biza43
Forum Pro
Indeed this is good advice
But... it requires many years of practice to learn and to be able to choose the lens. It goes without saying that to do that, it is also required to use a lot of lenses.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lens character is a real thing
- Thread starter Pritzl
- Start date
But... it requires many years of practice to learn and to be able to choose the lens. It goes without saying that to do that, it is also required to use a lot of lenses.
5
57even
Guest
Except that is where most images end up, so what use is a magic lens?
I'm not suggesting a 'test'. I just want to know what they consider to be 'magic'. If they can't explain it or show it, then it's not a very helpful description.
I have no opinion about a lens I don't own, so why would my mind be made up?
So why mention it?
Because I'd have to buy the lens first, obviously. And I'm not going to do that based on a random photo and an unsubstantiated opinion.
I have owned many lenses that other people and reviewers raved about, and in every case the way the image was exposed and processed made far more difference to the end result than the lens did.
Apart from obvious flare characteristics, that is.
At least no-one mentioned the word 'rendering' yet.
--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"
Last edited:
Pritzl
Senior Member
I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.
5
57even
Guest
Could we also block the r-word and t-word? Rendering and tonality?
When people use the word 'magic' they don't literally mean that they think the lens has some supernatural properties. They mean that it has qualities that they can't easily explain. Sometimes, saying that a lens has qualities it's not easy to explain is a useful and informative contribution, and can lead to others explaining those qualities later.
The point is that if you object to the word 'magical' or 'rendering' or suchlike terms, you won't be persuaded by someone showing images they believe show these qualities. You have already said you don't think those terms are helpful.
We talk about subjective things all the time, like about what images someone finds 'beautiful'. If I find an image beautiful, it's unlikely you'll persuade me it isn't beautiful. But that doesn't mean we can't have an interesting discussion about what I like in that image, and what you don't like.
I did, above. I think it's a very useful term. However, I concede that it is used in diverse ways, and sometimes to describe things that would be better described in other ways.
Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.
But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.
Only after the dreaded 3D-word.
Wait, don't they all work together?
5
57even
Guest
The point is, it is seldom at all clear from the posted image.
Not if the image clearly has no magical qualities at all, no.
But that's the point. If you can describe why you like it, then we can have a discussion. Saying it's a great image and walking away as if your pronouncement was written on a stone tablet is neither up for discussion, not informative.
But what do you think it means?
For me, the verb 'render' usually refers to something, like this singer rendered a beautiful performance, or this lens renders good detail. When I hear someone say this lens has 'nice rendering' I always wonder 'what of?'
And like I said, when an image has been wrung through the gamut of colour mapping, tone-curve, noise reduction, sharpening and lens correction, there isn't much left of the lens other than flare spots.
--
Reporter: "Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilisation?"
Mahatma Gandhi: "I think it would be a very good idea!"
Last edited:
Bobo Hodls
Forum Pro
That computes as "essence".
Does YOUR (collective) lens have it?
--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.
Last edited:
Yes, but for you no image has magical qualities. So by definition, it won’t meet your test.
Rendering was a more popular term before the word bokeh became popular. Different people use it in different ways, but for me it is the term covering every way a lens has an impact on the appearance of the image that is not resolution/contrast. It therefore includes bokeh, but also colour, handling of flare etc.
That doesn’t really make sense. These things have an impact on the image, but so did your film, developer, paper and enlarger in the analogue era. The point is that lenses have a signature, which is more pronounced in some cases than others, and which you can obscure in post processing or enhance, but is still there if you want to see it.
5
57even
Guest
When did I ever say an image cannot have 'magical' qualities - or at least beautiful and pleasing qualities? Like you said, it is subjective. But if someone claims that a lens has 'magical' qualities and posts an image that has none, what I am supposed see?
All I ask is that someone who claims magic properties could explain exactly what they mean, because it is seldom obvious from the examples provided, or even from my own experience of the same lenses.
<SNIP>
You can use it any way you want, but if it means different things to different people it is a completely non-useful word. Bokeh, flare and colour are not related, so why not say which one you are talking about? That's not too much to ask, surely?
I used to hear the term a lot from expensive gear owners in camera clubs when explaining to less well endowed members why their cameras were useless. It was usually accompanied by phrases like 'if you can't see it, you don't understand'.
I can easily understand terms like flare, micro-contrast, acutance, tone-curve or bokeh, but I don't understand what people are thinking when then use terms like 'rendering' or 'tonality'. Again, all I am asking is for people to be specific and say what they mean.
In most cases, it had to be pretty pronounced to be visible compared to the results I used to get from different developing labs. And we can create far more subtle or radical changes in software than we ever could in a darkroom. We have far more control over sharpness, colour, contrast, distortion, aberrations and noise than ever before.
It's only flare spots and bokeh which are harder to fix, but even they will change radically depending on sharpening and contrast.
We can also create whatever 'dreamy' or high-key look we want, or anything else. If I want to create a magic image, I really don't want a 'magic' lens. I want a predictable well engineered lens without serious flaws so I can more easily choose how I want the image to look. I don't want the tool to be the limitation.
I know it's fashionable to worship gear on a gear forum, but it really is a lot less significant that the person that's using it, or even the person who designed the algorithms that are used in the camera. Just compare the results from some modern smart phones with older ones.
I agree with much of what you say about this. Words can be abused, and some terms such as 'tonality' seem to be used in such different ways by different people that I don't use them at all. As for magical, that is not, by definition, an explanation of the effect, so although I am sympathetic to its use, it doesn't lend itself to further analysis.
However, it is useful to have a word to refer to all the qualities of a lens that can appear in images from that lens but aren't related to its resolution/contrast. If you look at how the term 'rendering' is used by most people who aren't showing off, this is what they are normally referring to. You could use 'character' instead, but I think that may be a wider term as it can be used, for example, to describe the contrast and resolution qualities of the lens as well.
As to why we need a collective term at all, this is because the ingredients of the 'look' that a lens can convey to an image aren't always obvious. You may notice things about the bokeh, or flare, or colours, but can't pinpoint what contributes to the overall effect, or if you have identified everything that is going on.
And like I said, when an image has been wrung through the gamut of colour mapping, tone-curve, noise reduction, sharpening and lens correction, there isn't much left of the lens other than flare spots.
And run an ASMR commercial starring Zoe Kravitz to launch a new line of lenses with “essenssssss”. Canon would be all over that.
I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.
However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field
Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.
If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.
However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field
Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.
If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.
Last edited:
What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?
robert1955
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,159
- Solutions
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4,962
Whwat for me stands out in that comparison is that they avoid terms that are open to personal interpretation and directly connect the interpretation in words and illustrating images. And of course that they do a direct side-by-side.
Exactly!!!
Yes, unlike so many others. When he said the 80mm has the more swirly bokeh, while I'm not sure how to describe that objectively, I can see it and I can see the lack of it in the 90mm.
I found the side by side a little frustrating as it was rarely the exact same settings side by side, but that's just a minor point. It's there no doubt.
So I think it's a great article.
Last edited:
5
57even
Guest
Exactly.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum