What exactly does it mean, "too clinical”

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

“It looks too clinical” is often heard in reviews or comments on some digital cameras.

Usually it is a negative term, and almost always applies to digital cameras with resolution and  color rendition that is hard to criticize otherwise. Sometimes it is equivalent to something like “no characteristics”. And no characteristics is usually the opposite of “favorable imperfection”.

can someone give more material?

 

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

Unrealistically sharp. A level of sharpness unlikely to be found in the natural world.

[spydrxx]

Sharper than my vision

[Einst_Stein]

58 minutes ago, wda said:

Unrealistically sharp. A level of sharpness unlikely to be found in the natural world.

"Unrealistically"?  according to what? inferior camera? 

[wda]

Read on: I explained in my second sentence.

[evikne]

I doubt there is an exact definition of what "clinical" or "too clinical" means, as it is entirely subjective.

My own definition is that the image feels unpleasantly sharp.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cause of divorce if one shoots their mother in law with that lens.

[LocalHero1953]

It is used by those who don't like a lens that produces an exceptionally sharp image across the frame. The term is used as a negative description.

It says more about the people who use it than it does about the lens.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It is used by those who don't like a lens that produces an exceptionally sharp image across the frame. The term is used as a negative description.

It says more about the people who use it than it does about the lens.

This is what I am getting to based on some digital cameras I know.

[Tom R]

Compared to what? I’ve heard this term applied to photographs made by digital cameras when the images are compared to similar images made by analogue cameras. It might be about the degree of perceived sharpness, or the rendering of colors/grey tones.

Given that many photographers have “hybrid” workflows, e.g., analogue capture but digital rendering (scanning negatives/positives), I don’t know how useful many of these distinctions are. Unless the photographer is interested in saying something about what a particular medium, analogue or digital, actually “means” by some philosophical or aesthetic criteria, then the term might have a more relevant meaning.

[250swb]

 

Where to go on this one? Are Edward Weston's photos of peppers clinical because he was using an 8x10 camera to get maximum detail and tone? On that level yes they are clinical except he was also using light to model the pepper, so he could soften the light, change it's direction, etc. and as such we get a depth of vision which matches our own natural depth of vision while we can still marvel at the detail.

This intelligent use of detail is at odds with detail for details sake, and analogous to the 'how big can I print' question on so many photographers lips. It also has connotations with the 'I don't do any post processing' stance, and all of which creates images that are irritatingly devoid of depth either from the soul of the photographer or from a visual balance in the image. And this isn't a DOF problem but a depth of meaning problem when all there is to appreciate is super sharp detail in the blandest or circumstances. 

So there is more to making good clinical images than inflicting eye scratching sharpness on the viewer, but explains why an 'anti-clinical' approach can more easily represent the natural depth of vision (again, not DOF) by deciding a cloud is too bright or not bright enough, or when grain can be used for drama or to soften an image, etc.

[willeica]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It is used by those who don't like a lens that produces an exceptionally sharp image across the frame. The term is used as a negative description.

It says more about the people who use it than it does about the lens.

To me 'clinical', as a technical concept, conveys a lack of what might be called 'character'. However a lot of what might be called 'character' in lenses comes from what others might regard as 'flaws'.  Nowadays a lot of what we see comes not from optics but from electronics either in the camera or in post processing. All of this has a large amount subjectivity, 'one man's meat' , 'sharpness is a bourgeois concept' etc 

On the non technical side the contents of an image might also be regarded as 'clinical', by having nothing of particular interest in the image. Again, this might also come with a high degree of subjectivity.

I generally don't read camera reviews or, if I glance at them, I apply a large filter to terminology such as 'clinical'. There are much more interesting things in photography.

William 

[hansvons]

Clinical means nothing to me. Is it even a proper term? It may mean something is void of germs and super tidy. I find it hard to relate the word clinical to images. 

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It says more about the people who use it than it does about the lens.

Agreed. It is a perfect term to demiss a picture without effort and closer examination by saying it looks "clinical". 

7 hours ago, Tom R said:

I’ve heard this term applied to photographs made by digital cameras when the images are compared to similar images made by analogue cameras. It might be about the degree of perceived sharpness, or the rendering of colors/grey tones.

For me, the most significant difference between analogue and digital is the texture. Texture gives the eye something to hold on to even if things are out of focus. Without texture (FON, fear of noise. Don't know why this is so prevalent), digital looks "slippery," if that makes sense. When printing large, this difference becomes even more pronounced, up to the point that pictures look plastic and cheap. Many photographers prefer visibly structured papers for their prints to add value and texture (which is another term for authenticity) through the print medium. However, this merely deals with the symptoms, not the cause, and it feels like a fraud. 

I use the SL2-S for digital images. Shooting at ISO 800-1600 delivers texture and roughness that isn't the same as film but holds its own. Unfortunately, replicating that with artificial grain leads me nowhere. Maybe I'm extra-picky.  

