Lord Fluff Posted August 9, 2011 Share #61 Posted August 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. To deduce every permutation of gear possible? No chance. But with the LFI app on the iPad I can guess the lens correctly around 75% of the time - it's not hard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 Hi Lord Fluff, Take a look here "rendering is clinical" - huh???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted August 9, 2011 Share #62 Posted August 9, 2011 To deduce every permutation of gear possible? No chance. But with the LFI app on the iPad I can guess the lens correctly around 75% of the time - it's not hard. That's not the drill. One has to rely on his/her own senses and interpretation...at least those are the rules in my hypothetical test. And regarding another comment, beware wine tasters who claim to know it all, as this well known experiment reveals. Not only that, but to use the wine/lens analogy, the wine would have to be used in the cooking process, not tasted separately, for the print requires many other ingredients. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2011 Share #63 Posted August 9, 2011 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". Not sure you got my point, Ian. If you did, then perhaps I should point out that the issue is not what they would use now at their current ages. I'd hazard that they will use whatever it is they that have, or currently use. The point I was making was, had today's lenses been available when they were approaching or at the heights of their careers would be the latest and greatest. But then, I suspect you knew that. Are they still purchasing new equipment? Who knows? It's not really the point, is it. I'm very happy for those of you who can tell the lens used in a picture at a glance. It is so far from my skills that I remain skeptical. Feel free to condemn my qualities as a photographer if you wish. I'm even more impressed at those who can visualise the benefits of one 50 mm lens from another looking at a scene. The sceptic in me would venture that you will get a similarly fine image, whichever pre-asph lens you ultimately select. Unlike fine wine, lenses do not get better with age. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share #64 Posted August 10, 2011 I originally started this thread because I was not convinced that people agreed on what "clinical" meant, and secondly I am thoroughly unconvinced that most people would be even able to tell the difference between lenses when photos taken at same aperture, with same camera shake, same time, etc. It would have to be a randomized study. And i bet most would fail. On these forums, I see some people refer to a lens as "clinical", but it is so far fetched to believe that these broad statements have any real relevance. There are too many subjective factors. I have to believe that some of it is "expert commentary" when there is no objective evidence of one being an expert on distinguishing lenses from each other. Furthermore, it seems like there are varying subtleties in even what is meant by "clinical". When I see another 'cron vs 'lux thread, I think it is much more reasonable to say "i subjectively like the look of the 'lux" or something along those lines. But to say such ambiguous statements like "the lens renders clinical" is perceived by me to be totally unhelpful in the absence of some sort of randomized trial showing the differences, with the 'expert' able to objectively routinely (>85%) of the time, which lens is which... and be able to explain why. Nevertheless, I could be totally wrong. Maybe some comments are more "clinical" than mine. It is an interesting semantic to use, that has little real world proven value. But i enjoy the discourse, and wish all of the users of these terms well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 10, 2011 Share #65 Posted August 10, 2011 uroman, No, I don’t think you are wrong at all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 10, 2011 Share #66 Posted August 10, 2011 I originally started this thread because I was not convinced that people agreed on what "clinical" meant, and secondly I am thoroughly unconvinced that most people would be even able to tell the difference between lenses when photos taken at same aperture, with same camera shake, same time, etc. It would have to be a randomized study. And i bet most would fail. Error. several pictures taken in which each subject has similar focal distance, with a background distance approaching infinity at different apertures at the same subject distance would suffice. I'm sure there are profound differences between interpretations of outcomes, just let them be tabled to possibly show how persons differ. I do not know one single quality photographer who like the OOF of ASP lenses unless they shoot with no infinity background but some colour, fuzzzy faked background, or just blah - anything avoiding contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share #67 Posted August 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) given the market for asph lenses, it seems like someone clearly likes them. So it is subjective. I also know some that like classical music, some like rap, others like pop, and others like jazz. People like different things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 10, 2011 Share #68 Posted August 10, 2011 given the market for asph lenses, it seems like someone clearly likes them. So it is subjective. I also know some that like classical music, some like rap, others like pop, and others like jazz. People like different things. There is NO CORRELATION between musical preferences and photography Get over it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share #69 Posted August 10, 2011 "get over it"? Hm. That is an interesting comment. Actually, i just stated that people like different things. That goes for lenses too. It isn't too hard to believe that, unless one is relatively rigid in one's thinking. But thanks for instructing me on getting over things! Much appreciated! I see ASPH lenses are sold out at major retailiers so clearly there is demand for that look. Someone must like those lenses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 10, 2011 Share #70 Posted August 10, 2011 There is NO CORRELATION between musical preferences and photography Get over it. The point was different people see AND hear differently…. and have their opinions and preferences accordingly. My: how rude! