I'm all Eyes- Let's see how Lens Signature affects Photographs

[al_kaplan1]

Ray, Thanks for your comment on the Miccosukee photo. I get lazy at times. I really need to print up more of my old stuff. I spent a lot of time on the Miccosukee and Seminole reservations in the early 70's and shot a lot of film with my Leicas. Everything from horseback riding with the cattle herds on the Brighton Reservation I still have the negatives. I've got a bunch of Kodachrome II's kicking around too. It was a whole way of life completely gone now, thanks to the wealth brought by first tax free cigarette sales and then by bingo halls and casinos.

[thomas_sullivan]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

[jim_simmons]

OK, Ray, you got me to bite on this subject other day, but I'll bite again, even though there was no response to what I thought was a reasoned explanation of my true experience. So, to start with, I'll repeat a portion of that posting:

 

quote begins - "Back in the days when I hung a 35mm camera over my shoulder every waking hour of every day, I took photos of many ordinary street scenes I came upon. The scenes were ordinary; it was the quality of the light that I was usually stalking - a hard, crystalline light in which objects jump out at you like cutouts.

 

One day my local camera store took a Leicaflex SL in trade and shoved it in my face that afternoon, hoping they'd make a sale. I put my Nikon down, put a roll of Plus-X in the Leicaflex and went outside and shot the roll up. That night I developed the film and made a couple of prints. The next morning I went to the camera shop and put the put the Leicaflex on layaway. It took me 3 months to pay it off, and I lusted for it every day of that 3 months. Why? The quality of the images from the 50mm Summicron at f/8, that's why. Crystalline edges and textures, but creamy tones all at the same time. The Nikkors I'd been using (50mm f/2 and 35mm f/2.8) were muddier by comparison, less sharp at hard contrast edges, and didn't contain the microcontrast in finely textured areas. As Ray says, "Maybe I'm missing something." Well, I'd have saved some money over the years (or had a larger lens collection) if I was not able to see the difference, and some people can't, but if you can see the difference, you really appreciate the qualities these lenses can bring to some styles of photography. So believe me, it is possible to be an equipment freak AND be into the art of your imagery. When the two come together, it can be very satisfying. BTW, I believe the 40mm Summicron has the same qualities as the 50mm Summicron R, although I'd have to do a tripod-based test to sense the resolution difference, I believe." - quote ends

 

It would make no sense for me to post scans of those negatives, as the qualities we're talking about here simply do not show up on a computer monitor screen. They show up in an 11x14 print. And yes, displaying images on a monitor has become an important part of the photography world. But it has not replaced the print component of that world.

 

In that other thread you made some comments that are the beginning of an enquiry that is worth pursuing. You said, "I've never understood why people are so focused on lens characteristics. Maybe I'm missing something." and you said, "Photography isn't about lenses really, is it?" Here's my response to you. If this were a master/teacher situation (I'm NOT the master here, this is just an example) your master would congratulate you on asking good questions. And would then guide you in discovering the answers to these questions yourself. The master would not provide proof to you of the answer that you might ultimately find. It is your job to refine your questions, devise a method of discovering the answers to those questions, and then to do the work that answers those questions with a truth that is YOUR TRUTH. Photo.net comrades can assist in explaining the personal truths they have discovered for themselves, and they might offer suggestions as to how you might discover your own truth. But it is not their job to do your seeing for you. Only you can do that. And you should not tell others they what they see does not exist. Your answer is out there. If you are asking people to help you find it, great. But if you are demanding that others defend a vision that they have proven to their own satisfaction is true, you simply will come away satisfied.

[jim_simmons]

Duh, last sentence should end "you will simply NOT come away satisfied."

[Uhooru]

BTW, are any of the previous photos "significantly affected" (isn't effected more accurate

Ray?) by the

lens or camera type used here?

 

Well, I like showing photos, being a show-off. What about these from a 50mm Screw

mount Elmar compared to 50 4th version Summicron, does the look of them really have a

significant effect on the photo?? Well they do, but you be the judge as to whether its

"significant".

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3692853-md.jpg">

Elmer

 

<<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3323772-md.jpg">

Cron

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3796742-md.jpg">

Elmer indoor

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3284415-md.jpg">

Summicron indoor

[Uhooru]

Kent she was there last Sunday. But yes please come up this Sunday, I'll be there. Wear a red

dot or something, I'll be playing guitar ;)

[Brad_]

Nice pix Barry. As an observer though, I can't say I prefer one pic over another due to lens

type - different subjects, feel, emotion, story, etc - that's what effects me. How about you?

 

BTW, looks like I'll be in Santa Monica in January - be great to hook up...

[ky2]

<i>"the eye and attitude of the photographer" -- Ray</i><br><Br>

For a brief moment Ray, you've found the light.

[Uhooru]

Here's another way of asking this question. Does a Stradavarius violin make have significant

effect on music played on it compared to another quality violin?

[doug herr]

I don't have side-by-side photos of my typical subjects with identical lighting because my subjects move too quickly, and the time I can devote to photoraphy is scarce enough that I only use it on subjects that interest me.

