Visualizing lens aberrations -- why do it?

Want to feel old?

The equivalent time spread between the airing of the Star Trek episode and the 1930s setting would bring from today, back to?

1995-ish.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Ok. So at that point, 1995, I was making small hand held cell phones the size of a Snickers candy bar. Both 1G (analog), which was still the most used, and 2G (digital).

I was also making the first Amateur Radio for the astronauts on the space shuttle to talk to kids in school. :)

Stan
 
Last edited:
I am told that certain older Leica lenses, certainly the non-APO lenses as well as lenses that lack the more modern lens coatings have aberrations, that among other things cause them to not be extremely sharp in the center and to lose much of whatever sharpness they have going toward the edges. Some of those aberrations result in reduced contrast and softer swirly bokeh.

Speaking just for myself, I don't fully understand the aberrations from a technical standpoint, but despite that lack of understanding, I am ab le to appreciate the images they produce which to my eyes don't look clinical or modern (as produced by my Sony GM lenses as well as some Fuji GF lenses during my brief foray into the GFX ecosystem). And indeed those are the lenses I most frequently pull off the shelf when I'm heading out and about to take pictures.

I guess my point is that it's possible to not fully understand the nature of the physical lens aberrations, and yet know they exist as demonstrated by the "flawed" images they produce; and to Jim's point us this kind of knowledge to chose the best tool for the job.
 
I am told that certain older Leica lenses, certainly the non-APO lenses as well as lenses that lack the more modern lens coatings have aberrations, that among other things cause them to not be extremely sharp in the center and to lose much of whatever sharpness they have going toward the edges. Some of those aberrations result in reduced contrast and softer swirly bokeh.
Is swirly bokeh the same as soap bubble bokeh?

As I understand it, one component of soap bubble bokeh is mechanical vignetting.

Speaking just for myself, I don't fully understand the aberrations from a technical standpoint, but despite that lack of understanding, I am ab le to appreciate the images they produce which to my eyes don't look clinical or modern (as produced by my Sony GM lenses as well as some Fuji GF lenses during my brief foray into the GFX ecosystem). And indeed those are the lenses I most frequently pull off the shelf when I'm heading out and about to take pictures.

I guess my point is that it's possible to not fully understand the nature of the physical lens aberrations, and yet know they exist as demonstrated by the "flawed" images they produce;
Sure.
and to Jim's point us this kind of knowledge to [choose] the best tool for the job.
Well, it's a work in progress. Bear with me.
 

Comments? Questions? You can help me figure out where to go with this.

jim
 
Three people are sampling the same wine. The first says, “I like it.”

The second says: “Pretty good older California Cab. Fruit is fading, but there’s a lot of bottle bouquet. Brown edges. Mint, oak, and tobacco.”

The third says: “Alcohol about 14%. Maybe half a percent of residual sugar. Sugar/acid balance is a little high. Seems to have been stored properly. Not corked. No chemical aromas. Not too hot. No malolactic fermentation. No herbaceous notes. No bitterness. Tannin is resolved. Limousin oak. Bacon, coffee, mint, tobacco, blackberry. It’s not going to get any better, and it may be a little way past the peak. I give it a 17, and we should drink it now.”

All those perspectives are valid. But as you go down the list, you find that there’s a deeper understanding of the experience, and a greater likelihood that that person will be able to make informed purchase decisions. Ther’s a continuum of experience and knowledge, from simple enjoyment to analytical assessment. Each person responds truthfully and meaningfully, but with increasing levels of insight and vocabulary. That insight enables not just richer appreciation, but better judgment, especially when deciding what to buy, when to drink, and what to pair it with.

The same spectrum applies to photography and, specifically, to understanding lens aberrations and rendering.

At one end, a photographer might simply say, “I like this lens.” That’s valid. Emotional response and aesthetic satisfaction are legitimate reasons to use a piece of gear.