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2011 Share #71 Posted August 10, 2011 Hehe i read somewhere that the Summilux 50/1.4 asph is the best example of "creamy bokeh". Would be fun to open a new thread about the concepts of soft and harsh cream. Now problem with comparisons is they take a lot of time. But if they are well made, differences can be obvious. Below crops from Summilux 50 asph and pre-asph that i posted in the past here (f/2.8). Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/158896-rendering-is-clinical-huh/?do=findComment&comment=1761380'>More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 10, 2011 Share #72 Posted August 10, 2011 Do you really think if you print, matt and frame a photograph people view it and are drawn to it’s ‘’creamy bokeh?’’ I rather think it’s the photograph as a whole. And, if creamy bokeh is a part of it fine. But is this the object of the composition? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 10, 2011 Share #73 Posted August 10, 2011 given the market for asph lenses, it seems like someone clearly likes them. So it is subjective. Bull - they buy what appears to the best based upon price and reputation. Look at all the proud Noctilux photos here which are not even in focus. But the pride, the pride they evince is underwhelmed. I also know some that like classical music, some like rap, others like pop, and others like jazz. People like different things. Yep, and some eat things you wouldn't even look at. Do I have to be descriptive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 10, 2011 Share #74 Posted August 10, 2011 Pico, No, you don’t have to do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 10, 2011 Share #75 Posted August 10, 2011 I have read most of this thread with curiosity. The majority of comments are valid, as distinct from either "right or wrong." And that is the point, IMO. Tonight I have been commissioned to shoot a stage rehearsal of a drama called 'DNA.' I don't know anything about it except that the director has told me it is largely 'talking heads' and bland lighting! (Blah!) I am not looking forward to the result, but am facing up to the challenge of making something interesting from it. I will be using (presumably) a mix of Pre and Asph lenses. I don't for a moment think either will turn up with any 'magic' over and above the other. The magic, if there will be any, is going to have to come from me, in the form of timing, angles and any other 'cheating' that I can solicit. In advance, I hope the magic if it appears, comes from the pressure I will be under to perform to expectation of the director. Maybe one or more of those lenses will give some magic, but I am not about to rely on it. Yes, I do believe 'personalities' reside in lenses, but not to the extent that they rule. It reminds me of the sailor I competed with who spent some time polishing and waxing his hull, to reduce friction in the water. I suggested he would be better off adjusting the nut holding his tiller! As it happened, we were both thrashed by a really talented sailor in a decrepit old boat with crappy sails. He just knew how to use the rig. I must admit, his sails had well matured 'bokeh.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share #76 Posted August 10, 2011 Bull - they buy what appears to the best based upon price and reputation. You're right, I am sure that leica lens buyers really dont buy what they like, but rather what is more expensive. sure. yeah. sure. Thanks for your insight, it is really wonderful. Anyway, the point of this thread, originally was the term "clinical", which clearly is fairly ambiguous, and may not even be a term which is accurately reproducible. I laugh when I see people using that term with some serious emphasis. Experts often aren't. I dont proclaim to be one, but one can't fool me by acting like an expert either. Show me the data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 10, 2011 Share #77 Posted August 10, 2011 uroman, Hell, I’m so old that the term ‘’image’’ still makes me laugh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted August 10, 2011 Share #78 Posted August 10, 2011 Ict, How tight are those two crops you have posted? Would you mind posting both photos full size, no crop? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 10, 2011 Share #79 Posted August 10, 2011 Just a hint of the "Black & White" argument style appearing here. Please guys, remember the shades of grey and cut some slack to differing opinions from your own. It IS possible for things to be valid in more than one camp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted August 10, 2011 Share #80 Posted August 10, 2011 You're right, I am sure that leica lens buyers really dont buy what they like, but rather what is more expensive. sure. yeah. sure. Thanks for your insight, it is really wonderful. Firstly, welcome to the forum, secondly, calm down. Back to your quibble - Leica relies in large part on such customers, with its limited editions and so on. While visiting the Leica Mayfair store I witnessed a guy come in to buy a case for his wife's X1 and ended up casually picking up an M9 and Noctilux. He'd clearly never used a RF camera before and the f0.95 lens could hardly be considered a sensible choice - but for some people expensiveness is the point. Do you think people buy an Audemars Piguet watch to tell the time more accurately? I was recently offered a used M9 that had 12 actuations on it. Twelve. A large chunk of Leica's core customers are not really concerned with photography, much less the relative performance of lenses. I have no problem with this - all the more secondhand gear for the rest of us, and an increased chance of Leica's survival. Lastly, in this climate, of course people buy what they're told to buy - there isn't the option to try a lens before buying with any of the ASPH lenses - it's buy first decide later - and if others say the new 50 is great, that's what people want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.