Clinical vs. Character?

starbase218 said:

So… I mostly agree. In that how “good” a lens is, could very well be how much it lacks character.

However, there is nothing wrong with liking how a lesser lens happens to render a scene. And when you talk about fidelity… how often do you see bokeh balls with your eyes? I’m guessing never. So how is the lens with the best bokeh balls, even and without color fringing, the closest to what you see in real life? After all, that’s the definition of “fidelity”, right?

Besides, take dynamic range: even the best cameras don’t come close to what you and I see every day with our eyes.

So in the end, I really can’t get so worked up about this subject.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

What gets me is many (mostly male) photographers use very emotive language such as "clinical" when their personal preference is for "characterful" lenses (going from derogative to complementary adjectives. The same with AF where many say you should use BBF or you'll not be taken seriously. I know it's easy to fall into the defensive trap of over-emphasising our own preferences that I hope I don't fall into too often.

Photography is just a representative means of capturing or sharing what we see - sometimes highly stylised, other times as faithfully as possible.

MrHollywood said:

f16falcona46 said:

MrHollywood said:

If you know what you're doing it's always going to better to have the option of choosing "character" rather being stuck with it because of an inferior lens.

Click to expand...

This isn't always possible, at least not in a reasonable way.

If you want catseye bokeh, how would you feasibly add that in post? If you want bubble bokeh, how would you add that in post? If you want field curvature, how would you add that in post?

Click to expand...

Actually, you could add those things, but they are generally not considered appealing, so why would you?

Click to expand...

Because as an artist, the last thing you should care about is what is “generally” considered appealing or not.

But say you’re right and fake soap bubble bokeh balls aren’t considered appealing. Does that have to do with the fact that they are soap bubble bokeh balls, or with the fact that they are fake? After all, I’d imagine that an image that lends itself best to this effect, wouldn’t have much bokeh itself yet (which btw, is very close to what we see with our own eyeballs, so it would be very high “fidelity”). Which means it doesn’t have much sharpness drop-off either. And not much vignetting too. If you then introduce plain soap bubbles that all look the same, yeah I can imagine that wouldn’t look very good.

Of course you can tweak the image to selectively blur parts if it, introduce vignetting, etc. Or you can just shoot how you want with whatever lens you like, and save yourself a whole lot of time.

starbase218 said:

MrHollywood said:

As some have pointed out, it's generally best NOT to have something "baked" into an image because now you're STUCK with it.

Click to expand...

So?

You seem to assume that people shoot in a way that they want to be able to do anything with their photo after the fact. Well, what about people who expose for high key or low key shots? They don’t really care about being able to retrieve detail from those white or black areas. Your eye never saw it as white or black, so it has nothing to do with fudelity either. It has, however, everything to do with creating something.

I don’t want to be the kind of photographer who finds new photos behind his computer. If you want to be that kind, fine, but I think you’re part of a small minority.

Click to expand...

Minority? I doubt it. Never met a single pro (and I know many) who doesn't rely on PP, just like I never met them back in the film days when careful darkroom work was the norm.

It's 2025. Virtually everyone uses PP, especially if they've spent thousands on cameras and glass.

The success of these new lenses across ALL brands backs up exactly what I'm saying. Character is being dialed out in favor of superior reproduction. It's what cameras and lenses are always striving for.

starbase218 said:

starbase218 said:

I really don't care what you're shooting because that "baked in" quality won't always be ideal. That's why we mostly shoot RAW; to exact as much control over our work as possible. Why damage that pursuit with baked in "character?"

Click to expand...

Because when you shoot RAW, you can always get to the same output as if you were shooting JPEG. So it’s an expansion of your capabilities. I haven’t come across software that allows you to replicate the output of a certain lens. So then, the only way to achieve that, is by actually shooting with that lens.

Click to expand...

If you have some skills with PP, you can get ANY effect you want and, more importantly, have superior artistic control. And again, every improved generation of lenses chases after superior fidelity, NOT character of some sort.

In 98% of all design cases "character = optical flaw."

Again, this is not "my opinion." It's simply factual science. Now, if a certain set of flaws provide you with something you like in your photos, then there are many older lenses you can choose. Superior lenses avoid that sort of thing as much as the tech allows.

Robert

MrHollywood said:

starbase218 said:

MrHollywood said:

As some have pointed out, it's generally best NOT to have something "baked" into an image because now you're STUCK with it.

Click to expand...

So?