Further along, another might say, “It’s sharp in the center, a bit soft on the edges wide open. Bokeh is smooth. There’s some chromatic aberration and a bit of vignetting, but nothing that can’t be corrected.” This level of analysis often comes from real-world use and casual testing, and it’s already quite useful for making informed decisions.

At the most advanced end, a photographer might say, “Wide open, there's significant spherochromatism and some undercorrected spherical aberration, which gives a soft glow and enhances apparent bokeh smoothness. The field curvature is inward, and astigmatism kicks in off-axis. There's some residual lateral CA. The PSF has a noticeable flare tail in defocus. Stopped down to f/4, all this tightens up, and the MTF curve flattens out to give even contrast across the field. This lens would suit portraiture at f/2 and landscape at f/5.6, but not architectural work.”

This kind of technical understanding leads to predictive power. It allows the photographer to select the right tool for the job, understand what compromises are acceptable, and even correct for certain flaws in postprocessing. Just as the wine connoisseur can describe why a wine tastes as it does and whether it’s worth cellaring, the technically informed photographer can choose and use a lens with precision, getting more consistent results and often saving time, money, or disappointment.

That deeper knowledge does not preclude appreciation; it enhances it. As with the wine, the enjoyment remains, but it’s enriched by understanding.

How did the most well-informed wine taster get to that point? Like the other two, she probably tasted a lot of wine. But that level of awareness requires more than that. One path to knowledge is something called component tasting. The way that works is that person setting up the test starts out with some generic wines and adulterates them with things that skilled wine tasters are supposed to be somewhat quantitative about. Some common adulterants are:
  • Tartaric acid. To increase acidity and help tasters identify sourness and freshness.
  • Citric or malic acid. Sometimes used alongside or instead of tartaric acid to demonstrate different types of acidity.
  • Glycerol (glycerin). To increase the perception of body and viscosity without affecting sweetness or alcohol. It’s naturally present in wine in small amounts.
  • Ethanol. To increase alcohol level and illustrate warmth, body, and aromatic volatility. Food-grade ethanol is usually diluted to simulate real wine conditions.
  • Sucrose or glucose-fructose solution. To raise residual sugar and demonstrate sweetness and balance
  • Tannin powder. To demonstrate astringency and bitterness.
  • Oak chips or oak extract. To introduce vanillin and lactone aromas associated with barrel aging.
  • Volatile acidity (acetic acid). Added in small, controlled amounts to demonstrate flaws or complexity depending on concentration.
  • Sulfur compounds (e.g., SO₂).
In the posts to follow, I hope to do something similar for lens aberrations to what component tastings do for wine qualities. I plan to show the visual effects of various aberrations, alone and in combination. I hope that careful study of the images that I will post will help people learn how lens aberrations affect images, how they interact, and will ultimately assist them in making sound purchase and use decisions.

I invite the members of this forum to follow along as I proceed down this path, to comment, question, and offer suggestions for mid-course corrections.

Jim
As with wine, this is all well and good, but doesn't it really all come down to "Character"?
 
Last edited:
Three people are sampling the same wine. The first says, “I like it.”

The second says: “Pretty good older California Cab. Fruit is fading, but there’s a lot of bottle bouquet. Brown edges. Mint, oak, and tobacco.”

The third says: “Alcohol about 14%. Maybe half a percent of residual sugar. Sugar/acid balance is a little high. Seems to have been stored properly. Not corked. No chemical aromas. Not too hot. No malolactic fermentation. No herbaceous notes. No bitterness. Tannin is resolved. Limousin oak. Bacon, coffee, mint, tobacco, blackberry. It’s not going to get any better, and it may be a little way past the peak. I give it a 17, and we should drink it now.”

All those perspectives are valid. But as you go down the list, you find that there’s a deeper understanding of the experience, and a greater likelihood that that person will be able to make informed purchase decisions. Ther’s a continuum of experience and knowledge, from simple enjoyment to analytical assessment. Each person responds truthfully and meaningfully, but with increasing levels of insight and vocabulary. That insight enables not just richer appreciation, but better judgment, especially when deciding what to buy, when to drink, and what to pair it with.

