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

[travis1]

Kent, do you develop your own negs? They are impecabble(sp). Superb metering i might add.

 

I thought you shot those with canons(kiddin).

[travis1]

More accurately to Ray's question, anyone can shoot wide opened with the same lens. What you'd see is the signature of the shooter and less of the same lens when put side to side.

 

me thinks.

[travis1]

for example, if you look at Pete's wide opened shots to Kent's 5.6tish, you can see clearly that the former likes chics and the latter prefers kids/men. One is color-pro and the other is a imo b/w master.

I'd like to see some of Kent's wide open(shots).

[Uhooru]

Nah, not for me, I'm just a knat splatting on the windshield of photography "progress"....hey I

wish Ray would get his arse off the couch and post some photos, haven't seen any from him

for a while..come on Raymond help us out here..

[ray .]

No can do just now, but thanks..

[kipling]

<CENTER> <img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3915232-md.jpg> </CENTER>

<P>

i think most of you guys just like arguing. <p>

lens signature is just a term for good qualities (or bad) in a lens. it's not anything magical, it's just a way of saying some lenses are different than others. smoother, sharper, softer, flare resistant, higher saturation, lower distortion, etc. <br>

the reason you don't see it in most photos on this forum is because you're so distracted by the other "qualities" of the pics, which out weigh the lens signature. almost everyone seems to agree on this point; lens signature is usually not exploited, it's not used to make the photo better, in most cases it's drowned out by more prominent aspects like content, light, processing, etc.<p>

So, whether lens signature is important or not is completely subjective, like so many other things in photography, but whether it exists or not is indisputable.

[brambor]

Nice shot Kippling. Nice signature too.

[william_todd_faulk]

Eric, thank you for posting the link to their pictures it is most invigorating to see their work again. Of particular note I found it rather surprising that Edmo has begun working in color and it even appears to be digital. Though his color work bears the same dark and lonely feel that his black and white work had. It would be most interesting to peer inside his head to learn what demons and spirits reside there. To me at least I have found his work as intriguing rather than that of an explanatory narrative nature.

<p>

I found his recent <b><a href=" http://www.flickr.com/photos/63361458@N00/sets/1229752/">subway</a></b> work particularly enjoyable.

<p>

Grant on the other hand, while I have enjoyed his photography came off as a crass and vulgar individual with a demented demeanor and a mental capacity that would rival those of the dead rats that he shoots. I feel as if I can speak for the forum when I say "Good riddance".

<p>

Respectfully,<br>

WTF

[john_wire]

This must be why f64 is needed for LF.<div></div>

[akochanowski]

Am I the "AK with the fairies"? wtf?

 

William Todd:

 

Dead on wrt Grant, except that I always thought his photography was deeply unintelligent and a product of cropped portions of thousands of senseless and thoughtless NY shots. As To Ed L, great eye.

[al_kaplan1]

Well, if we assume that I'm the "AK" off with the fairies, no problem! I'm assuming you mean "gay". They tend to be intelligent, polite, knowledgeable about the arts, and have disposeable income available to purchase prints. They can be good friends and great clients. They also don't try to steal your women...LOL

 

On the other hand, if it was meant as an insult, shame on you! Naughty, naughty. Go stand in the corner until you learn some manners, young man!

[kent_tolley2]

Ray, Brad, Barry, Travis and others: I'm flabbergasted and honored you like these 2. I like them but thought you guys did not. Yes Travis I process my own B&W and no I haven't figured out how Beau gets the beautiful luminescence and creaminess with his TX but I'm working on it. <BR><BR>To end any mystery regarding which is which and contrary to what a few of you guessed: my first shot is 50/2 Summicron (current version) and second (Edward at 75) is wide open from the Canon 50/1.4 (current version). I'm sure those who argue that lens signature is really important knew that.

[tom h.]

From what I hear, you can get into trouble for giving away the names of CIA agents there,

scooter. I'm settling back into Dublin and a new life/sucky weather/computer/camera

system, but I do lurk, and hope to be back regularly soon. It HAS become very gear oriented

around here (which I think was Rays point) , but I enjoyed this thread. More non specific

discussions would be cool. Hope you're all well, you certainly haven't mellowed.

[Uhooru]

Tom, are you in Dublin, IRL? If so, there's some great places to shoot. If you like or have developed a taste for the music there's some good musical bars there. Are you liking Dublin? Besides the pissing rain?