You seem to assume that people shoot in a way that they want to be able to do anything with their photo after the fact. Well, what about people who expose for high key or low key shots? They don’t really care about being able to retrieve detail from those white or black areas. Your eye never saw it as white or black, so it has nothing to do with fudelity either. It has, however, everything to do with creating something.

I don’t want to be the kind of photographer who finds new photos behind his computer. If you want to be that kind, fine, but I think you’re part of a small minority.

Click to expand...

Minority? I doubt it. Never met a single pro (and I know many) who doesn't rely on PP, just like I never met them back in the film days when careful darkroom work was the norm.

It's 2025. Virtually everyone uses PP, especially if they've spent thousands on cameras and glass.

The success of these new lenses across ALL brands backs up exactly what I'm saying. Character is being dialed out in favor of superior reproduction. It's what cameras and lenses are always striving for.

Click to expand...

Relying on PP doesn't mean finding new photos behind your computer. And I think you know that.

MrHollywood said:

MrHollywood said:

MrHollywood said:

I really don't care what you're shooting because that "baked in" quality won't always be ideal. That's why we mostly shoot RAW; to exact as much control over our work as possible. Why damage that pursuit with baked in "character?"

Click to expand...

Because when you shoot RAW, you can always get to the same output as if you were shooting JPEG. So it’s an expansion of your capabilities. I haven’t come across software that allows you to replicate the output of a certain lens. So then, the only way to achieve that, is by actually shooting with that lens.

Click to expand...

If you have some skills with PP, you can get ANY effect you want and, more importantly, have superior artistic control. And again, every improved generation of lenses chases after superior fidelity, NOT character of some sort.

Click to expand...

And how long will that take me? To blur different sections of the image to a different extent (simulating narrow DOF), introduce soap bubble bokeh that looks not all the same, etc. And all the while I would have been required to shoot the image itself at a narrow aperture, meaning a high ISO, degrading image quality. Because otherwise I would get bokeh balls already - which, what, I should first remove?

MrHollywood said:

In 98% of all design cases "character = optical flaw."

Again, this is not "my opinion." It's simply factual science.

Click to expand...

I'm not denying that. I am saying, that if you say I have to prefer an image with fewer optical flaws, you are wrong.

MrHollywood said:

Now, if a certain set of flaws provide you with something you like in your photos, then there are many older lenses you can choose. Superior lenses avoid that sort of thing as much as the tech allows.

Click to expand...

I'm not even saying I do. I'm not that strong minded on this. You are not only that, but you also seem to forget that we don't see much bokeh with our own eyes. And certainly we don't see bokeh balls. So what exactly is "high fidelity" about perfect bokeh balls?

It seems like the old timers still like to use lenses with character. Take David Burnett, he shot the Paris Olympics with a 4x5 film camera and a Sony A9 with a vintage Zenit Helios lens.

John Knoll, co-author of Photoshop, shot the motion capture of Mandalorian season 1, using vintage Nikkor lens on a Canon DSLR body. The same lens was used in the original Star Wars.

I don't know, it seems like being able to get what you want into the camera makes you more a photographer than a CG artists. Personally I don't enjoy spending time in front of a computer modifying images. I already sit in front of a computer enough for work.

Oh is the wabi- sabi? I like it. All this is not directly related to Robert's opening message I realize. Just meandering thoughts about why it is the `less than perfect' might appeal.

Retoocs said:

It seems like the old timers still like to use lenses with character. Take David Burnett, he shot the Paris Olympics with a 4x5 film camera and a Sony A9 with a vintage Zenit Helios lens.

John Knoll, co-author of Photoshop, shot the motion capture of Mandalorian season 1, using vintage Nikkor lens on a Canon DSLR body. The same lens was used in the original Star Wars.

I don't know, it seems like being able to get what you want into the camera makes you more a photographer than a CG artists. Personally I don't enjoy spending time in front of a computer modifying images. I already sit in front of a computer enough for work.

Click to expand...

That’s what it comes down to for me as well.

Not that that means I want a lens with character. That’s another matter entirely. In fact I think I’d prefer the 50/1.8 to the 50/1.4 for example. But I prefer it because of how it looks. Not because it may be technically superior.

I can spend ages editing my photos. But I already have a day job, so at one point I want to be done with that and take more photos.

pluton said:

pluton said:

And a lens that bakes in "character" that you cannot control is a LIMIT.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Personally, I prefer lenses that have no character and no signature whatsoever. The two Fujifilm lenses I have (23/1.4, 14/2.8) are outstanding in this respect. The Z 24-70/2.8 and Z14-24 I have are like this too.

