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.....
Bookmarks