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

[ray .]

Vivek, what distinguishes your photography and vision? I think you are a prime example of someone in a relatively undeveloped stage of aesthetics in your photography. Nothing wrong with that, most of us have been there, but you seem way too concerned with lens characteristics, given your final results. Putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

 

I've used the 3 major film formats and digital, by the way, and about 10-15 different lenses at different times over the last 25 years (not having owned all of those).. What lens brand was always relatively incidental though, as long as the glass isn't fogged, most perform very simialarly, with subtle differences. But the subtle differences are subtle in a way they have a very minor affect on the photograph.

[michael s.]

<<< ... But the subtle differences are subtle in a way they have a very minor affect on the photograph. ... >>>

 

Other than changing "affect" to "effect," I think that summarizes the substantial majority, though certainly not unanimous, view of the participants on the first thread.

 

Just not clear to me that enough of us (Doug Herr, Marc, Beau, Eric, Pete, Andy, and a few others perhaps excepted) could participate meaningfully in a "No Words/Comparative Photos Only" thread of this sort, because:

 

(i)we don't have doubles or triples of lenses at similar focal lengths usable for similar photos; (ii) we haven't taken similar enough photos using our different lenses to post truly comparative shots; or (iii) we have (i), and we have (ii), but we nonetheless on balance agree with the stated premise.

 

Finally, there is (iv) that nearly everyone agrees upon: genuinely subtle differences are more difficult -- and perhaps in some cases impossible -- to demonstrate adequately in the compressed jpeg format we have here.

[ray .]

should've been "affect" the photograph in a minor way- Thanks

for the correction, Michael.

 

When I think about it, I've probably used 20-30 lenses with all of

the cameras I've picked up at one time or another.

[vivek iyer]

Ray, Thanks for answering my query (I am not going to answer your question above since you have already answered that- not much dispute there).

 

Why would I be particular about different lenses? I am lucky enough to have the chance to use several lenses- be it from 5 or six different brands- for the 35mm format or a lot more for other formats.

 

As an example- Can I disinguish between the performance of a lens X and Y for 3X magnification? Most certainly I can. Photography, as I understand is as much technical as the *vision* aspect goes.

 

Does it reflect on the images I have shown here, no.

 

As I have pointed out in the S&D forum, loss of EDMO was very big. I had no clue as to what made his photos so special (or I couldn't verbalise it). As esoteric as his images *appeared* there is not a bigger proponent of a *classic photography* than EDMO is. Could I learn a few things from the images of the likes of EDMO, in terms of composition and lighting? Emphatically, yes! Of course, how he or someone else like him does with the postprocessing part of a captured image to arrive at the final one is another thing. I would love to show images with a nice subtle spot light on the subject all the time but I am also bound by own conservative approach to post processing of an image. (Perhaps, I will break from that sometime) Now, without describing in so many words (I never read anything that EDMO posted, BTW)if EDMO's images could teach me something about photography, why would it be a surprise if the cart comes first or the horse?

 

Given a choice between a (on a scale of 1-10) a 9 rated lens and a 3 rated lens, which would you prefer to use as the tool of your choice?

 

(These ratings may not coincide with the ones voiced by a majority nor they may reflect the monetary cost to obtain one of them)

[ray .]

the 9. ;) But what lens is a 3? It'd have to be an Olympus Stylus

or Holga.

[monochrome11]

Ray - as much as i agree with you, i can't for the life of me understand why someone as rational and practical as you, would choose to convince others that you don't agree with, that they are wrong? do you really care what other people think about lens quality? you seem to have extensive experience over the years and come to your own (very valid) conclusions...

[vivek iyer]

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3931517-lg.jpg"></center>

 

Taken with my least sophisticated lenses- a zoom plus a Leitz Macrotar.

[ray .]

Ken, I'm a troll, I hope in the good sense of the word.

 

Vivek, kind of interesting shot..

[travis1]

lens signature affects maybe the esthetics of the image, but whether it moves you enough or not is dependent on other factors, not just the lens. To want to prove that it does is impossible, and you know it.

 

So why do people buy different variations of the 50mm leica family? Perhaps they are into the esthetics, or perhaps they have too much money or perhaps they are collectors? Who knows?

 

why do you use tri X and not hp5+, they look the same to me. Why rodinal and not hc110? why try so many lenses of the same focal lengths at all when you know a $50 35/3.5 is probably all you need.

