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

[terry_rory]

The reason I dont specify which lens/which pic is that it does not matter to me. If pushed I would say my all time favourite for a 'look' is the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm but I could not explain why. The little film photography I do nowadays is with Contax/Zeiss. I am happy most of the time with Nikon digital/Nikon & Sigma EX glass.

[terry_rory]

Oh yes, Ray you preferred the Zeiss version of the cathedral pic.

[terry_rory]

In the first two sets of pics (man on pier & monks in abbey) the second shot of each set was the Sigma shot.

[vivek iyer]

Fabulous words and very well expressed, Marc Williams!

[ray .]

<i>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 </i><p>It's evident, take a look here once in awhile. But

maybe you wouldn't know, since you "quit" the forum way back

when. You've seen my work, or if you forgot, go to

chaospress.com. You can pick a fight if you want but I think my

points are legitimate, if not "proveable." Good discussion here,

maybe someone learned something. So kma.<p>

 

btw, what is that ugly commercial pic you posted? I hope you

made some cash with it, because it sucks. Big time.

[vivek iyer]

Ray., What is the point of your post? If you are frustrated with the images posted here, perhaps you can consider a few things:

 

a. Suggest improvements, preferrably (because it is an internet forum) with examples of your own and some details of techniques from your expertise.

 

b. Go somewhere else where you find some images of your liking.

 

In any event, try to polish up your wordings, would you? I hope you do not interact with folks around you in person (if you happen to have any folks around you..)in the same way.

[jim_simmons]

In saying, "btw, what is that ugly commercial pic you posted? I hope you made some cash with it, because it sucks. Big time." This was not said of my work, so I'm taking this personally, but your statement has now told me all I need to know about you. I will not be be responding to any more or your posts, Ray.

[jim_simmons]

I can't seem to type the word "not" today, which is missing in my last post - "I'm NOT taking this personally."

[thomas_sullivan]

"...supposedly has some significant affect on the photographs you make..."

 

I can't speak for Ray, but the above quote from his original proposal/question is the heart of the matter. SIGNIFICANT, and all the banter I ever see written here about lens characteristics, affect is a phrase implying that the lens is more important than the photographer. The complaints that the phrase "it's the photographer not the equipment" is overused to combat these claims of lens is more significant, along with the claim that it is the lens that is more significant in the final result...........that is the question.

 

Now, in my thinking, whatever is the most significant is primary. The above samples, especially Doug's, proves what is primary in the final result of a picture. THE PHOTOGRAPER! That makes his skill and his ability the most SIGNIFICANT single item that results in the end result of extremely good photography. The lens choice is the "extra" dab will do ya..........so to say. A crappy photographer with great glass will produce crappy pics. Is it the glass or the photographer that makes the difference here.........of course, it's the photographer. It is always the photographer that makes the most significant difference in the end result of the picture.....film only helps, sensor choice only helps, glass only helps,........the photographer dominates the end result.

 

That is what I have always said on this subject. Per centage wise the lens is only maybe 5% of the final result, the photographer is in the 80% bracket.............just look at the difference between Doug's pics......none of them are "bad"....I'd be proud to have any of them as my own photography...........most of that is Doug! not the lens choice.

 

Equipment does matter.........the truth is, is that it doesn't matter all that much....and it only matters in the hands of someone who can take a decent pic in the first place....and even then, it is of a miniscule significance compared to the ability of the photographer.

 

Now, to the photographer's above..........Doug and Marc especially....who ARE good at what they do, and good glass in there hands does add to the pic...........I'd just like to say, remember this. You are talking, and I think you know this, about the last 5% of the "quality" of the pic. The law of diminishing returns is sort of applicable in this matter. the first 95% is relatively inexpensive to achieve...it's moderately priced hardware and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in getting there but it's relatively easy to do if one applies themselves religiously. That last 5%, just like in manufacturing of the product, is unproportionally expensive for the return in results. That's where great glass is. It might be 95% of your lens budget, but it's only 5% of the difference in the final product...........significant?..........hardly. Desirable, from someone who can do the first 95% easily.........yes. That is what I fight against here. Let these photographers accomplish that first 95% before they need to spend all that money to get just a little bit better. If they are donw there only producing 20% quality work, that extra 5% that great glass can give them is nothing. Let them spend the money and time on getting the othe 75% of great pics accomplished before they commit the money to only 5% of the final outcome.

 

It's the photographer...........not the equipment.......heh.......just had to get that in.

Somebody who can't take a decent pic...........well, don't waste your money until you get "significantly" better.