The same spectrum applies to photography and, specifically, to understanding lens aberrations and rendering.

At one end, a photographer might simply say, “I like this lens.” That’s valid. Emotional response and aesthetic satisfaction are legitimate reasons to use a piece of gear.

Further along, another might say, “It’s sharp in the center, a bit soft on the edges wide open. Bokeh is smooth. There’s some chromatic aberration and a bit of vignetting, but nothing that can’t be corrected.” This level of analysis often comes from real-world use and casual testing, and it’s already quite useful for making informed decisions.

At the most advanced end, a photographer might say, “Wide open, there's significant spherochromatism and some undercorrected spherical aberration, which gives a soft glow and enhances apparent bokeh smoothness. The field curvature is inward, and astigmatism kicks in off-axis. There's some residual lateral CA. The PSF has a noticeable flare tail in defocus. Stopped down to f/4, all this tightens up, and the MTF curve flattens out to give even contrast across the field. This lens would suit portraiture at f/2 and landscape at f/5.6, but not architectural work.”

This kind of technical understanding leads to predictive power. It allows the photographer to select the right tool for the job, understand what compromises are acceptable, and even correct for certain flaws in postprocessing. Just as the wine connoisseur can describe why a wine tastes as it does and whether it’s worth cellaring, the technically informed photographer can choose and use a lens with precision, getting more consistent results and often saving time, money, or disappointment.

That deeper knowledge does not preclude appreciation; it enhances it. As with the wine, the enjoyment remains, but it’s enriched by understanding.

How did the most well-informed wine taster get to that point? Like the other two, she probably tasted a lot of wine. But that level of awareness requires more than that. One path to knowledge is something called component tasting. The way that works is that person setting up the test starts out with some generic wines and adulterates them with things that skilled wine tasters are supposed to be somewhat quantitative about. Some common adulterants are:
  • Tartaric acid. To increase acidity and help tasters identify sourness and freshness.
  • Citric or malic acid. Sometimes used alongside or instead of tartaric acid to demonstrate different types of acidity.
  • Glycerol (glycerin). To increase the perception of body and viscosity without affecting sweetness or alcohol. It’s naturally present in wine in small amounts.
  • Ethanol. To increase alcohol level and illustrate warmth, body, and aromatic volatility. Food-grade ethanol is usually diluted to simulate real wine conditions.
  • Sucrose or glucose-fructose solution. To raise residual sugar and demonstrate sweetness and balance
  • Tannin powder. To demonstrate astringency and bitterness.
  • Oak chips or oak extract. To introduce vanillin and lactone aromas associated with barrel aging.
  • Volatile acidity (acetic acid). Added in small, controlled amounts to demonstrate flaws or complexity depending on concentration.
  • Sulfur compounds (e.g., SO₂).
In the posts to follow, I hope to do something similar for lens aberrations to what component tastings do for wine qualities. I plan to show the visual effects of various aberrations, alone and in combination. I hope that careful study of the images that I will post will help people learn how lens aberrations affect images, how they interact, and will ultimately assist them in making sound purchase and use decisions.

I invite the members of this forum to follow along as I proceed down this path, to comment, question, and offer suggestions for mid-course corrections.

Jim
As with wine, this is all well and good, but doesn't it really all come down to "Character"?
That's a word often associated with lens aberrations, but not, in my experience, with wine.
 
Who would you call? Something to ponder on as they light the faggots.
Ever read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?
You step out of the time portal with your mobile phone, which amazes everyone you meet for the few hours of battery it had left. Now explain how to make one.
 
Last edited:
Too much information at the wrong time is a negative rather than a plus in this context.
A linguistic nit that I picked on something I am currently writing -

Characterizing too much as a negative is tautological.

I settled on ‘a lot can be a negative’, but I am still pondering.
Eh? How is "too much information" tautological? Where's the redundancy (the basis for a tautology)?
That is a very unique point of view.
 
