Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,505   Posts: 1,543,483   Online: 996
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,301
    Images
    6

    the perceived sharpness of lenses

    Recommended reading:

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...of-lenses.html

    "The "cult" of lens "sharpness" and quality evolved in parallel to the miniaturizing of film formats. It's very difficult for most lenses to look bad contact printed, or enlarged 3X; the smaller the film got, and the more it was enlarged, the more the characteristics of the lens were exposed; so along with the interminable push for more sensitive and finer-grained films and developers, the "cult of lens quality" emerged."

    "Never be blinded into thinking that good tools = good work. The world is full of photographers who churn out sharp but wretchedly poorly-seen pictures. They can break their own arms smugly patting themselves on the back for owning the latest apo-this or aspherical-that, but regardless, Johnston's eighth law still holds: crap is crap."

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    475
    I did notice, in a side-by-side comparison, that the Contax Triotar 5X loupe had way more vivid color than the Leica 5X loupe, though the Leica was a little sharper. (I bought the Leica because it had attachments for viewing film strips & slides by holding them up to a light table, rather than bending over the table.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,274
    Images
    21
    Good stuff. I couldn't really find anything to disagree with, and that's an area in which I'm usually pretty resourceful.

    None of that is to say that lenses aren't fun, or aren't different, or that the differences between them don't matter for photographic use. But the desperate pursuit of specific metrics like sharpness does seem like it's largely a function of smaller formats. The LF folks will pay terabucks for certain lenses, but it's for some sort of perceived fairy dust that in most cases is resistant to lab analysis. No one knows how to measure just what that je ne sais quoi of a Dagor is, right?---which doesn't stop us.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  4. #4
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,533
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    Recommended reading:

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...of-lenses.html

    "The "cult" of lens "sharpness" and quality evolved in parallel to the miniaturizing of film formats. It's very difficult for most lenses to look bad contact printed, or enlarged 3X; the smaller the film got, and the more it was enlarged, the more the characteristics of the lens were exposed; so along with the interminable push for more sensitive and finer-grained films and developers, the "cult of lens quality" emerged."

    "Never be blinded into thinking that good tools = good work. The world is full of photographers who churn out sharp but wretchedly poorly-seen pictures. They can break their own arms smugly patting themselves on the back for owning the latest apo-this or aspherical-that, but regardless, Johnston's eighth law still holds: crap is crap."
    simply but well put.AAsaid:there is nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept;and HCB said sharpness is a bourgois concept.I say:sharpness is not clearly defined and often confused with resolution or contrast.what is it in your eopinionand why is it so important?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California desert
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    734

    Well...

    So then, lousy tools make great work?
    I agree that some people go off the deep end with their search for the "best" lens or whatever. The best is the one that works for you. But the article makes it sound that trying to get it right is some kind of grave error.
    By the way, in Nihongo (Japanese), bokeh mean off in the head, bonkers.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,274
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by snapguy View Post
    So then, lousy tools make great work?
    I agree that some people go off the deep end with their search for the "best" lens or whatever. The best is the one that works for you. But the article makes it sound that trying to get it right is some kind of grave error.
    I didn't get that sense from it at all. To me the article seemed more to be pointing out how absurdly far up the diminishing-returns curve some people are inclined to go, and the extent to which we use objective measures of "quality" that don't actually say much about how the picture at the end of the workflow looks.

    By the way, in Nihongo (Japanese), bokeh mean off in the head, bonkers.
    I think it's from "boke" (暈け), "blur". The h is supposed to prevent Anglophones from pronouncing it to rhyme with Coke.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #7
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,815
    What you point a lens at I.M.O. and what your pictures say ( if anything ) is much more important than the acuity of the lens they were taken with.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 01-26-2014 at 08:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  8. #8
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    Recommended reading:

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...of-lenses.html

    [...]
    "Never be blinded into thinking that good tools = good work. The world is full of photographers who churn out sharp but wretchedly poorly-seen pictures. They can break their own arms smugly patting themselves on the back for owning the latest apo-this or aspherical-that, but regardless, Johnston's eighth law still holds: crap is crap."

    Says it all. However, if one has the skills and knowledge and experience, I see nothing wrong at all with drawing a bead and unloading both barrels with the best equipment you can afford — provided you have years of experience to form a judgement as to how your work may be improved e.g. would a better quality lens allow for a bigger enlargement? Is chroma and astigmatism too visible in the cheap lens that came with the camera? Is spherical aberration now too much of an irritation to let it continue? What else? If a photographer can realistically satisfy himself with qualified answers, go for it. Then there is the geek: a photographer with little to no foundation skills and little experience yet spends and spends and spends on extravagant equipment but shows little investment in producing quality images (very common with digital shooters) — resulting in thousands and thousands of — frankly, bloody awful images, destined for the proverbial "digital black hole", never to see the light of day. I don't see this with analogue photographers. But I still see this bokeh bullshit leading to bunfights over who's lens is better than another! It is suggested people concentrate on the quality of their photography rather than quaint terms to impress and befuddle.

    In reflection, I'm happy that I learnt photography and honed my subject understanding with quite awful lenses before I moved up, and up, and up. I am at that point now that I feel my work will not benefit from any further investment in equipment.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  9. #9
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    459
    I find my car drives better, and so do I, after I washed it.

  10. #10
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by snapguy View Post
    So then, lousy tools make great work?
    You're kidding, right?

    The best tools in the best hands give the best results. The best tools in the worst hands make no difference.

    The best F1 race driver in the best F1 car will win races. The same driver in the worst F1 car might win. In either car, I certainly won't win, and if I try to keep up, I'll likely just crash.
    Last edited by lxdude; 01-26-2014 at 08:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin