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

[paulbarden]

And what is clinical supposed to mean?

I can only tell you what it means to me, in relation to my aesthetic choices when making a photograph; "Clinical" = "a cold, detached flawlessness, devoid of interpretive affect".

For me, lenses are interpretive devices; they have characteristics that does one of two things: generate one or more optical effects (chromatic aberration, coma, curved field, etc.) or do their best to avoid all of the optical effects that are considered "flaws" in lens designs. Personally, I find "flawless" lenses to be lacking in interpretive power: dry, dull, no sense of playfulness. Not everyone wants these "flaws" in the work they do and that's fine, but I enjoy what some lenses have to offer. For me, older lenses with design compromises expand my image making vocabulary - they introduce new languages and dialects. I like to explore other languages in my work. Some people prefer absolutes, like "perfect" lenses with maximum sharpness and contrast, free from aberrations and capable of delivering flawless images from corner to corner. Sometimes I like that kind of thing too*, but it's not the only valid approach to making a good photograph.



Telling other photographers what is "right" and what is "wrong" in their craft is a common problem, especially when it comes to film technologies. I wish we could all live happily in the creative space we make for ourselves without having to navigate other peoples uncompromising opinions, but our species loves to offer opinions, whether they were requested or not!

*Note that the image at this URL was made with an early 1900s Gundlach Turner-Reich 12" convertible, on 8x10 FP4. Does it lack sharpness, contrast? If it was good enough for Weston.....

[Tin Can]

Not for all

My vision, in reality, dimming and distorting

Terminal Glaucoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18756789/

Soon I see blackout in one eye then the next

I will try to continue photography with setups I am preparing now

PreVision

But isn’t photography by definition illustrative, not impressionistic? Simply because we ‘tone’ a print or add red filter to taking lens, it doesn’t detract from the image being illustration? As I mentioned before, unless we are choosing to define every centimeter of an image, with photography is not possible unless we are manipulating via PS etc, it still is a snapshot of reality. No way around it. If we want the distortion or flare from a retro lens to affect the image, it does not push the medium to “alt” reality.

Since I am keenly enamored of the natural landscape in all it’s infinite variety, I have tried to remain faithful to what my eye sees - wyswyg.

[Michael R]

Well, I certainly agree there isn't necessarily a right or wrong when it comes to aesthetic/creative choices. Someone tells you anything like that you know right away what kind of yutz you're dealing with.

I can only tell you what it means to me, in relation to my aesthetic choices when making a photograph; "Clinical" = "a cold, detached flawlessness, devoid of interpretive affect".

For me, lenses are interpretive devices; they have characteristics that does one of two things: generate one or more optical effects (chromatic aberration, coma, curved field, etc.) or do their best to avoid all of the optical effects that are considered "flaws" in lens designs. Personally, I find "flawless" lenses to be lacking in interpretive power: dry, dull, no sense of playfulness. Not everyone wants these "flaws" in the work they do and that's fine, but I enjoy what some lenses have to offer. For me, older lenses with design compromises expand my image making vocabulary - they introduce new languages and dialects. I like to explore other languages in my work. Some people prefer absolutes, like "perfect" lenses with maximum sharpness and contrast, free from aberrations and capable of delivering flawless images from corner to corner. Sometimes I like that kind of thing too*, but it's not the only valid approach to making a good photograph.



Telling other photographers what is "right" and what is "wrong" in their craft is a common problem, especially when it comes to film technologies. I wish we could all live happily in the creative space we make for ourselves without having to navigate other peoples uncompromising opinions, but our species loves to offer opinions, whether they were requested or not!

*Note that the image at this URL was made with an early 1900s Gundlach Turner-Reich 12" convertible, on 8x10 FP4. Does it lack sharpness, contrast? If it was good enough for Weston.....

[John Layton]

So much sharpness-bashing…jeesh!

More to the point - this should be personal. It is totally up to each one of us to find out what works for each of us…personally. A huge (impossible?) challenge these days to pursue with any real integrity (without the opinions of others) - given the huge number of choices currently available to us.

So is there a “great paradox” here? That because of a currently overwhelming number of (optical/opti-electrical) choices, we are left to depend on the opinions of others, making us, by default…irresponsible? Ya think?

I, for one, continue to be motivated, inspired, and fascinated by getting up close and personal with a darkroom processed LF print and counting the hairs on a bees knee (hmmm…not many LF images of bees knees), or the sharply etched icy fuzz on frosted leaves, or the pinpoint dots of thousands of barnacles, whose presence provides a wonderful counterpoint to an otherwise soft, dreamy, time-exposed seascape.

The seascape example is particularly important…because this is personal. As I child I almost always had a tattered copy of the little Golden Book, “Seashores” in my back pocket - always anticipating those very precious two weeks of each summer when I would actually be at the ocean, where I would spend endless hours with a mask and snorkel, or wading in tidepools - often with my father. (especially precious as spending time in this environment with my dad was the only place where he and I actually, truly connected).

What I find compelling about the ocean, particularly the intertidal interstices along a rocky coastline, is the perfect balance of the sea, as expressed by the tremendous power of its surf (acting in concert with the underlying geology)…and the incredible diversity of the marine life which that very surf, those very rocks, help to nurture and protect. That I find this dynamic environment a place of energy, inspiration, solace, and peace, (and indeed…primordial kinship) continues to draw me into its presence…and the blessing of great comfort I receive in this environment (often while embracing otherwise challenging conditions) is one which I often meet with a long time exposure - softening the sea while not diminishing its power…while also capturing, quietly but in sharp relief, those very details…barnacles, rocks, seaweed, etc. that depend so completely upon what that sea brings to them.

I think that phrase…”quietly, but in sharp relief,” says something about what I, personally, value in a lens - that it has a capacity to render sharply, faithfully…that it does not otherwise call attention to itself…and therefore presents me with as broad a (monochromatic) palette as is possible, with which I will then proceed to interpret the scene before me in whatever manner is most consistent with that which drew me to the subject in the first place. In short, its all between myself and my subject…and the lens needs to remain a perfectly transparent window between us, and to otherwise “stay out of the way.”

But again…this is personal - and thank goodness! And I also thank goodness (personally), that I am old enough to have largely escaped the great paradox!

[pdmoylan]

I remember being in awe of closeups of natural scenes with 4x5 Panatomic X and the lastest Schneider lenses I saw in Audubon magazine during the late 70s.I wasn't a photographer then.

Later it was Porter's DT prints and Sexton's monumental commercial work which set me on a course to use LF, the best lenses and finest grain films. Clyde Butcher is another whose best work IMHO is with modern lenses.

Simply trying my best to emulate those visual experiences using lighter digital gear in an F64 style. So finding the right lenses makes a significant difference.

Having used the GFX 50 extensively, I can only say that images are IMO unrefined; the artifacts, warm color cast in dull light, magenta shift in blue sky, and retro color scheme (ugly browns, undifferentiated green hues, reds turning pink, etc) is totally unsatisfactory. Yes larger prints are possible than FF, but I have yet to meet a digital camera print that matches or exceeds photo prints from 4x5 film.

The issue with digital has always been edge definition, and so I get the focus on sharper lenses atsthat improves, albeit marginally, detail and therefore acutance.

Graphically, the best choice would be a technical camera with best Rodenstock digital lenses and digital back, but this is heavy, cumbersome, and rather expensive even compared to 4x5 film equipment. If I was in my 20s-30s and had the resources, this would be my choice as LF substitute, or rather alternative.

[paulbarden]

I think that phrase…”quietly, but in sharp relief,” says something about what I, personally, value in a lens - that it has a capacity to render sharply, faithfully…that it does not otherwise call attention to itself…and therefore presents me with as broad a (monochromatic) palette as is possible, with which I will then proceed to interpret the scene before me in whatever manner is most consistent with that which drew me to the subject in the first place. In short, its all between myself and my subject…and the lens needs to remain a perfectly transparent window between us, and to otherwise “stay out of the way.”

Perfect!

[Bernice Loui]

Ari gets the ~Gold~ Star for this comment.

This is what ~Pixel Peeping~ was like circa 1990's with sheet film. Not done with software and 'puter, it was done using a microscope.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope

Magnification is 240x. This good enough or this example using a 14" f9 APO artar (@f22) still lacks "sharpness" and
in great need for improvement _?_ Proves to be totally and utterly useless in real world expressive image making needs. Got over all this LF Pixel Peeping in the 1990's after learning the lesson, zero of all that is going to add to the emotional expressiveness of the image.

Much of this question related to post like this recent example.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Best-for-6x12

"Also I want to go for the very highest caliber of lenses."