The problem is, the knowledgable wine drinkers of the world are the ones who discuss and debate us into wars; what do they do then, call on the beer drinkers to fight them.
Three people are sampling the same wine. The first says, “I like it.”

The second says: “Pretty good older California Cab. Fruit is fading, but there’s a lot of bottle bouquet. Brown edges. Mint, oak, and tobacco.”

The third says: “Alcohol about 14%. Maybe half a percent of residual sugar. Sugar/acid balance is a little high. Seems to have been stored properly. Not corked. No chemical aromas. Not too hot. No malolactic fermentation. No herbaceous notes. No bitterness. Tannin is resolved. Limousin oak. Bacon, coffee, mint, tobacco, blackberry. It’s not going to get any better, and it may be a little way past the peak. I give it a 17, and we should drink it now.”

All those perspectives are valid. But as you go down the list, you find that there’s a deeper understanding of the experience, and a greater likelihood that that person will be able to make informed purchase decisions. Ther’s a continuum of experience and knowledge, from simple enjoyment to analytical assessment. Each person responds truthfully and meaningfully, but with increasing levels of insight and vocabulary. That insight enables not just richer appreciation, but better judgment, especially when deciding what to buy, when to drink, and what to pair it with.

The same spectrum applies to photography and, specifically, to understanding lens aberrations and rendering.

At one end, a photographer might simply say, “I like this lens.” That’s valid. Emotional response and aesthetic satisfaction are legitimate reasons to use a piece of gear.

Further along, another might say, “It’s sharp in the center, a bit soft on the edges wide open. Bokeh is smooth. There’s some chromatic aberration and a bit of vignetting, but nothing that can’t be corrected.” This level of analysis often comes from real-world use and casual testing, and it’s already quite useful for making informed decisions.

At the most advanced end, a photographer might say, “Wide open, there's significant spherochromatism and some undercorrected spherical aberration, which gives a soft glow and enhances apparent bokeh smoothness. The field curvature is inward, and astigmatism kicks in off-axis. There's some residual lateral CA. The PSF has a noticeable flare tail in defocus. Stopped down to f/4, all this tightens up, and the MTF curve flattens out to give even contrast across the field. This lens would suit portraiture at f/2 and landscape at f/5.6, but not architectural work.”

This kind of technical understanding leads to predictive power. It allows the photographer to select the right tool for the job, understand what compromises are acceptable, and even correct for certain flaws in postprocessing. Just as the wine connoisseur can describe why a wine tastes as it does and whether it’s worth cellaring, the technically informed photographer can choose and use a lens with precision, getting more consistent results and often saving time, money, or disappointment.

That deeper knowledge does not preclude appreciation; it enhances it. As with the wine, the enjoyment remains, but it’s enriched by understanding.

How did the most well-informed wine taster get to that point? Like the other two, she probably tasted a lot of wine. But that level of awareness requires more than that. One path to knowledge is something called component tasting. The way that works is that person setting up the test starts out with some generic wines and adulterates them with things that skilled wine tasters are supposed to be somewhat quantitative about. Some common adulterants are:
  • Tartaric acid. To increase acidity and help tasters identify sourness and freshness.
  • Citric or malic acid. Sometimes used alongside or instead of tartaric acid to demonstrate different types of acidity.
  • Glycerol (glycerin). To increase the perception of body and viscosity without affecting sweetness or alcohol. It’s naturally present in wine in small amounts.
  • Ethanol. To increase alcohol level and illustrate warmth, body, and aromatic volatility. Food-grade ethanol is usually diluted to simulate real wine conditions.
  • Sucrose or glucose-fructose solution. To raise residual sugar and demonstrate sweetness and balance
  • Tannin powder. To demonstrate astringency and bitterness.
  • Oak chips or oak extract. To introduce vanillin and lactone aromas associated with barrel aging.
  • Volatile acidity (acetic acid). Added in small, controlled amounts to demonstrate flaws or complexity depending on concentration.
  • Sulfur compounds (e.g., SO₂).
In the posts to follow, I hope to do something similar for lens aberrations to what component tastings do for wine qualities. I plan to show the visual effects of various aberrations, alone and in combination. I hope that careful study of the images that I will post will help people learn how lens aberrations affect images, how they interact, and will ultimately assist them in making sound purchase and use decisions.