[Brad_]

<I>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, ...</I><P>

 

I as well as Ray have said that - nothing implied - was that not clear? But more accurately,

it's not so much about not being a good enough shooter, but not making (or at least

showing) strong enough photos in the first place; where subtle lens differences can be

used to advantage in strengthening a photograph. You've seem to have lost that point, still

thinking that we insist there are NO differences. Please try and be accurate when

attributing views of others on subjects. <P>

 

On your photo above, even though I've seen it a few times here, I'm not sure what point

you're trying to drive - I agree with Ray though. Like a handful of your photos posted

recently, such as the first two (the third one is great) of yours on the Back to the Future

thread, it feels overcooked in ps - maybe a softer hand on sharpening would be better.

[Brad_]

Tom makes excellent points - that's what it's all about. Doug's photos are great examples of

where lens characteristics can amplify and differentiate. Content and talent first though...

[al_kaplan1]

Pro motion picture lenses have fantasticly smooth bokeh. They also cost a bloody fortune. Until it was stolen a dozen years ago I had a 150/2.3 Astro Tachar. It was gorgeous for tight head shots on both the Visoflex IIs and Praktisix. I also had 100/2 Angenieux adapted for Leicaflex that I sold when I got out of shooting Leica reflex. It had held its value, too!

[david k.]

"Now, to the photographer's above..........Doug and Marc especially....who ARE good at what they do, and good glass in there hands does add to the pic"

 

"It's the photographer...........not the equipment.......heh.......just had to get that in. Somebody who can't take a decent pic...........well, don't waste your money until you get "significantly" better."

 

Wow Thomas, now there has to be some kind of photographic capability means test, before someone can buy an expensive lens? You may be just a tad judgemental on this one!!

[malcolm_tentt]

{Andrew Robertson Prolific Poster, nov 29, 2005; 10:54 p.m.

I read the whole thread, but all my brain heard was 'wank wank wank'.}

 

Both hands on the keyboard mate. Clear that up straight away.

[Brad_]

<I>Wow Thomas, now there has to be some kind of photographic capability means test,

before someone can buy an expensive lens? </I><P>

 

Where did he say that? Sheesh... <BR><P>

 

Tom's advice is sound, and is no-doubt similar to what a photography instructor would

recommend.

[mattalofs]

I like to use expensive lenses just in case I take an un-crappy photo by accident. It hasn't happend yet, but fortune favors the prepared . . . .

[michael s.]

Matt -- my sentiments, exactly! -:)

[david k.]

Brad, people don't need advise on what is an appropriate amount to spend on a lens. It smacks of elitism.

[Brad_]

No it doesn't. It's good advice from a very experienced photographer. Knowing Tom, he's

hardly an "elitest." Perhaps you're proposing experienced shooters shouldn't offer sound

advice?

[Brad_]

For example, I might (erroneously) come to the conclusion a canon 1DSM2 would be the

perfect camera for street photography - after all, it's canon's best digi. Hopefully, someone

with more experience would weigh-in on that. Hardly elitism.

[EricM]

When I was 12 or 13-ish I spent all my hard earned paper route money on a year old Honda CR 125 to go racing. I'd been riding since age 8 but it took a heck of alot money to discover that I was no near the capablities of that motorcross bike. I could have sucked just as much on a three year old bike at a fraction of the cost and still had the same lap times.

 

Thomas, as Brad indicates, has sound wisdom. Three quarters of the material posted here could be done on a pentax k1000.

[vasilis]

I think that the point of Thomas is clear and absolutely correct. Good lenses make a significant difference only on good photographers. It is not only a question of money when bying a lens or a camera, it is also a question if someone "deserves" a certain piece of equipment.

 

And in analogy with photography..... If someone does not drive well, driving a ferrari will not make him a better driver .... maybe it will make him vain. A race driver driving a volkswagen can bypass easily most people driving ferraris.

[david k.]

Brad, Eric, Thomas, don't want to belabour this point other than to add, that if someone wants to advise someone on which is the better performing lens, or what certain attributes of a lens are, that is one thing.....and probably useful advise.

 

Advising someone on what quality of lens is appropriate for their level of expertise, is extremely presumptious.

[EricM]

"Advising someone on what quality of lens is appropriate for their level of expertise, is extremely presumptious."

 

I'd agree David. But I didn't gather that from Thomas's words. If one wants to make average images with above average optics and argue the glass plays an integral roll, then I guess threads like this will continue to go around in circles.

 

Do you have any idea how ridiculious I feel taking average street shots with a 5k D2x so I can post 700 pixel wide shots here?

[david k.]

Eric, last year I saw an "Afghan Girl" print at an exhibition. As we all know, this is one of the better known images of our time. We have all seen it reproduced in all forms of media.

 

I was just blown away by the quality of the print, and of course the image itself. It is a stunning example of lens characteristics playing an integral part in the overall image. The only thing that is truly sharp (or more appropriately...in focus) are her eyes, everything else is varying degrees of OOF. 105 Nikkor BTW :)

 

What impressed me is that it had so much more impact seeing the print, as opposed to all the reproductions I have seen elsewhere.