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

[Brad_]

And as Dave points out, printers are 8 bit devices. 16 bits of numeric precision is good for

intermediate steps in the processing chain, but it all gets rounded to 8 bits going out. How

the rounding is done is another matter and could be worth a few paragraphs. Suffice it to say,

numeric values that correspond to changes in hue (from the three R,G, and B components)

that are on the edge of being expressed as, say, 118.500 (where you need to take care and

have a method for rounding up or down), will on the average over thousands or millions of

pixels, be the proper value. You will not see the difference at either the pixel, or macro level.

[andy m.]

Does anyone here seriously think that small nuances in lens rendition drive the strength of a photo?

 

Maybe they just prefer to use certain lenses because of small nuances in image rendering, build quality, heritage etc. etc.

 

The latter doesn't seem unreasonable.

[doug herr]

"<I>Does anyone here seriously think that small nuances in lens rendition drive the strength of a photo?</I>"

<P>

I doubt it. What's more likely is that most of us realize we're discussing the last 5% of a picture's quality. On this subject I used a Canon FD 400mm f/2.8 L for about a year and numerous people wrote privately and commented just from the web images that my photos made with this lens lack the sparkle they normally expect in my photos.

[vivek iyer]

If the point is as Brad articulated (4:07 pm post), wouldn't it be productive if the *heavyweights* jump in and offer constructive criticism, useful technical tips and try to lift the levels up instead of blurting out grunts and swear words in general? If they do not have that inclination or the patience, they are better served by logging off from an offensive site.

 

Doug Herr is an excellent example of how constructive an accomplished and a mature photographer can offer useful insights based on their own experience.

[EricM]

i wish Al would stop calling people trolls while the adults are having a decent discussion.

 

if half of us are talking about conventional prints with magical qualities of lenses, why isn't anyone talking about enlarger lenses? seems resonable...

 

i think i caught what Brad just said. if you can display the benifits of a lens from an 8 bit ink jet print, you should be able to do so on a monitor? we don't have to post 511 pixels here. we know how to post twice that size and is sufficient for any issue we are talking about?

 

thanks Trevor. and thanks for contributing images here as well.

[EricM]

does anyone else wish PN had spell check? :)

[brambor]

eh, screw the spell check. This debate was interesting but for the life of me I can not understand why some of you guys (on both sides of the issue) get so emotional about a stupid lens?

 

There are goaltenders in the NHL who make millions of dollars, who are bizarely superstitious. Their rituals and decisions have nothing to do with their performance on the ice yet they still do it.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/top10/superstition.html

[andy m.]

FWIW, my favourite lens is an old Tessar on a Rollei Automat.

<p>Do I think it helps me make images that I couldn't make with another camera? <i>Of course not.</i>

 

Do I think the images it renders differ from those made with different, but similar lenses? <i>Yes, of course.</i><p>

 

IMO, for many types of photography, gear is unlikely to limit the <i>creative process.</i> I've seen breathtaking images on the flikr website made with a Pentax Optio with a cheap video wide angle attachment on the wrong way around. Equally, I have occasionally seen some pretty ropey stuff taken with gear that cost more than my car did. <p>

 

But on the whole I suspect (and hope) those that think that gear is <i>everything</i> are in the minority (I appreciate Doug's comments about the final 5%).

[eliot_rosen1]

Now whose opinion should one take more seriously, Doug and Marc, who actually use Leica, or Brad who doesn't. Let me think... :-)

[squareframe]

interpolation is always treated as such a 'nasty' word .. disruptive of the universe, and totally falsifying any sense of the real. the truth is, is that the odds are much better than one might think, that the assumption that creating a value based on surrounding values is not voodoo-magic and not only reasonable, but certainly acceptable at the pixel-interpolative level.

 

this argument isn't about differences between a Noctilux at f1.0 and a Canon 50mm f1.8 stopped down. the differences are obvious and well within the bounds of artistic expression. claiming an image jumps off the page, sets Photoshop on fire, glows, and etches itself upon ones retina ... all due to Leica being stamped upon the lens-barrel, is the purported mythology yet to be substantiated and asked to be delivered here.

 

the beauty of experience, though somewhat difficult to admit, is that as we become better photographers, we generally come to the harsh realization that it not our equipment that constrains our photographic successes.

[doug herr]

Thomas Sullivan should be credited with the 'final 5%' comment (and I agree with him).

[terry_rory]

"Eliot Rosen Photo.net Patron, nov 30, 2005; 04:55 p.m.

Now whose opinion should one take more seriously, Doug and Marc, who actually use Leica, or Brad who doesn't. Let me think... :-) "

 

I don't think Leica use or Non Leica use is a criteria for which accomplished photographers we take seriously or not.