Those older/cheaper lenses may have a matrix of optical aberrations/distortions that one might find fascinating or intriguing as a novelty. But then we move on.

IMO, Old photography that was created when the best lenses had a lot of visible aberrations can be interesting for the sense of looking into the past ... in spite of the aberrations, not because of them.
-Keith B-

EDIT: I did recently see a guy posting photos on Meta's Threads that had gotten ahold of one of those Petzval 58mm lenses, and has created a couple of visually fascinating shots utilizing the extreme aberrations of that lens in the visual design of the shots. So...never say never???.

Click to expand...

And those aberrations are difficult-at best-to achieve convincingly in post, without it looking like phone fake bokeh.

What if a guy (or gal) had some old/adapted/etc. glass around, and used either the tack sharp new stuff or their 'character' kit as the situation dictated?

When I shoot concerts, I don't need clinical perfection. It's nice to have sometimes, sure, but I generally don't care what's going on with the extreme edges or how flat the field of focus is. In fact, when I got my newest camera, its large sensor and modern optics did such a great job of picking up each clinical detail.. that a number of my subjects asked me if I could be just a little less sharp and clear with my photos :-D This is why Nikon has portrait skin softening (I keep it at its lowest level) available.

David Kieltyka said:

I don't see this as a Vs. situation. Sometimes I choose a lens as highly corrected and transparent as I own. Other times I opt for a lens that slathers its imperfections all over the frame. Depends on intent.

I'm not a fan of the "fix it in the mix" approach, though I'll do this if I have to. I'd rather have the look I'm going for baked in at the source.

-Dave-

Click to expand...

I see no difference in getting an effect from an engineered lens or engineered software effect of a character lens.

Mr Bolton said:

And those aberrations are difficult-at best-to achieve convincingly in post, without it looking like phone fake bokeh.

Click to expand...

Agree. No interest here in fake bokeh.

Mr Bolton said:

What if a guy (or gal) had some old/adapted/etc. glass around, and used either the tack sharp new stuff or their 'character' kit as the situation dictated?

Click to expand...

No reason why not. It all comes down to "Is the photo interesting to look at?" Same as always.

Mr Bolton said:

...In fact, when I got my newest camera, its large sensor and modern optics did such a great job of picking up each clinical detail.. that a number of my subjects asked me if I could be just a little less sharp and clear with my photos....

Click to expand...

I have found that for people shots, the older, less-perfect lenses can be nice. If I shot rock shows, I'd want my old Nikon 135/2 AiS back. I still might buy another one someday, just because...

Also, the new-style super-sharp lenses can give a feeling of reduced depth of field, due to the extreme difference in detail between what is, and is not, in focus.

BillyBobSenna said:

David Kieltyka said:

I don't see this as a Vs. situation. Sometimes I choose a lens as highly corrected and transparent as I own. Other times I opt for a lens that slathers its imperfections all over the frame. Depends on intent.

I'm not a fan of the "fix it in the mix" approach, though I'll do this if I have to. I'd rather have the look I'm going for baked in at the source.

-Dave-

Click to expand...

I see no difference in getting an effect from an engineered lens or engineered software effect of a character lens.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why all the big screen movie guys just always shoot with the clinically sharpest lenses they can find and do all the effects in post. Oh, wait..

Mr Bolton said:

pluton said:

Mr Bolton said:

And a lens that bakes in "character" that you cannot control is a LIMIT.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Personally, I prefer lenses that have no character and no signature whatsoever. The two Fujifilm lenses I have (23/1.4, 14/2.8) are outstanding in this respect. The Z 24-70/2.8 and Z14-24 I have are like this too.

Those older/cheaper lenses may have a matrix of optical aberrations/distortions that one might find fascinating or intriguing as a novelty. But then we move on.

IMO, Old photography that was created when the best lenses had a lot of visible aberrations can be interesting for the sense of looking into the past ... in spite of the aberrations, not because of them.
-Keith B-

EDIT: I did recently see a guy posting photos on Meta's Threads that had gotten ahold of one of those Petzval 58mm lenses, and has created a couple of visually fascinating shots utilizing the extreme aberrations of that lens in the visual design of the shots. So...never say never???.

Click to expand...

And those aberrations are difficult-at best-to achieve convincingly in post, without it looking like phone fake bokeh.

Click to expand...

According to Mr Hollywood, you’re probably not very experienced with post processing…

But then maybe he is king Nikon.

Lots of opinions here. A good thing IMO. Most highly regarded pros similarly differ widely on this subject. Often to the extreme. Just listen to comments and watch the market pricing for Leica's esteemed summicron lenses. And so I will always vote for Lance's "float your boat" position on this question. Great forum topic!

--
See my photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/25956017@N07/

starbase218 said:

Retoocs said:

It seems like the old timers still like to use lenses with character. Take David Burnett, he shot the Paris Olympics with a 4x5 film camera and a Sony A9 with a vintage Zenit Helios lens.

John Knoll, co-author of Photoshop, shot the motion capture of Mandalorian season 1, using vintage Nikkor lens on a Canon DSLR body. The same lens was used in the original Star Wars.

I don't know, it seems like being able to get what you want into the camera makes you more a photographer than a CG artists. Personally I don't enjoy spending time in front of a computer modifying images. I already sit in front of a computer enough for work.

Click to expand...

That’s what it comes down to for me as well.

Not that that means I want a lens with character. That’s another matter entirely. In fact I think I’d prefer the 50/1.8 to the 50/1.4 for example. But I prefer it because of how it looks. Not because it may be technically superior.

I can spend ages editing my photos. But I already have a day job, so at one point I want to be done with that and take more photos.

Click to expand...

Oh, and one other thing: you pay for that optical perfection. Not just in the price of the lens, but in size and weight too. It’s all good and well that you can take a perfect lens for a stroll in a city. But what if you go wild camping? Or what if you want to climb a mountain?

It’s kind of similar to how some people switch from zooms to primes: they analyse the focal lengths of their keepers, and go out and buy primes with those focal lengths. But this misses out on the fact that a zoom allows far greater flexibility. So yes, a prime is better in the technical sense. But if primes mean you weren’t able to get the shot in the first place, because you had the wrong lens mounted, then how much does that matter?

starbase218 said:

According to Mr Hollywood, you’re probably not very experienced with post processing…

But then maybe he is king Nikon.

Click to expand...

ha! I think we need to make a distinction between commercial photography and personal or "art" photography. The good commercial photograph is...whatever the client wants. If heavy image processing is "in" this year, that's what the photographer is expected to deliver.

starbase218 said:

Oh, and one other thing: you pay for that optical perfection. Not just in the price of the lens, but in size and weight too. It’s all good and well that you can take a perfect lens for a stroll in a city. But what if you go wild camping? Or what if you want to climb a mountain?

Click to expand...

”Photography” encompasses a million different ways to make pictures. Ansel Adams lugged large, heavy gear across rugged terrain, to capture sharp, detailed landscapes he would then spend hours “post-processing”. Henri Cartier-Bresson carried a small, inconspicuous camera and lens to capture fleeting moments in time. Presumably neither man was constrained by the cost of his equipment, but their methods dictated different choices.

I remember when shooting with plastic toy cameras like the Diana was “a thing”. (It may still be, for all I know.) To say those cheap plastic lenses had “character” would be generous, but some pretty good images were made using the “anti tech” of the day.

starbase218 said:

Oh, and one other thing: you pay for that optical perfection. Not just in the price of the lens, but in size and weight too. It’s all good and well that you can take a perfect lens for a stroll in a city. But what if you go wild camping? Or what if you want to climb a mountain?

Click to expand...

There are Small, Good, and Cheap. Pick any two. Small + Good: Leica-M, period. The Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar I have is really good and relatively cheap, but it's larger than the competitive M lens.

starbase218 said:

It’s kind of similar to how some people switch from zooms to primes: they analyse the focal lengths of their keepers, and go out and buy primes with those focal lengths. But this misses out on the fact that a zoom allows far greater flexibility. So yes, a prime is better in the technical sense. But if primes mean you weren’t able to get the shot in the first place, because you had the wrong lens mounted, then how much does that matter?

Click to expand...

The best wide and normal zooms have gotten as good as good primes**. (The tele zooms have been good for quite a few years now) It's nice to have one lens (Z14-24/2.8) that replaces carrying 15mm, 18mm, 21mm and 24mm primes. Or the Z24-70/2.8 that replaces carrying 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, and 50mm primes.

Do the zooms have that unique Zeiss color/contrast? No. But the zooms are less blurry at the sides of the 24x36 frame than any of the those primes. Amazing!