Where did this belief come from and why ?

Not a contest, winner does not take anything.
Bernice

I
There are far too many pixel-peepers around, as always, so the pointless hunt for perfection continues. Beyond that there are some truly beautiful images being made, with craft and skill, and with digital cameras.


How much of the pixel peeping carries over to LF? Probably lots, but old-time LFers can be just as bad sometimes.
Eventually, hopefully, they realize that focus and sharpness are vastly overrated, and they then settle down to make some decent images.

[Jody_S]

We have been conditioned over our entire lifetimes now by the gear manufacturers to always be looking for that magic bullet, that if we just fork over another $1-5K or whatever for this latest, newest gear, our photos will finally be perfect. If you go back to advertising 120 years ago, lenses were sold exactly like hammers or any other tool. Because craftsmen generally don't purchase tools based on advertising, they purchase on word of mouth, learning which tools will be suitable for their trade by watching others use them, then making a cost/benefit analysis.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, the "baiting" continues on to this day and will into the future..

Example, years ago Canon introduced the M3 mirrorless digital. Market reviewers greatly dis-liked the M3 due to it's poor autofocus performance driving it's market value down lots.. Picked up two at greatly discounted $.. Use them with manual focus lenses, autofocus became a complete non-issue. M3's worked as good as any APS-C digital camera. Many of the imaged posted on LFF was made using these early Canon mirrorless with a manual focus lens.. Due to their compact small size, they went traveling lots, made LOTs of images.. In time they were re-sold and replaced by the M6 which continues to be used lots to this day. Not a lot if any incentive to "upgrade" as the current lens set and all works good.

Much the same applies to the view camera stuff.

Not so good for cycling $ or making the economy go ?
Bernice

We have been conditioned over our entire lifetimes now by the gear manufacturers to always be looking for that magic bullet, that if we just fork over another $1-5K or whatever for this latest, newest gear, our photos will finally be perfect. If you go back to advertising 120 years ago, lenses were sold exactly like hammers or any other tool. Because craftsmen generally don't purchase tools based on advertising, they purchase on word of mouth, learning which tools will be suitable for their trade by watching others use them, then making a cost/benefit analysis.

[Corran]

That's a great example of what the issue with your argument is here, in my opinion.

Poor autofocus is a GREAT example of a perfectly valid and reasonable issue with a camera (or lens) that could seriously impact a photographer's work. There are many types and styles of photography that would be hampered by this - such as, sports, fast-paced journalism, weddings, etc. I'm going to assume you aren't pursuing any of these seriously, and that's okay. But others have a need for this - and may also have a need for well-corrected lenses that have little to no aberrations at very wide apertures, as referenced in the original post. My bread-and-butter lenses for weddings were fast AF primes that were sharp about 2/3 of a stop down from wide-open, and could be pushed to wide-open with a bit of spherical aberrations. Nowadays if I were gearing up to do weddings with new gear, I would probably opt for a full set of newer lenses that didn't have those issues at f/1.4 or whatever, and that's because it's what I want. Similarly, I would absolutely not be happy with a digital camera that had bad AF performance with the lenses I use, if I bought the camera with the intention of using that. I'm not sure why your particular use-case with MF lenses matters at all, in a critique of a camera's AF performance?

Similarly I generally prefer shooting with somewhat modern Schneider APO or XL lenses on 4x5, though I'll occasionally use other lenses for certain effects, including SF lenses. I have over the years tried Tessars, which many people love, but I don't particularly get along with them for various reasons. This is an example of my personal opinions based on my stylistic choices - but I would not argue that others that shoot and love Tessars are somehow wrong in their pursuit of that style.

This isn't a foolhardy need for "perfection" or something like that - it's a particular choice, and I think I've burned enough sheets/rolls of film to show that I know a little something about my needs and style. I would also not fault a newbie in LF with lots of experience in digital or roll film wanting a certain class or style of lens, for the style of images they expect to make - and if they change or evolve later, cool, but that doesn't negate the original stylistic choices or opinions. This is just my opinion here Bernice, but sometimes I feel like you really want to enlighten us as to the right and proper way to shoot or think about lenses, which is of course how you've done it after this or that experience. I absolutely agree that there are plenty of folks too worried about "sharpness," but that doesn't mean that the pursuit of good, sharp, contrasty lenses is somehow wrong.