On 7/8/2010 7:47 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> 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.
I'm just not seeing "it". Good portrait, lighting, color, etc., but nothing
that would make me say the lens that took it
is special. But that may be my failing.
> 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.
We certainly agree there.
> 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
If you can't identify them blind, is there a real difference, or at least one
worth worrying about? I recall you saying
your wife could pick out a particular camera (E-1?) from just looking at the
print. Is the same thing true of the lenses?
> , but presented the group of Lens-A against a group of Lens-B photos.
If it needs groups many images, clearly identified as to source by group, how
can one separate prejudices or emotional
brand preferences from actual differences?
It's a little like the first blind taste tests in France of French wines
against Calif. wines. Until then, the
Francophile oenophiles could claim superiority based on non-blind tastings.
After that, well, everything changed, with
the Calif. wines taking the top spot and winning overall.
If you are proposing that the lenses not be identified, and the images be shot
at the same time of the same subject,
that would work for me.
I was once in the market research game. Although my department didn't do
product tests, our sister dept. did. I can tell
you that separating emotional responses, such as brand loyalty or dislike, from
direct experience of the products being
compared is difficult. Package laundry detergents in white boxes labeled A and
B, and some consumers will still say one
cleans better than the other based on product scent, or texture, or who knows
what.
> ...
>
> 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?
It says so in the caption. :-)
> Even in the 800pixel photo you recognized the traits.
I recognized certain common lens traits, and wasn't at all surprised by the
bokeh, in particular, as I'm pretty familiar
with 50 mm Zuikos. BTW, in a post late in that thread, you talked again about
grain in the background. I just don't see
the grain there, separate from the granular bokeh. Look again at the post and
leaves in the foreground, and tell me
that, rather subtle grain is separately visible in the background.
> 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?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Your argument fails in this case because I didn't
recognize the specific lens, nor even, really a
specific class of lenses. I'd like to think that knowing which lens it was
didn't affect my evaluation of the bokeh. In
fact, I've seen quite similar bokeh from some zooms. Even the Panny 14-50 shows
some similar bokeh, nicely downplayed in
the image in question by being in shadow.
> 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.
I agree absolutely.
> 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 should be clear by now that you have attributed to me a position I've not
taken. I specifically, as in my last post
in this thread, do not claim to be able to identify specific lenses, and
question the ability of others to do so based
on modest sized web images.
No, I'm not happy just looking at composition. Bad, edgy bokeh sets off alarms
in me, possibly because of my unusually
acute visual acuity. Another thing that takes me away from "seeing" just
subject and composition is blown highlights. I
don't understand how people don't see that so many images of red, yellow or
orange flowers have lost all tonal detail
and often even textural detail from a clipped red channel.
Missed focus bugs me too; why show an image where the sharpest plane of focus
slightly misses the primary subject. I
also have other generic image likes and dislikes that may be mostly peculiar to
me. I'd like to be a 'better person",
and look past bokeh that could cut me, strange blocks of uniform, pure white,
oddly plastic looking flowers, etc., and
see only the good composition and intent, but all too often I fail.
But my response to these technical characteristics of the images is directly to
what I see in the image, not what lens
it was taken with. I might go on from there to decide I would or wouldn't like
to have that lens, but that's the other
way around, judging the lens from its results, not prejudging an image based on
the lens.
> 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.
I believe you see that. I just don't, in that one image. Whether I would see in
a gallery of images, in a larger medium
or may simply be blind to it, I don't know.
> 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.
Yeah, but humans do that with everything from clothes to sports teams,
vehicles, pretty much anything they can possess,
or hope to possess, either directly or as a group member.
> 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.
Well, I'll never experience that. I can't imagine I'll ever own a Leica lens
other than as part of a Panny camera. And
if I ever do, it won't be on a film rangefinder camera.
I'm also not entirely sure that ideal lens characteristics for B&W film are the
same as for digital sensors, but that's
a topic for another day - or year.
But really, I'm not trying to say Leica lenses are or aren't different and
special. Back to my original point, I just
don't see these differences being easy to identify in 800 pixel web images.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|