The Problem with Modern Lenses.. transfered to those new to view camera image making

[Nodda Duma]

Oh..very good question. Smart phone optics are an example of this, where image processing is used to enhance the image quality for display on a smart phone screen. This makes up in large part for the size of the pixels (they are so small tgat they butt up against physical limitations due to diffractive effects). This is a great example of work performed at the system level to flow down requirements in the interest of reducing cost, weight, etc. However, the optics themselves are still very good all things considered. The original design was brilliant. Here is a white paper discussing the design considerations. If you stay awake while reading, you will see the optical performance still stands on its own.

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app...ile-phones.pdf



For consumer photography where for example lenses can be swapped out, the design team cannot assume reliance on image processing. In addition, video lenses must provide the image quality as real-time image processing at video frame rates is not (yet) possible. It’s too processor-intensive. The optics that I design are the same way, but also with the twist that the potential for image artifacts causing issues at the system level is not acceptable. So image enhancement is not used in the systems I design for, and in fact with very few exceptions can image enhancement be relied upon to relieve the design requirements on the optics. IMO that will be true for the next 15-20 years or so.

In engineering design there is no magic. So anything that sounds magical is exactly that.

Aren't some/mamy modern photographic lenses designed with some degree of software correction 'built in' to them too? Its difficult to determine, even using a RAW file, just how much processing has been carried out in the camera, especially when many lenses will only actually work on the cameras they were designed for, or via 'smart' adapters on others. Older, more mechanical lenses have to compete on purely optical terms with modern digital offerings which use software to maximise their performance. Both have their place and despite everything, some older lenses perform surprisingly well even by our current 'standards' (if that is the right word). The goal of 'perfect' optics has been with us since photography began. The idea of a lens being simply 'fit for purpose' still seems to pass many by.

[Havoc]

For consumer photography where for example lenses can be swapped out, the design team cannot assume reliance on image processing.

I fear that reality isn't agreeing with you, some lenses are designed so that the last corrections are software inside the camera. The camera has a profile of the lens on board.
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/inf...s-corrections/
https://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/n...supported.html
https://www.sony.com/electronics/sup...icles/00018031

[neil poulsen]

. . . I am just happy to be STILL alive and playing

Isn't that the truth!

Me too.

[Bernice Loui]

Digital imager optics has gone FAR beyond correcting optical "issues" in a given lens, software and related corrections are well into altering the image recorded then presented to the viewer... as exampled in the modern cell or "smart" phone. While the imager lenses in these mobile devices are remarkable, the lesser discussed aspect of these mobile devices are their post image recorded image processing. Yes, the image presented to the viewer has been altered in ways decided by software creators and many others involved, question remains.. What were their choices and how they arrived at these choices.

Question remains, a good number of folks that have done significant amounts of digital imager based image making or roll film (35mm / 120) have migrated to this view camera stuff. How many of their image making habits and ways related to the modern uber definition lenses with or without software fixes are carried over to their journey into this view camera stuff.

~Brings up another aspect of this question, given the current generation of software control over their images, how much of these habits-ways and work flow is imposed on sheet film based view camera image making.. Are the beliefs that the lacking sheet film image can be absolutely "fixed up" (sharpness, contrast, color "correction", and LOTs more) via software means to achieve their image goals in place of getting most if not all of the image goals proper at the moment of film exposure then processing.. Lenses and all are part of this.


Bernice

[neil poulsen]

Here are some of my random thoughts on color these days . . .

FORGET ANALOG: I've abandoned analog color, either color negative or color transparency. The former is hit or miss, mostly miss when it comes to getting good results from scanning. And color transparency has so little latitude, getting a well exposed transparency also becomes hit or miss. My optimum analog situation is being able to go into a "U-Develop" facility to use their individual darkrooms, while they provide the the processor to for C-type prints. Needless to say,that option no longer exists. (At least in Portland, Oregon.)

Of course, there's the time honored technique of taking multiple exposures and pushing or pulling a second transparency after seeing the first. But film has become so expensive!

FORGET DSLR's: I've also abandoned upgrading my DSLR, which given sufficient light, has produced decent results. My problem with DSLR's is the following. Photograph any scene with overcast sky, and it's flare city. A DSLR's sensor chamber is wrapped so tightly around the sensor, light from any scene can't help but bounce off the chamber sides and onto the sensor. Flare becomes unavoidable, and I HATE FLARE! (My own analysis.)

MIRRORLESS CAMERAS BEAR INVESTIGATION: Mirrorless cameras like the Sone A7r series get around the problems that I have with DSLR's, so they bear investigation.