 

It is a criteria for keeping the thread on topic inasmuch as the Leica look AND the 'look' of non Leica lenses are being discussed in the Leica forum. But you cannot argue that someone can only be taken seriously as a photographer if they use Leica!

[andy m.]

<i>'Thomas Sullivan should be credited with the 'final 5%' comment (and I agree with him).'</i><p>

 

'Oops-- credit to both. I haven't read the full thread.

[eliot_rosen1]

"I don't think Leica use or Non Leica use is a criteria for which accomplished photographers we take seriously or not."

 

It is certainly a criterion I consider important when discussing whether or not Leica lenses have special characteristics that picture quality.

[Brad_]

Eliot, maybe you have difficulty reading - but Doug and I (and Tom and Andy) are saying the

same thing...

[eliot_rosen1]

sorry, should read "that affect picture quality".

[Brad_]

Maybe Eliot can weigh in with some of his photos and experience.

[akochanowski]

For the compliment, I appreciate it. I haven't posted or participate very much lately, especially in this forum.

 

Just today I finished preparing a set of 20 prints on Arches Infinity paper, printed on my Designjet. They were for a project exhibition, and were chosen from a set of photos I've been shooting for the past four years. One of the themes I was emphasizing was a certain uniform perspective and scale. Out of curiosity I tried to recall what lenses they were shot with. Ray's point is obviously correct:

 

2 with 35/2.8 Canon FD circa 1980's, approximate cost $80 or so.

 

10 with 40/2 Zuiko pancake circa 1985, approximate cost when new $80, price now $400-$800.

 

2 with Canon 28/2.8 EF (for effective focal length of 42mm when used on a Canon 20D), circa 2004, approximate cost $200.

 

6 with Leica 35/2 ASPH circa 2005, approximate cost $1500.

 

A modest observation: at daylight exposures, f/4-11 or so, you can today take sharp, clear, and exhibition-quality photographs with a 20 year old Canon AE1 with a lens that costs less than a used Leica lens hood. That doesn't mean I can't see a difference between a modest Canon FD and a Leica, because I can, especially in a 13x19 print made on good equipment. But the reason I tend to like using the Leica more than my trusty old Oly OM has little to do with the quality of the lens, which is wildly expensive in a quality/price ratio.

[terry_rory]

Eliot, Ray's initial thread posting invited people to discuss Leica, VC, Nikkor, Canon for rangefinder and SLR etc..

 

Marc himself discussed Leica, Contax and Canon. Lets not reign things in too tightly. It's too big and interesting a debate to get proscriptive about what we should and shouldn't mention.

[icuneko]

How about this? If it looks good, it is good. If it doesn't, it isn't.

[EricM]

I really like what Daniel just said;

 

"the beauty of experience, though somewhat difficult to admit, is that as we become better photographers, we generally come to the harsh realization that it not our equipment that constrains our photographic successes."

 

I couldn't give a toss what Brad uses. His eye and his results, like Ray's, are stunning. Not only do both put more care into their craft than half the people here with 10x the amount of money invested in gear, their results are often 10x better as well. Tact aside, if either one of them wants to inteligently discuss a topic of such merrit, let them I say.

[vivek iyer]

" if half of us are talking about conventional prints with magical qualities of lenses, why isn't anyone talking about enlarger lenses? seems resonable..."

 

Very valid point, Eric. Some of the better printers used/use very stable/well aligned enlargers and optics with excellent qualities like the S-Orthoplanar and APO El-Nikkors. Such lenses were several times the price of a Noct lens.

 

Someone earlier mentioned that printing paper is capable of recording even lesser resolution than the film. Not true. If a proper lens is used, paper is very capable of recording more than what most films are capable of.

 

Nowadays, the same goes for the scanners. Better/stable scanners are capable of recording what is on film than the lesser ones which tend to equate lens there is.

[eliot_rosen1]

Very nice rant Eric, but this is the Leica Photography Forum. Mutual admiration society aside, don't you think there should be some connection to Leica? Otherwise, why have such a forum?

[al_kaplan1]

Eric~ I have discussed enlarging lenses, probably in the proper forum.

Do a search. I'm too lazy. I've discussed variable contrast filters too, amongst other things.

[EricM]

Thanks Elliot, but i didn't mean for it sound like a rant. Just sick of hearing the default statement that Brad's opinion is null and void becasue of what he shoots with. I'm confident that if I mailed him a film camera and some provia and hp5 hardly anyone would notice. And if he did state as such, that it was shot on an m6/35 4th genration, would all of a sudden his opinion be worth more? I doubt it.