 lux. A previous client saw some of the shots that the bride had posted of Facebook. He could tell which shots were done with my Canon gear, and which with the M9. His comment was - "In an odd way, it makes the 'normal' photos during the speeches etc look a little 'plain'" This is not a leicaphile speaking - it's a paying customer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 9, 2011 Share #45 Posted August 9, 2011 I do not know if your pictures are emotionally resonant, or sterile or 'clinical'. But whatever they are, I will insist that your confessed preference for visible chroma, spherical, etc. etc. – for that is what it all boils down to – is irrelevant to the end result. I think that many people are more visually aware, albeit sub-consciously, than you may think. We are bombarded with images and nuances are often important. If a manufacturer came up with a 'perfect' lens (and even Leica haven't as yet) it wouldn't mean that all other lenses were redundant. A mix of aberrations is very capable of producing a visually appealing result just as bokeh can enhance or detract from a photograph's overall effectiveness. There is a lot of discussion on this forum about nuances - they do exist and they become important when they add to the appeal of an image - something which tends to get overlooked all too often. Use a clinical lens on a hard, angular subject in cold contrasty light and the result may well be that everything reinforces producing a stark, harsh image (which of course might be the point). Use an older, less well corrected lens in soft warm light for a subject with few hard edges and the result is likely to be the exact opposite; a mellow image with an older feel to it. Lenses are tools - and selecting the right tool is the photographer's job. Limiting a photographer to the latest, highest precision tool is just that - limiting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith Posted August 9, 2011 Share #46 Posted August 9, 2011 The words "clinic" and "clinical" derive ultimately from the Greek for "bed". The owe their current connotations to a sequence of meanings from hospital bed to hospital to medical to scrupulously clean to sterile to lacking in human warmth etc. As applied to lenses the word "clinical" strikes me as meaningless if it does not connote freedom from unwanted aberrations. It is uncorrected aberrations that give a lens "character" which implies that the use of the bottom of a bottle would result in the most "characterful" images. I am happy to have a lens that gives the closest rendering to that of my own eyes; any "character" that my images may have will be dependent on my choice of subject, lighting and composition. As a physician I cannot view the word "clinical" as pejorative. Alwyn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 9, 2011 Share #47 Posted August 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Agreed, a portrait (in contradistinction to a passport mug shot) is not just the sum of the subject's warts. But that is the point. A good portrait brings over something of the sitter's personality. But what has the lens to do with that? That has to do with the photographer's rapport with the subject, and that is not a matter of optics. ... I think the choice of lens has much to do with that. If you take the "lens as paintbrush" analogy, then the lens that the photographer selects to depict their subject is a major contributory factor to the realisation of their vision. The recent series I did with my friend Nick were shot with 50mm Sonnar and 35mm Biogon. I chose not to use Leica or Voigtlander lenses because I wanted the rendition of the Zeiss glass and particularly that of the Sonnar. I chose my "brushes" to achieve the results I wanted. I own those "brushes" in the first place because they are capable of giving me those results. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 9, 2011 Share #48 Posted August 9, 2011 Never used an asph lens to shoot my mother in law. Better not trying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted August 9, 2011 Share #49 Posted August 9, 2011 I am happy to have a lens that gives the closest rendering to that of my own eyes I like to choose a lens that gives the closest rendering to that of my mind's eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 9, 2011 Share #50 Posted August 9, 2011 Never used an asph lens to shoot my mother in law. Better not trying. Using the lens or shooting her? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 9, 2011 Share #51 Posted August 9, 2011 Bill - So how would you describe the difference between a 50mm sonnar and a 50mm summilux or some such leica lens among your brushes? and since i believe you shoot film, does the film enter into this equation as well (which color or b&w film do you use). If shooting digital you are only left with lens and pp. I understand too that this is all a matter of your subjective opinion rather than science and it is your opinion i am interested in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 9, 2011 Share #52 Posted August 9, 2011 Bill: I am probably some kind of rude Neanderthal, but sorry – no bells ring. The Unwashed Old Man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 9, 2011 Share #53 Posted August 