MF DIGITAL: You might consider medium format digital? I purchased a Phase One P45+ for what I thought to be a reasonable price. And, that was a couple of years ago. (I began a thread on this in the Lounge.) It involves view cameras, which is nice. And an MF view camera can also capture images on black and white film. So, both options in the same, smallish package.

A P45+ was just right for me. At 39 megapixels, it allows one to comfortably print up to 16x20. Charles Cramer, a very well known analog (Kodak dye transfer) photographer, purchased a P45, when he transitioned totally to digital. One nice thing about Phase One, purchase a P45+ (and likely other PO digital backs), and it's not necessary to pay for a Capture One license, which is Phase One's very capable imaging software for converting Phase One image files.

I only use only view camera lenses with my MF back, though as we all know, special super-duper "digital" lenses are available at higher prices. I've been happy with the results. (But of course, it's only color, versus black and white.) One nice thing about regular VC lenses, image circles are larger than those for newer digital optics.

A couple of trade-offs with MF digital, and in particular, a P45+. Newer backs have live view that enables one to focus using the screen on the back. But even used, these newer backs are expensive. I can also focus on a screen, but only if I tether to a computer. In the field, I'm very happy to focus using a ground glass. I really don't think it matters, except maybe for something very exacting, like copying artwork? And, I don' do that stuff.

A second trade off for MF backs in general, is finding a super-wide lens to include in one's kit. I lucked out and purchased a Rodenstock 35mm f4.5 for <$1K, which amazingly also covers up to 6x9 film. And even with a 35mm lens, one needs a camera that can accommodate the narrow flange focal length. But, one could also stitch with a 45mm or 47mm lens.

A medium format digital kit is heavier than 35mm. But, I have a golf cart that I use with mine. Works great.

Anyway, it's worth some thought.

[Corran]

Are the beliefs that the lacking sheet film image can be absolutely "fixed up" (sharpness, contrast, color "correction", and LOTs more) via software means to achieve their image goals in place of getting most if not all of the image goals proper at the moment of film exposure then processing

Whilst looking at a finished print, why should one care whether or not the contrast was increased via using a newer, higher-contrast lens, a longer development time, or a slider in software after scanning?

Does this fundamentally change the way you view a print? Are there any rules that state one way of increasing contrast (as just an example of "image manipulation") is the "correct" way of doing it?

[Drew Wiley]

What is "digital" color photography? I've never heard of it. My color darkroom doesn't have a radio in it, so I never listen to such teenage jargon, whatever it means. Is 'analog" the same thing as AM or FM? Maybe that's where I'm confused. Never mind ... I don't like the noisy sound of any of those terms. Let me print in peace (if the damn roll of color paper would just arrive). .... well, need to do a small roof repair this afternoon anyway.

[Sal Santamaura]

What is "digital" color photography? I've never heard of it...

The best there is in color. Perhaps now that you've heard of it, you'll develop an appreciation for how much better it is than chemical color.

Of course, they all fade. So, if so-called "artists" seek to create something permanent, they'll photograph on polyester-base black and white film.

[Tin Can]

Not a whit

These dinosaurs attempt shame

all is fair in love, war and imaging

Judge not that thee be judged I said to myself

Faulty humans

Whilst looking at a finished print, why should one care whether or not the contrast was increased via using a newer, higher-contrast lens, a longer development time, or a slider in software after scanning?

Does this fundamentally change the way you view a print? Are there any rules that state one way of increasing contrast (as just an example of "image manipulation") is the "correct" way of doing it?

[Mark Sawyer]

Optics aren’t designed by a computer. The drudgery of ray trace calculations is performed on a computer, but there is definitely a person designing those optics.

Splitting hairs, like hammers don't drive nails, people drive nails. Computers have been used heavily by those designing and redesigning optics for a long time.

Bernice's original question was "Question is, how much of this image goal fashion and habit is carried over to those new to the cosmos of view camera?" Fashion changes regardless, but I doubt one could identify any meaningful fashion difference between images from a 1980's lens and a modern lens owed to changes in optical design. I do think a small segment of photographers is aware of the aesthetics of "less-than-perfect" lenses, which has been going on through the Pictorialist era through the Diana cameras and now the Holgas, Lensbabies, Lomo lenses, etc. And now the increasingly popular digital filters, apps, plug-ins, post-processing, etc. are doing the same thing even with phone-camera images, generally with about as much artistic intent as the apps that add cat noses, ears, and whiskers to people's portraits.