<P>

Despite not having side-by-side test photos with a limited number of uncontrolled variables, one can get a feel for a lens' character after seeing the results from the lens x100, just as one might get a sense of what a film can do simply from using it frequently:

<P>

The 280 f/4 APO is flat-out amazing with exceptional image detail and color saturation, and reasonbly good bokeh:

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/tetraonidae/blgr02.jpg">

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/rnph01.jpg">

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/haha00.jpg">

<P>

The 280 f/4.8 for Visoflex or Televit gives me good detail and creamy-smooth bokeh but is lacking in color saturation:

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/fringillidae/brfi00.jpg">

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/hirundinidae/clsw00.jpg">

<P>

The late 250mm Telyt-R gives good image detail and color saturation but bokeh can be an issue (mostly hidden here but check the lower right corner):<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/thrushes/mobl00.jpg">

<P>

[ray .]

I don't know the answer to that but I'm pretty sure I used "affect"

the right way, Barry. ;) "Effect" is a noun unless you're using it as

in "to effect change" (to bring about). "Affect" is to influence.

[doug herr]

PS - of the three lenses I posted examples from, guess which one I'm still using?

[Prof-K]

I had <a href="http://www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~stomita/photo/portrait.htm">this link</a> bookmarked (no Leica though, and w/fill flash). I'm not claiming anything, so help yourself.

[ray .]

Beauties, Doug. For someone at your level of craftsmanship, I

can see how your equipment choices may make a subtle

difference.

[Uhooru]

Brad, these pics no, other than the pic with the whistle player which does display to me,

what I think that cron I use does with light and the way it picks up light flowing over

surfaces and yet can be almost over sharp with b/w film. To the extent that the photo is

built on that it can make a difference. Not better mind you, just its own. But then I see

one of yours or Kent's or Steve's and I'm blown away by the light or color, vision and

mood. Lenses are just tools, the tools don't make you skilled tool users. Its like having

the finest sharpshooting rifle, if you don't know how to shoot, you might as well have a

shot gun.

 

Then you see someone like Doug Herr who's work actually reflects the differences. Damn

it Doug, I've said so many nice things about you I'm going to have to break down and buy

one of them photos of yours ;).

 

BTW Brad, give me a shout when you come down for sure.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Ray,

 

You may consider this a non-answer but equally you may not.

 

I have three computers and three monitors, and the differences between these more than mask the differences between the lenses I use. And when I switched from a Coolscan II to a Konica Minolta 5400-II that made another difference. That's just on the web. As the author of dozens of books and hundreds of magazine articles, I know that photomechanical reproduction makes even more difference.

 

Like most people, I don't normally shoot the same subject with 2 different lenses. Why would I? Why would anybody? And if I do, it will be just a test shot: I'm not going to waste time on lens tests when I'm taking real pictures.

 

Sometimes I see a 'glow'; sometimes I don't. A lot depends on lighting and inherent subject contrast; then there's film and (for mono) development, paper, enlarger...

 

Over time, most people do notice a 'signature' or trend (contrast, bokeh, etc.) with each lens but it's normally pretty secondary to the picture. One of my all-time favourites was taken with a 50/3.5 Elmar on a IIIa and I've taken bad, dull stuff with the 75/2 Summicron on an MP(I've also taken some of my best shots with it too).

 

What does it matter, anyway? Use what you're happy with, use what you can afford, above all use what you've got. Take pictures.

 

I'd also second those who took exception to your somewhat hectoring tone. Why SHOULD anyone do this, merely in order to satisfy your curiosity? But you have already accepted that.

 

Finally, in the 'put up or shut up' department there are pictures in my website, www.rogerandfrances.com, and I want to replace many of those in the Gallery (which was one of the earliest bits) because they are scanned at too low a resolution or over-compressed. As I say, the scanner/monitor/JPEG compression 'signature' mmeans far more than the lens 'signature'.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[terry_rory]

One taken with Bessa R3A + Summicron 50mm and one taken with Sigma consumer zoom....<div></div>

[terry_rory]

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3218079-lg.jpg"></center>

[terry_rory]

Again, one with Summicron 50mm (4th pre-asph Canadian if it matters) and one with Sigma consumer zoom....

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3256674-lg.jpg"></center>

[terry_rory]

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3247263-lg.jpg"></center>

[terry_rory]

One with Contax (CZ) Planar 50mm and one with Summicron 50mm....<div></div>

[terry_rory]

-_-<div></div>

[ray .]

Nice cathedral shots, Trevor, especially the last one. Where

were those taken from?

[fotografz]

So, Doug communicates with well established "Chops" that there can be, and are,

differences in lens signatures. If some people can't take advantage of those differences it

doesn't alter the fact that they are there... which was the original question was it not?

 

Other than that, what's the point? ... and speaking of "points made" ...

 

"Talking about prints isn't what this is about. This is an internet photo site, and if you're

going to communicate something with photography... "

 

Valid point IF shooting news shots to be transmitted. But that isn't what most people here

do. At least I don't. Everything I sell is in print form or high res files. Ads, catalog shots,

outdoor, and thousands of 8X10 or larger wedding prints. Haven't sold a wedding client

one single "all electronic" web image yet. IMO, the premise of comparing lens signatures

using the second lowest form of reproduction on Earth (cell phone images being the

lowest), is ludicrous.

 

If the point is that some shooters claiming lens attributes help define their work aren't

good enough shooters in the first place (strongly implied) , then just come out and say

that, and more importantly, include why you feel you have the "Chops" to say it ... which,

using your own criteria, should include your own work proving you are a superior

photographer. Tangible evidence and examples please, I want to be moved and impressed.<div></div>

[terry_rory]

Portsmouth Cathedral in High St. Old Portsmouth UK