9, 2011 A performance and a recording are two different things. A pianola gives a literally mechanichal performance. It is no recording – it has not recorded any previous performance. A perfect recording reproduces the music as it was actually played by the human performers – it reproduces living reality. Both they and we want it to reproduce it faithfully. The people who sigh for lenses with high levels of chromatic and spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism and stray light are like those audiophiles who crave shellac noise, scratches and tinny sounds out of a horn. The old man from the Age of 78 rpm This comparison of audio recording to photography is a surprise to me. I think it is a stretch. I don't get any satisfaction from listening to wind-up old record players (except some works by Enrico Caruso), but I definitely appreciate the vast different qualities of photographs from Niepce to today, with some of the photos important because they show the tech of the time, but mostly for some of the stunning images even if partly due to "poor" quality lenses and media (compared to today). I have become quite deaf, but I can still remember quality and I know this MP3 and other compressed music just sucks in quality. Regardless thank goodness for Medici I'd love to be on their visual tech staff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted August 9, 2011 Share #54 Posted August 9, 2011 It's always surprising for me to read so many statements that one lens shows more character, is less clinical, reproduces ideas and feelings more adequately than an other - but I never see one single example which clearly shows those great differences. I can see single shots made with one lens and can make up my mind, if I think it's clinical or warm or whatever, but I don't know whether another lens would give different results. I hear of photos made on different occasions, perhaps with different light and settings, different apertures and depth of focus - and different lenses and some customer liked some better than the other. Did he like the occasion, the light, the setting, the aperture and depth of focus - or was it just the lens? I don't know. I always thought photography was about making something visible. If those essential differences for photographic lenses exist, they should be visible, so there can be no reason that one doesn't see them. If one lens is clinical and the other is not, it should be possible to show examples of this difference next to each others. Same motif, same setting, light, aperture, same camera. Just don't tell the lenses' names, for every one will see which one is the character player and which one the statistician. The obvious answer for my request to show those essential differences here will be, that the net is no media for this. Too restricted, too "digital", not enough resolution in small jpgs, and that you need large prints on good paper or Kodakchrome or something else which shows those essential differences in lenses. My reply will be: I can see any difference in resolution and sharpness, color rendering and bokeh, if I post something here. It's photography and it's visible. May I ask if someone who says that there are those essential differences which cannot be shown here has seen them in large print next to each others and knew which one was the clinical lens? If those essential differences are not be found in visibility, it would be interesting for me to get a hint where to look for them. As long as I cannot see those examples where the less corrected lens is the less clinical I will just stick to Lars' proposal that the better corrected lens gives more possibilities to be used as the right brush for the good painting. It's nothing more than a possibility. The good painting depends on many, many other things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 9, 2011 Share #55 Posted August 9, 2011 The discussion reminds me of the scene in John Schlesinger's "Darling" where the two friends are viewing slides with that most Germanic of slide projectors, the Rollei P66 (IIRC), which had parallel paths for 6x6cm and 35mm slide trays. And one of the two says, "Boy, those Japs really know how to grind a lens, don't they?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 9, 2011 Share #56 Posted August 9, 2011 I have prints from shots using my 50 Summilux asph: some in b/w remind me of some of my silver prints, ever so rich and smooth in wonderful shades of grey; others are finely detailed, crisp and contrasty, another look and feel altogether. No such thing as one character from the lens given all the variables, including subject matter, shooting conditions, camera/lens settings, papers, PP, matting and framing, etc. that go into the final print. No such thing as one character from any of my lenses. Each might be fabulous as a "brush," perhaps, but I'm doing the painting (sometimes with some support from above), not just the lens. Anyone who thinks that they can reliably and consistently name the lens used in a blind test (using multiple brands, lenses within the brand, differing focal lengths, etc) is smoking something. And I'm talking prints; on the internet, far less chance. So, why do I prefer the 50 Summilux asph to my prior 50mm lenses? Because it does many things well, and allows me to control its use without unexpected problems (separate from other unexpected, but often welcome, lucky circumstances). And I like having the extra stop, just in case. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 9, 2011 Share #57 Posted August 9, 2011 The obvious answer for my request to show those essential differences here will be, that the net is no media for this. I think that if you look hard enough here, on this forum, you will see perfectly acceptable examples of various lenses' characteristics - I have certainly posted examples from several older lenses as well as from some current ones. I see no reason to re-post when I have already posted such images however if I get time I will search and post some links idc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2011 Share #58 Posted August 9, 2011 When I exclusively used film, and I guess this means only slide film as that is the closest thing to a controlled image as I could find, it never occurred to me that a lens might have character. I thought only in terms of flaws in the lens, and the quality of the film. I appreciate these are huge assumptions, but using Kodachrome my expectation was that the film stock was reasonably consistent, and the processing done in sufficient batches that temperature and chemicals were reasonably well controlled. To such an extent that I could be confident of a consistent result. I was never disappointed. For print (especially when I was doing the printing), there were so many variables that I wouldn't dream of singling out the lens I took the original picture with for any qualities other than sharpness, detail, depth of field and flaws. Bearing in mind other factors like my film processing, the quality of the lens in my enlarger (it was a Rodenstock, so I was reasonably confident there), and my print processing skills, the variable were too great. I have read too much Ansel Adams to have any faith in my ability to tell much about the lens (his comments about "score" and "conductors" spring to mind). In digital, things get even worse! Exposure, ISO, white balance (and that's while the image is still in the camera), followed by post processing - a baffling array of variables that can manipulate the output in truly surprising ways (of limited interest to me). We had some family pictures taken a while ago (a promotion, which cost us little), and I rejected the first lot of prints (a better head shot had been photoshopped in from another picture), principally because we all had yellow eyes. It was very odd, considering we actually have rather nice blue eyes. Well, I'm fond of them, anyway. My point? sorry, my point - like musical fidelity, quality is all downhill from the moment the light comes through the lens. The lens degrades the image, shutter variability has an impact, exposure, sensor quality, in camera processing (thankfully minimal in a Leica), and then there's what you do with the DNG on your computer, looking at which monitor? Singing the praises of flawed, but nonetheless interesting, legacy lenses in the digital age is little more than self delusion, in my view. I spent some time examining the comparison 50 mm images in the latest LFI, and I was unconvinced, I'd have to say. If I saw any of those images in isolation, I'd be very hard put to tell which one came from which lens. Now, I'm sure there are maestros on this forum who look at a scene, and say to themselves "Oh, no. This is not a Leica aspherical shot. I need to use my ASPH, or my CV". Ahem! That may work for you, and I'm deeply impressed. There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that any world class photographer of a bygone era (HCB, Ansel Adams, Winogrand, Brake - whoever you like), given the choice, would select the latest aspherical masterpieces from Leica for their digital sensors - and I'd very much doubt that they would reject anything but the best sensor available. For me, a mere mortal? I'm very happy to rely on the skills of those artisans and geniuses (genii?) in Solms. I love my 50 Lux ASPH (FLE), and I'm intrigued by the Noct, but still unconvinced ... Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 9, 2011 Share #59 Posted August 9, 2011 Lenses are like good wines or cigars. If we don't know them well enough to recognize them, we don't deserve them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 9, 2011 Share #60 Posted August 9, 2011 There's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that any world class photographer of a bygone era (HCB, Ansel Adams, Winogrand, Brake - whoever you like), given the choice, would select the latest aspherical masterpieces from Leica for their digital sensors - and I'd very much doubt that they would reject anything but the best sensor available. Some of the big names from "a bygone era" are still alive - Eggleston, Frank, Gibson, McCullin to name a few off the top of my head. I don't keep track of what gear a particular photographer uses but I doubt that any of these old school names are using gear that is particularly different from what they used during the heights of their careers - let alone the "latest aspherical masterpieces" and "the best sensor available". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.