[Uhooru]

OT - "I found his recent subway work particularly enjoyable."(link on WTF's 12/1 9:49 post)

 

WTF-looked at the sight and came away with these thoughts. The photos are as usual interseting,great photos individually with great visual impact as edmo is known to do. His use of light and dark is as always, really beautifully expressive and moody, but I have to say, these, although well crafted, have the look of too much PS to me, I can't put my finger on it but I think it has to do with when you overprocess in image editing, there is a certain loss of information that ends up making the photo look more like a graphic than photographic and the look more a product of filters. These have that wierd processed look. To me, it lessens the impact of them. I'm sure most will disagree with me.

[beau 1664876222]

"no I haven't figured out how Beau gets the beautiful luminescence and creaminess with his TX but I'm working on it."

 

Kent, on seeing those picture of yours I was going to ask you how you did it.

 

For what it's worth, and to be on-topic, I recognized the "signature" of Kent's top pic because I use that lens so much, and I think the "signature" of his other pic, while it's a great shot, is a little too brittle and the blur not graduated enough for my taste. I agree with everybody that says the character of the lens is not central to a photo's meaning, other than in extreme cases, and that one lens is rarely "better" than another in any empirically demonstrable way. But they all really do make pictures a little differently, so it's all about finding a lens that makes your subjects look the way you have in mind. It's really no more complicated than that; I can never understand people who harp on how "this brand is better because it resolves x lines per millimeter" or those that say "there is no difference".

[Uhooru]

OT -Amended response.

 

Actually not believing what I was saying, I looked again and realized, I may have judged too hastily. I need to see them on good monitor as my work monitor basically sux and that may be what I was percieving. Its just with a second look they look better to me.

[ray .]

Good point Beau, but then again I've never had a lens I couldn't make something with, even if it was plastic. You're more control oriented and fine tuned though...

[Allen Herbert]

Hello Ray.

 

Good quality glass�there you have answered your question. Sort of adds to the photo�don�t you think. Not sure it does much for Tri X.

 

Is the signature important? Well, yes, it can make or break a photo�.it�s about light and how a lens perceives and performs .

 

Good post ,Rayshine. Sort of like has anybody found the holy grail? Yes, it was found in a council house(where poor working folks live) in Grimsby England�true not a joke.

 

Bottom line it�s about the photo everything else is just an after thought.

[Allen Herbert]

?????? software problems.

 

Lots of very interesting photos...nice change from the usual lens cap issues.

[tom h.]

Barry- I'm from here originally, and just moved back after 12+ years away, still (re)finding

my "Dublin legs". Pete, is it wise for a man who owns a farm to be talking about puckered up

sheep? ;)

[fotografz]

Yeah, lots of "Emperor's new Clothes" stuff going on here. Basically propagated by nose-

in-the-air elitist who scurry for the cover of "Magnum", or some accomplished shooter

with purpose to their work, in defense of their own weakly derivative attempts at

that style of photography. Sort of the equivalent of fondling, in that their entire output has

no other purpose other than "pinning for the nostalgia" as aptly put earlier.

 

It seems a few vociferous "God's gift to photography" STILL dominate this forum with

deliberately demeaning bluntness leveled at those just out to enjoy a little photography, or

make a buck.

 

Like this arrogant reply to me eariler ...

 

"You've seen my work, or if you forgot go to chaospress.com

 

A statement loaded with truth ...

 

Yes, I have seen your work ... decades before you did it, and saw it done well.

 

And yes, you are right, I did forget ... because it is quite forgettable.

 

Time to puff up boys, and come blow my house down. I could care less because I do not

see the Emperor's New Clothes" ... just a gang of derivative windbags in their underwear.

 

Back to having fun with photography ; -)

[kent_tolley2]

Peter - I almost spit my wine laughing so hard. And thank you for then nixing the good riddance remark.

[michael s.]

About that "good riddance" comment:<p><p>

 

Without belaboring tiresome questions and claims/counterclaims about conduct/language/personality, etc., I believe Grant can take a <a href=http://streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=352#>darned good photograph</a>.

[ray .]

Marc, I don't have the inclination to search and link to your

crybaby speech leaving the forum a couple years ago, but thank

you for your grand re-entrance. All the stars come out of

retirement eventually... I do respect you as a working class

photographer (that's a compliment), though I see nothing of

particular quality on this thread. I care little what you think of what

I do. What you seem not to realize is that you're as arrogant and

as big a windbag as anyone....

 

I'm glad though that someone like you is around to defend the

poor guys who make mediocre snaps with $5- $10K worth of

equipment. Very generous of you.