 

[LocalHero1953]

I have just returned from a week looking at the printed image at the Rencontres de la Photographie in Arles, and was reminded again how much some images gain by being printed rather than viewed on screen* because of the texture of the chosen paper - not just because it was paper, but because of a particular paper that enhanced the image. This applied especially where it was possible to handle the print: not just photobooks in which the paper is often the same throughout, but also portfolio boxes of prints made on a variety of papers (which do not have to be of a material capable of withstanding binding) - one can pick up each print and hold it to watch the light playing on the surface. I also saw some beautiful translucent images printed on muslin/silk hung from the ceiling: one could walk through these images and feel them on the skin.

I wonder if some lenses are denigrated because their output is viewed only on screen and not through a printed medium. If a lens was used to make an image on Canson Platine or Rag Photographique or washi; or printed large on muslin or canvas; would anyone notice that it was clinical or non-clinical? 

Conversely, for architectural or product photography: don't you often want a 'clinical' lens?

 

*and vice versa: some images gain from being viewed on an illuminated screen, which enhances the colours.

[rogxwhit]

12 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Maybe I'm extra-picky.

I feel that we all ought to be extra picky - though it can be a positive to be lenient some of the time.  How we read an image may be done with a synthesis of mind and heart, with a variable bias to either.  But at best we might like an image to seem integrated and genuine in some way as we search it for meaning.  We have the frame and the picture space, which interact, and ideally the energies need to coalesce into a whole.  

With any art form there'll be a spectrum of efforts.  A style statement will remain just that, no matter how skilfully executed. 

[pgk]

13 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Can someone give more material?

Back in the 1860s J H Dallmeyer designed a lens with a 'soft focus' control which was used to increase spherical aberration as desired. It was a controversial design (now much sought after) as the opionion of the day was to seek perfection (and lenses back then were far less well designed and/or manufactured than they are today). Arguments raged as to the relevance of seeking imperfection when perfection itself was apparently the goal. And the discussion has been ongoing since then with a desire/goal being to obtain 'perfect' lenses by many, but an acceptance by other that it is the imperfections in many lenses that give them their characteristic individuality. I doubt that either camp has fundamentally chaaged.

Now most modern lens designs are extremely good; so good that their results are almost completely uniform. So some seek individuality in the imprecision of other lenses. If I had to try to define 'too clinical' it might be along the lines of 'lenses which supply homogenous results and which, as a result, lack any individuality being as precise as each other in the images which they produce'. But this is a purely personal definition and others may have differing views.

[Stuart Richardson]

To me at least it means that people are looking for a soft lens, but don't think they are, so they criticize sharp lenses. It is also often because they leave default sharpening on in their raw processing, which is not optimal for really sharp sensors and lenses like the SL cameras and APO Summicrons.

I also think it is just a reflexive criticism of newer things. I old enough to remember when the 50mm 1.4 ASPH came out that many on the forums used to criticize it for being too clinical, whereas now it is often held up as an example of a lens which has a gentle rendering compared to the 50mm APO Summicron M.

[rogxwhit]

I'm not convinced that the term clinical may refer to lens sharpness alone.  There's a greater range of interactive factors in an image of digital origin, such as the acutance & palette of the recording medium followed by automations / decisions made during processing, that could lead to an image that deserves the term. 

To say that an image is clinical implies that it lacks heart, and indeed I see this in a lot of bird images - abrasive detail and edges that you could cut your finger on.  Sometimes technique gallops ahead of feeling.  

Edited July 10, 2024 by rogxwhit
improved sense

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

48 minutes ago, rogxwhit said:

I'm not convinced that the term clinical may refer to lens sharpness alone.  There's a greater range of interactive factors in an image of digital origin, such as the acutance & palette of the recording medium followed by automations / decisions made during processing, that could lead to an image that deserves the term. 

To say that an image is clinical implies that it lacks heart, and indeed I see this in a lot of bird images - abrasive detail and edges that you could cut your finger on.  Sometimes technique gallops ahead of feeling.  

It's easy to see inadequate post processing overdo an image. A camera is a tool, garbage in garbage out. A camera itself is too clinical? You'd better show convincing examples.

[Stevejack]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:50 AM, rogxwhit said:

I'm not convinced that the term clinical may refer to lens sharpness alone.  There's a greater range of interactive factors in an image of digital origin, such as the acutance & palette of the recording medium followed by automations / decisions made during processing, that could lead to an image that deserves the term. 

To say that an image is clinical implies that it lacks heart, and indeed I see this in a lot of bird images - abrasive detail and edges that you could cut your finger on.  Sometimes technique gallops ahead of feeling.  

100% agree.  

A lack of imperfections in the optical stack can lead to what some call a sterile looking image, but more often than not it's just how the photograph was taken.   I use the old Canon 50mm f/0.95 on my M11-M quite a bit and it's basically impossible to get a 'sharp' image out of it under any circumstance, which is why I love it. On the other hand, if I'm using the 50APO and want a little softness, I drag the shutter (anything below 1/50 works) just to bring in a little blur. Most of my Sony lenses are what I would call 'clinical' so turning off IBIS and dragging the shutter does the same job, along with leaving the noise in the image rather than trying to remove it in post.  

I honestly can't tell which photos I've taken with film / digital / old lenses / new lenses sometimes... The end result is probably 20% gear, 80% technique + post processing.