How would you describe the CL's Rendering ?

[Jeffry Abt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When we speak about "rendering", whether about a lens or camera, skill of observation and then skill with words is called for.  To say much that is truly useful is beyond me.  

 

[Jared]

Sorry I asked . 

 

 

Sorry I ranted.  I get frustrated with much of the vocabulary that has evolved in photography in the past ten years or so.  It used to feel comfortable that I and my audience both had similar definitions for most words.   White balance?  I think I know what that is.  At least within the limitation of someone who doesn't do fashion or product photography.  Saturation? We're probably on the same page.  Resolution?  That one starts to get a little hazy.  Are you talking line pairs per millimeter?  Megapixels?  Dots per inch?  What about contrast? Now it's getting really nebulous.  Do you mean overall contrast?  How is it related to dynamic range?  Or are you talking micro contrast?  And how is that different from resolution?  Or sharpness?  Or accutance?  Very murky.  "Rendering" to me has the same problem.  I don't know what people mean, and it isn't from lack of willingness to learn or understand.  I can't find a definition that is used fairly consistent and it meaningful.  I know rendering has something to do with how a lens/camera combination creates an image, but I don't know what else to say.  If someone says, "I love how this lens renders", what do they mean?  Are they talking about the glow that is added from residual spherical aberration?  Or the overall lack of contrast?  Or maybe it's the opposite--the extremely high contrast of a lens and its resistance to flare and glare?  I really don't know. That's why I ranted.

[miro]

Your making it too complicated .

[lct]

What you understand well you enunciate clearly, said an author, and it's true for questions and for answers as well . Now it's just easier to answer clear questions to avoid misinterpretations. All i can say is the OoC jpegs i've got out of the CL look rather clean and natural in my view. Clean in that they don't show disturbing noise or other digital artefacts up to 3200 iso and natural in that small details are not smeared to reduce noise, moiré or other unwanted effects. Colors look also rather natural in that some of them (mainly greens) look less oversaturated than on raw files i've been developing so far. I don't see significant oversharpening either so the word natural seems to sum up rather well the CL's OoC pictures but again i'm not a jpeg shooter. Just for sake of example you may wish to compare an OoC jpeg to a raw file developed with Silkypix below. Hopes this helps.

jpeg: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-NxXHFqp/0/3529da0b/X3/i-NxXHFqp-X3.jpg

raw: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DZhzNmk/0/9b0e16d7/X3/i-DZhzNmk-X3.jpg

[miro]

Thanks for making it simple .