I invite the members of this forum to follow along as I proceed down this path, to comment, question, and offer suggestions for mid-course corrections.

Jim
 
I am told that certain older Leica lenses, certainly the non-APO lenses as well as lenses that lack the more modern lens coatings have aberrations, that among other things cause them to not be extremely sharp in the center and to lose much of whatever sharpness they have going toward the edges. Some of those aberrations result in reduced contrast and softer swirly bokeh.
The coatings have nothing to do with aberrations. Antireflection coatings wouldn't be antireflective anymore, if they are so "misformed", that they alter the light path.

But their performance is important for contrast and stray light in the picture (the latter I personally like).
Speaking just for myself, I don't fully understand the aberrations from a technical standpoint, but despite that lack of understanding, I am ab le to appreciate the images they produce which to my eyes don't look clinical or modern [...]
The aberrations are light rays, that don't hit the desired image point but are slightly misaligned at their path. For a perfect image, all light rays from one object point (in the plan of sharpness) have to hit one image point.

There are 3 basis components, that are important:
  • The optical design. So to speak the combination of lens materials, lens shapes and their distances. There were aspheric lenses since world war 2, but their extended use in low value products as camera lenses is new. As are complicated AR-coatings.
  • The manufacturing tolerance of each lens
  • The mechanical position tolerance of each lens
So to speak, you can have the same optical layout (optic design), but get higher resolution out of it, by using better precision in manufacturing.
 
I am told that certain older Leica lenses, certainly the non-APO lenses as well as lenses that lack the more modern lens coatings have aberrations, that among other things cause them to not be extremely sharp in the center and to lose much of whatever sharpness they have going toward the edges. Some of those aberrations result in reduced contrast and softer swirly bokeh.
Is swirly bokeh the same as soap bubble bokeh?

As I understand it, one component of soap bubble bokeh is mechanical vignetting.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/lomography-58-mm-petzval-psfs/
Cats eye bokeh is cause of vignetting . Soap bubble is cause of spherical aberration. (And Onion rings cause of defects in asphere technology.)

For the soap bubbles: The best written article I know on this topic (A Technical View of Bokeh, by Harold M. Merklinger):

 
Too much information at the wrong time is a negative rather than a plus in this context.
A linguistic nit that I picked on something I am currently writing -

Characterizing too much as a negative is tautological..
Eh? How is "too much information" tautological? Where's the redundancy (the basis for a tautology)?
“Too much information“ is not tautological. “Too much information is a negative” is. Too much (or too little) of something is by definition a bad thing.

I might point out that “at the wrong time” is also redundant, but that would be too much pedantry 🙂

(Come to think of it, “in this context” is redundant too 😂 )
Ah, I see now.

This forum is no longer a safe space for bad writing. 😉
Now look what you've done... 🙂
I know! Thank goodness the maximum number of posts is 150. At least there will be an end to that thread.
I would not go so far: TOO much information or TOO less information is not necessary "negative".

It is just an expression of the impossibility to use.

"Negative" is at least an attitude, but not a categoric imperative.

Hence the following: If you a located inside a complete dark room, there is TOO less light to impose exposure upon any light sensitive item. Why is this "negative". It becomes negative in the case, that you are in that room to do something that needs "MORE".

If you like to e.g. to take picture in that room, it is impossible regarding the intention to take a picture.

If you are a person who needs to be inside absolute darkness to be able to sleep, it is not "negative".

So "TOO ... " is an impression of impossibility (regarding the actual situation you are in AND YOUR individual INTENTION".

Declaring a situation as "negative" is always a value judgement, which often in NOT based on a rational base but an interoperation of the rational environment COMBINED with a specific intention. So "negative" is a PERSONAL and environmental related "feeling".
 