 

personally, i also own many lenses. And I can tell you the signatures won't effect or affect no shyt if all Im taking is some shyt pix.

[travis1]

when i say the $50 35/3.5, i don't mean the brilliant summaron!

[travis1]

this discussion is at best academic. Ray, you're a finer artist than that...so why waste your talent? ;)

[stuart_richardson]

I have a very sincere question for people. I already have my own answer (yes), but I am just

throwing it out there. Isn't it ok to be both a bit of a collector and a user? I mean I like the

differences I get from different lenses, but at the same time I realize that with some effort

most lens signatures can be duplicated or replicated. For example, I love the 75 summilux,

but I think that at equal apertures you could probably get similar results from the 75

voigtlander. Does it make me not care about real photography if I buy the vastly more

expensive, heavier, though faster lens? I don't think so. Though the real world differences

may be small, the "feeling" of using it is a bit different. The heavy lens, large front element

and great deal of glass give this feeling that "this is a light gatherer and with this you can

shoot in the dark". It is very much a subjective feeling, but it affects my photography. I

freely admit that a saavy person could replicate the results or a better photographer could

take a better picture with a worse lens, but all that said, does it really matter? Can't we just

use what feels good to us? I am the first to admit that there are many many photographers

way beyond me who use equipment that is inferior/much less expensive than I use, but

does it make me an inferior photographer for being lucky enough to use good equipment?

Sometimes I get the feeling that people think that equipment should be doled out as if

photography was a meritocracy. Well...it isn't. At least until you are at Salgado's level and

they start giving you free Leicas. But anyway, those are just some thoughts.

[jim_simmons]

And good thoughts they are Stuart. Here here. If it were indeed a meritocracy, most cameras on the planet would be disposables. And Leicas would then be produced in even lower numbers and would then cost over $20K.

[paul_neuthaler]

Al, let me have that model's bio. & physical statistics!

[dan_fromm2]

Vivek Iyer asked:

 

"Any aerial photography experts here? I would like to know how these lenses:

 

Lamegot

 

Lamegoron

 

Lamegon

 

Superlamegon

 

perform."

 

As you know, I'm not an expert on east bloc lenses or on aerial camera lenses.

 

But I am acquainted with a couple of CZJ Lamegons. I believe that Lamegon is a CZJ trade name for "pretty good wide angle lens." I've seen relatively fast C-mount Lamegons offered on eBay, and I've handled a couple of big slow ones that cover, it seems, 4x5. The big slow ones are Charlie's, and they're in a traffic camera. Ex-STASI, I believe. Huge monster, looks like it does hyperstereo. Inter-lens distance is ~ 1m.

 

You ought to ask Charlie what he knows about the names. I'd bet that Lamegot is a typo, might lose the wager, though.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[vivek iyer]

Dan, Thanks. All names were original Zeiss names and no typos. Angle of coverage varies from Lamegot (smallest) to Superlamegon (widest). All names were lifted from Ray's (the 'other' Ray) book on Applied Optics. All were lenses made for 230mm x 230mm format aerial cameras with the lowest of distortions. Recently, Jenoptic seems to have acquired the names and have made lenses with the same names for c-mount TV cameras. Perhaps, along the lines of the east CZJ lenses you mention. Regards, Vivek.

[vivek iyer]

Ray, That is what I think of that image as well. It gives me some ideas as to what sort lenses I should hang on my cameras for such shots, come next spring :-)

[sprouty]

Vivek wrote <I>"Given a choice between a (on a scale of 1-10) a 9 rated lens and a 3 rated lens, which would you prefer to use as the tool of your choice?</I>

<P>

Ray wrote <I>"the 9. ;) But what lens is a 3? It'd have to be an Olympus Stylus or Holga.</I>

<P>

Ray that is too simplistic an answer. Especially if it was a Holga, as the <I>very</I> recognizable signature of that lens could be in service to the aesthetics of the image. And that always needs to be considered when comparing lenses of great difference.

[stephen_w.]

I've known weekend mechanics that insisted on Snap-On hand tools, but barely knew how to change the engine oil in their car. I've also known people how owned 180 MPH cars when the national speed limit was 55 MPH.

 

More power to them, I say.

[andy m.]

Vivek, 11:04 is a very interesting shot and indicates a good sense of aesthetics(IMHO).

 

Cheers, A

[william_todd_faulk]

Just as the previous thread, nothing stated. A collaboration of self gratuitous echos whispering in each others ears.