**"Good primes" means good, useable, capable of generating professional-level results, but not necessarily the best in measurements.

PS: I kept --and still use-- all the Zeiss and some of the old Nikon manual focus primes.

--
-Keith B-

pluton said:

pluton said:

Oh, and one other thing: you pay for that optical perfection. Not just in the price of the lens, but in size and weight too. It’s all good and well that you can take a perfect lens for a stroll in a city. But what if you go wild camping? Or what if you want to climb a mountain?

Click to expand...

There are Small, Good, and Cheap. Pick any two. Small + Good: Leica-M, period. The Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar I have is really good and relatively cheap, but it's larger than the competitive M lens.

Click to expand...

Interesting. After I wrote this, it occurred to me that the Pentax Limited lenses are optically quite good, and small. The price you pay is the small maximum aperture.

I'm not saying they're as good as the Nikon S-line primes btw. But they at least have a reputation for very good image quality. If you can live with that smaller maximum aperture, and a DSLR with - save for perhaps the K-3 III - archaic autofocus.

pluton said:

pluton said:

It’s kind of similar to how some people switch from zooms to primes: they analyse the focal lengths of their keepers, and go out and buy primes with those focal lengths. But this misses out on the fact that a zoom allows far greater flexibility. So yes, a prime is better in the technical sense. But if primes mean you weren’t able to get the shot in the first place, because you had the wrong lens mounted, then how much does that matter?

Click to expand...

The best wide and normal zooms have gotten as good as good primes**. (The tele zooms have been good for quite a few years now) It's nice to have one lens (Z14-24/2.8) that replaces carrying 15mm, 18mm, 21mm and 24mm primes. Or the Z24-70/2.8 that replaces carrying 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, and 50mm primes.

Do the zooms have that unique Zeiss color/contrast? No. But the zooms are less blurry at the sides of the 24x36 frame than any of the those primes. Amazing!

Click to expand...

No, but what I meant is that you can optimise from a theoretical point of view, but that might mean neglecting or failing to see something else. That's what I mean by it's "kind of similar".

Also, yes, zooms have improved, but then apply it to superzooms if you will. They have many optical defects, right? But I think everyone realises that using a bunch of primes instead comes with other drawbacks. Depending on how you approach your photography.

For me, I feel less comfortable with a prime. Maybe it's FOMO as well. But it has to do with the fact that I do most shooting while I travel, which means I'm somewhere I don't know. The flexibility of a zoom can be very useful.

Although I also have to say, some of the shots in this video - taken with a 50mm f/1.2 - do have me thinking about whether it might be worth it to try and change my approach:

starbase218 said:

For me, I feel less comfortable with a prime. Maybe it's FOMO as well. But it has to do with the fact that I do most shooting while I travel, which means I'm somewhere I don't know. The flexibility of a zoom can be very useful.

Click to expand...

I struggle selecting gear for travel. I’ve gone to both extremes, from carrying everything but the kitchen sink, to going minimalist with one small camera and one prime. I’ve concluded I enjoy myself more with the latter. When I carry enough to cover every focal length in every situation, not only am I overburdened, but I’m left choosing and changing lenses all day to try and optimize each shot. Sometimes more limitations = more freedom. I think it all depends on the definition and purpose of travel. If you’re traveling to photograph, your choices will be different than if you’re photographing your travel.

chuckhatcher said:

starbase218 said:

For me, I feel less comfortable with a prime. Maybe it's FOMO as well. But it has to do with the fact that I do most shooting while I travel, which means I'm somewhere I don't know. The flexibility of a zoom can be very useful.

Click to expand...

I struggle selecting gear for travel. I’ve gone to both extremes, from carrying everything but the kitchen sink, to going minimalist with one small camera and one prime. I’ve concluded I enjoy myself more with the latter. When I carry enough to cover every focal length in every situation, not only am I overburdened, but I’m left choosing and changing lenses all day to try and optimize each shot. Sometimes more limitations = more freedom.

Click to expand...

If you can embrace the limitations. I might need to work on that.

In Morocco, sometimes I selected the focal length before even looking through the viewfinder. That way you learn more about what a focal length does, but you can still change focal lengths quickly. I think the learning might make it easier for me to embrace those limitations.

chuckhatcher said:

I think it all depends on the definition and purpose of travel. If you’re traveling to photograph, your choices will be different than if you’re photographing your travel.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. And also, for wildlife you need longer lenses anyway. Though if you don’t care about the quality, a Nikon P1100 will do as well.