Too much information at the wrong time is a negative rather than a plus in this context.
A linguistic nit that I picked on something I am currently writing -

Characterizing too much as a negative is tautological.

I settled on ‘a lot can be a negative’, but I am still pondering.
Eh? How is "too much information" tautological? Where's the redundancy (the basis for a tautology)?
That is a very unique point of view.
In keeping with (some) of the tenor of this thread . . .

Unique means "one of a kind."

A thing can't be very one of a kind.

"That point of view is one of a kind," makes sense. "That point of view is very one of a kind," doesn't.

You meant unusual. Not unique. A common mistake. "That point of view is very unusual."

However, "very" is unnecessary because it is weak and the expression becomes a tautology with it.

That is an unusual point of view.

/pedantry

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)
 
Last edited:
Too much information at the wrong time is a negative rather than a plus in this context.
A linguistic nit that I picked on something I am currently writing -

Characterizing too much as a negative is tautological.

I settled on ‘a lot can be a negative’, but I am still pondering.
Eh? How is "too much information" tautological? Where's the redundancy (the basis for a tautology)?
That is a very unique point of view.
In keeping with (some) of the tenor of this thread . . .

Unique means "one of a kind."

A thing can't be very one of a kind.

"That point of view is one of a kind," makes sense. "That point of view is very one of a kind," doesn't.

You meant unusual. Not unique. A common mistake. "That point of view is very unusual."

However, "very" is unnecessary because it is weak and the expression becomes a tautology with it.

That is a unique point of view.

/pedantry
Also, it’s presented as a comment in response to a question, which doesn’t express a point of view. So it doesn’t make sense anyway 🙂

Though I think we have probably gone too far down this rabbit hole, and I doubt that is a unique point of view 😉
 
I would not go so far: TOO much information or TOO less information is not necessary "negative".
Yes it is, it’s just that such statements are meaningless without context.

In your example, too little light to make a decent exposure is not too little light to go to sleep, even if it’s the same amount of light, because the contexts are different.

And yes, the level of light that you might consider too much to sleep in would probably different from the level of light that I would consider too much, but that’s just part of the context.

Some contexts are subjective, as above; others are not: a pint of water is too much to fit in a half-pint jug but it’s not too much to fit in a quart jug.

But whatever the context, “too much” or “too little” or “too whatever” always implies a negative consequence.
 
Last edited:
And at that moment his tongue became unstuck from his cheek.
In keeping with (some) of the tenor of this thread . . .

Unique means "one of a kind."

A thing can't be very one of a kind.
 
Three people are sampling the same wine. The first says, “I like it.”

The second says: “Pretty good older California Cab. Fruit is fading, but there’s a lot of bottle bouquet. Brown edges. Mint, oak, and tobacco.”

The third says: “Alcohol about 14%. Maybe half a percent of residual sugar. Sugar/acid balance is a little high. Seems to have been stored properly. Not corked. No chemical aromas. Not too hot. No malolactic fermentation. No herbaceous notes. No bitterness. Tannin is resolved. Limousin oak. Bacon, coffee, mint, tobacco, blackberry. It’s not going to get any better, and it may be a little way past the peak. I give it a 17, and we should drink it now.”

All those perspectives are valid. But as you go down the list, you find that there’s a deeper understanding of the experience, and a greater likelihood that that person will be able to make informed purchase decisions. Ther’s a continuum of experience and knowledge, from simple enjoyment to analytical assessment. Each person responds truthfully and meaningfully, but with increasing levels of insight and vocabulary. That insight enables not just richer appreciation, but better judgment, especially when deciding what to buy, when to drink, and what to pair it with.

The same spectrum applies to photography and, specifically, to understanding lens aberrations and rendering.

At one end, a photographer might simply say, “I like this lens.” That’s valid. Emotional response and aesthetic satisfaction are legitimate reasons to use a piece of gear.

