Moose, you and I are in 50% (or therabouts give or take .5) agreement.
The photo I chose to illustrate with does show what I'm referring to
with THIS SPECIFIC LENS--even in the 800pixel size.
But, here's the rub. It is an ILLUSTRATION of what I was talking
about, not necessarily exactly the result of the lens as Chuck so
rightly pointed out that lighting had much to do with it. I chose a
photo that most closely approximates (when presented in web format)
what I'm trying to describe.
Without a comparitive point of reference, it would be nearly
impossible to identify one lens over another in a double-blind study.
Especially with a single picture.
However, if I prepared a sampling of 100 pictures from each type of
lens I do believe that the differences are more than visible. Not if
you scramble the photos up, but presented the group of Lens-A against
a group of Lens-B photos. This is no different then our binocular
vision--if all you did was look at distance objects, then there is
effectively no difference between having one eye vs. two eyes. When
presented with a single photo that somehow is said to illustrate a
characteristic, without the first-hand experience of seeing the
photographed object yourself you really don't understand how close or
far, or high or low the object is. You don't have any visual clues in
2D flat art as to the distances between the photographed subject and
the background. In photography we imply the relationship between
subject and background through optical trickery (selective DoF,
focal-length selection, etc).
Moose, you specifically addressed the bokeh characteristics of my gate
photo taken with the 50mm F1.4 lens. How did you do that? Why was it
identifiable? Even in the 800pixel photo you recognized the traits.
Isn't it even remotely plausable that as this lens had a visible
trait, that lenses made by the Red Dot company may also likewise have
a visible trait?
To take this one step too far, I can guarantee to you that I can
present photos taken with the 50mm F1.4 lens which you CANNOT identify
as having been taken with that lens. Does this mean that there is no
identifying characteristic in that lens? No. It just means that the
illustrating photograph doesn't reveal that characteristic. How about
if you don't know about Double-Gauss designs--would you really know
what to look for in the first place or would you be satisfied with
seeing the composition and ignore the rest. It's like those Vuvuzelas
blaring away in the background--I hear it and can't stand it as it is
an irritant, but others hear them as part of the ambiance which
excites them.
Back to the illustration thing...
I chose a photo that kinda explains what I see in photos with this
lens more often than I saw the same characteristic with other lenses.
When working a photo shoot, the lens makes it easier to get this look
but isn't exclusively producing it. People talk about the "glow",
well, whatever, I don't see it, but that doesn't stop people from
expending thousands of words trying to convince others that it exists.
But, that didn't stop me from identifying rolls of Leica-shot film
drying from my ceiling hangers from across the room. The contrasting
as totally different. When printing Leica rolls of film, I always had
to change my contrast-grade and processing techniques. This was with
identical types of film batch processed together. And the Leica
pictures seemed to always take on a different kind of "life" to them
that stood out--maybe not from a single shot, but across an entire
roll it was very easy it identify what camera was used.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|