"Organic" as a lens quality?

[Sanford]

<p>I have or had a dust mite living in my Fuji zoom lens. A word of advice, DON'T start researching dust mites, it just might turn you into Howard Hughes.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Apart from the opportunity to have fun with the misdefined term, Nick has already very well answered the question.</p>

<p>I wonder how many responses would Phil's OP get if he had asked the more potentially informative (photographically speaking) question: "Does the XYZ lens deliver a more natural result than others?" Or "Which DSLR or SLR (or other) lens provides the most natural result?"</p>

<p>Maybe we might also end up there in a very subjective rather than objective and measurable responses? Remembering the somewhat ethereal criteria once used (and maybe even at present) by such critical reviews of sound systems like those of the journal "Absolute Sound", that sounds pretty likely.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>I don't know what it means, but I do know that I want it, especially if I can camp out overnight at the store. And it goes without saying, that it's overpriced.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>In the visual arts domain (particularly in photography), "organic" means "related to the natural world, to reality" and "rendering" refers to the translation or interpretation of a three-dimensional reality to a two-dimensional image.</p>

<p>Unless some special effect is desired, the photographer's goal is to produce an image that has the least distortion of colours, proportions, contrast, perspective etc. of the scene depicted.</p>

<p>A lens that makes this possible to a high degree is said to have (a high-degree of) "organic rendering", that is, to realistically render what it "sees".</p>

<p>Some specialized lenses are made to have a very low degree of organic rendering. An image made with a fisheye lens, for example, is very unnatural. It is not organic because it does not depict the real world as we see it with our own eyes.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Over 25 responses and still no one posts an unedited image showing how an organic lens renders with a realistic or natural look.<br>

I'm really curious to see what this looks like because I have to edit everyone of my Raws captured with my kit lens to render what I remember seeing. </p>

 

[Sanford]

<p>I think the real question is "do cameras have souls".</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>A Nikon F is filled with finely finished brass, ball bearings and pixies. So I am guessing that a natural and organic lens would be a 50/1.4 on a Nikon F shooting Kodachrome. Not only is it organic, it's positively musical.</p>

<p>But it is also possible that the latest kit lenses, being made of plastic, will turn out to be crunchy and biodegradable. You might want to paint yours green, though, just to be sure. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

An organic lens can do strange soulful and zen like things, Tim. I tried one recently and it stabilized me as well in a couple pretzel poses I could not get out of easily. Flamingo like to start off...<div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Recyclable in the compost heap</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>So, is Kodachrome more organic because the colors are more realistic, or is Velvia more organic because the colors are richer? If Tiffen or Cokin came out with an organic filter for an inorganic lens, what properties would it have?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I would suggest that a "natural" look (which may or may not be desired) is one that gives a viewer the impression of actually being at the scene depicted (and in the process overcomes the peculiarities of the photographic process, which turns 3 dimensions into 2 and possibly color into monochrome and can offer all-over sharpness, corrected verticals. etc. which the human eye can do only in the form of an illusion).<br>

On that basis, I would say that neither Kodachrome or Velvia gave natural results ("organic" if you wish), rather that they give pleasing but artificially saturated results, with screaming reds in the case of Kodachrome. A natural film would be (or have been) Ektachrome Professional, specifically designed to give as neutral as possible a color rendering and the clear first choice for scientific and other record photography. As to an organic filter for an inorganic lens, I can't begin to imagine what that would be!</p>

[GerrySiegel]

A scene photographed as first seen through individual retinal cells and processed by our brains visual cortex is organic if you like or unprocessed beyond our human senses . Anything that has gone through- you name it -chemistry or Bayer reconstruction is hard to call organic.... It becomes an illusion in the best sense of the word. Kodachrome was a form of the illusion. So is MP3 or CDs in the audio realm. Organic adective can only be applied to photography if we choose to apply it. I don't call it relevant to photography. And nothing so far makes any real sense. It is a slaphappy label even when used for foods. Someone actually labeled a box of salt ( NaCl) as Organic, with no definition. Plain goofy...Oh, yes then there is sea salt, which may be NaCl with who knows what. But it is fun to see the hucksters do their thing. Mad Men and Mad Women earning a livelihood, no more.