Further along, another might say, “It’s sharp in the center, a bit soft on the edges wide open. Bokeh is smooth. There’s some chromatic aberration and a bit of vignetting, but nothing that can’t be corrected.” This level of analysis often comes from real-world use and casual testing, and it’s already quite useful for making informed decisions.

At the most advanced end, a photographer might say, “Wide open, there's significant spherochromatism and some undercorrected spherical aberration, which gives a soft glow and enhances apparent bokeh smoothness. The field curvature is inward, and astigmatism kicks in off-axis. There's some residual lateral CA. The PSF has a noticeable flare tail in defocus. Stopped down to f/4, all this tightens up, and the MTF curve flattens out to give even contrast across the field. This lens would suit portraiture at f/2 and landscape at f/5.6, but not architectural work.”

This kind of technical understanding leads to predictive power. It allows the photographer to select the right tool for the job, understand what compromises are acceptable, and even correct for certain flaws in postprocessing. Just as the wine connoisseur can describe why a wine tastes as it does and whether it’s worth cellaring, the technically informed photographer can choose and use a lens with precision, getting more consistent results and often saving time, money, or disappointment.

That deeper knowledge does not preclude appreciation; it enhances it. As with the wine, the enjoyment remains, but it’s enriched by understanding.

How did the most well-informed wine taster get to that point? Like the other two, she probably tasted a lot of wine. But that level of awareness requires more than that. One path to knowledge is something called component tasting. The way that works is that person setting up the test starts out with some generic wines and adulterates them with things that skilled wine tasters are supposed to be somewhat quantitative about. Some common adulterants are:
  • Tartaric acid. To increase acidity and help tasters identify sourness and freshness.
  • Citric or malic acid. Sometimes used alongside or instead of tartaric acid to demonstrate different types of acidity.
  • Glycerol (glycerin). To increase the perception of body and viscosity without affecting sweetness or alcohol. It’s naturally present in wine in small amounts.
  • Ethanol. To increase alcohol level and illustrate warmth, body, and aromatic volatility. Food-grade ethanol is usually diluted to simulate real wine conditions.
  • Sucrose or glucose-fructose solution. To raise residual sugar and demonstrate sweetness and balance
  • Tannin powder. To demonstrate astringency and bitterness.
  • Oak chips or oak extract. To introduce vanillin and lactone aromas associated with barrel aging.
  • Volatile acidity (acetic acid). Added in small, controlled amounts to demonstrate flaws or complexity depending on concentration.
  • Sulfur compounds (e.g., SO₂).
In the posts to follow, I hope to do something similar for lens aberrations to what component tastings do for wine qualities. I plan to show the visual effects of various aberrations, alone and in combination. I hope that careful study of the images that I will post will help people learn how lens aberrations affect images, how they interact, and will ultimately assist them in making sound purchase and use decisions.

I invite the members of this forum to follow along as I proceed down this path, to comment, question, and offer suggestions for mid-course corrections.

Jim
As with wine, this is all well and good, but doesn't it really all come down to "Character"?
That's a word often associated with lens aberrations, but not, in my experience, with wine.
Winefrog.com informs us: (My Ital to mark as excerpted)

WineFrog explains Wine Character

In wine descriptions, you’ll often hear the word "character" bandied about usually combined with an adjective or descriptor. The most common use of the word is to describe the overall sense of the wine. Pretend that a glass of wine is like a character in a book. The type of wine it is, will be its "character" - if the author (aka winemaker) has done their job right, the wine’s character can be classified with more than one wine term. Here are some of the most common:

  • Assertive
  • Attractive
  • Balanced
  • Big
  • Crisp
  • Closed
  • Complete
  • Complex
  • Delicate
  • Dense
  • Developed
  • Depth
  • Elegant
  • Fading
  • Flat
  • Full-bodied
  • Graceful
  • Neutral
  • Potent
  • Robust
  • Round
  • Soft
  • Supple
https://winefrog.com/definition/4/wine-character

Ah, the overall sense of a lens and its "character" . . .
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top