Lens Character vs. Photographer Character?

[robklurfield]

I'm going to try provoking a healthy, friendly debate by asking the question: Why do we (folks on RFF and elsewhere) spend so much time discussing the character of various lenses (you know the dialogue here: "what's better, the 35 cron v1 or v2?") RATHER than spending much time on debating the character of our (and others) photography?

I haven't an answer for this, though I could easily speculate ("we're all inveterate gear heads suffering from unrequited GAS ... the former is easier to get our arms around than the latter ... we are shallow ... we are not nearly so attuned aesthetically as are technologically ... etc., etc.")

So, I'm curious what others think. Why so much talk about lens character and so little talk about the character of our images or even ourselves?

Anyone else notice this? Agree ... disagree? Thoughts?

 

[Bob Michaels]

Rob: I notice. I agree. I have the same questions.

Me? I am very hard pressed to tell any differences in lens characteristics. I mean I have shot with a CV 28mm f3.5, a Hexanon 28mm f2.8 and a Zeiss Biogon 28mm f2.8. The prints all look the same to me.

Now I do like photos that say something. But I don't like commenting on photos from people I do not know well. Especially comments in public. Since I do not know what they were trying to accomplish, I certainly cannot say if they achieved their goal or not.

 

[semilog]

Lenses have character. Photographers are characters. And gearheads. 😛

 

[bob338]

The V1 Summicron is clearly superior to the V2.

 

[gdmcclintock]

How many of us can tell the difference between a photograph from film and a photograph from a digital camera, especially if the latter is processed to look like film with simulated grain, black and white, etc.?

 

[robklurfield]

My M8 at 640 ISO. No post-processing. So tell me, anyone, what lens was on the camera and does it matter?

My wife had a friend, Jenny, visiting for a French tutoring session. We got to talking about photography. Jenny mentioned that she'd been accumulating a collection of cheap, vintage flea market cameras (a folder of some kind; a TLR of unknown brand, etc. Show & Tell planned for her next visit. I asked if I could take her picture. I grabbed what was on the camera (she thought the M8 looked "vintage"), focused (barely), wide open and got this. I was paying more attention to the conversation than I was to my image making. My question is why as a group are so many of us preoccupied if not downright obsessed with what lens was used to make what picture. Jenny mentioned that enjoys photography, shooting in lots of public places and trying to replicate work she sees on the web from other photographer that is selling. (Those of you who know me are likely aware from seeing my work that this is certainly not my process or aim.) Anyway, back to my original question: where the hell is the character? And, for those of you who find it hard to abandon your gear-obsession, tell me what lens you think this was. For the rest of you, tell me why this shouldn't matter.

For my part, when I offloaded this from my camera to my Mac and Aperture, I was struck by how the image seemed to capture the character of the light yesterday (sunny late afternoon sun streaming throw the blinds) and the character of Jenny (she had her Vespa parked in our driveway; she looks like a Vespa rider, doesn't she). That was my aim: capturing a friend in a non-native habitat. Should I care about the blurred, but non-swirly bokeh or the fact that I didn't bother to remove the yellow filter that was on this unnamed lens. I got what I wanted: the essence of my wife's friend and French protege (they used to teach language arts together at a middle school; now Jenny wants to brush up on her French for a summer trip to Europe).

A totally unrelated aside: my wife was at the dentist for a cleaning when the dentist pulled out of his pocket a Barnack (she thinks he said it was IIIC with a 50 Elmar). He told her he always has a camera with him. I think I need to switch to her dentist. He even shoots 4x5.

 

[robklurfield]

heh, heh. on my work it's easy to tell as the film is always messed up with dust and hair.

How many of us can tell the difference between a photograph from film and a photograph from a digital camera, especially if the latter is processed to look like film with simulated grain, black and white, etc.?

 

[bob338]

My M8 at 640 ISO. No post-processing. So tell me, anyone, what lens was on the camera and does it matter?

Old Canon? 35mm? The softness reminds me of my V1 Summilux.
Just a guess.
And yes, it does matter if you like the look of a picture. I think it's more important to figure out what lenses were used in pictures I don't like so I can avoid buying them.

Bob

 

[peterm1]

Pretty much what you said! Too many gear heads. But what else can you expect. This is a Rangefinder Forum - not a Rangefinder Photgraphy Forum. So it attracts gearheads of with a rangefinder bent. At least the film is better than digital monologue is becoming less frequent.

 

[robklurfield]

Bob338, I'll refrain from spilling any beans on what I used until others have had a chance to comment.

BobMichaels, you are welcome to opine on my work anytime you like. I drift through life with few intentions (or so I like to convince myself).

 

[robklurfield]

Peter, you are right about the nature of RFF. Please, however, don't take my question as a rant. It's simply intended to start a conversation. I, like Bob Michaels, have no knack, and probably less inclination, for dissecting which lens has which character. Maybe that's why I avoid the topic. Also, in discussions of lens character when shooting in the field -- outside of controlled testing conditions -- trying to make any useful comparisons -- especially when comparing two lenses in the hands of two different photographers shot in different places and different conditions -- is often pointless, but so much of that sort of discussion goes on here.

 

[horosu]

You suggested the answer: trying to improve one's photography by engaging in long-term projects is infinitely more difficult than buying this-or-that lens. It is also very time-demanding, something most of us here (amateurs) do not have. It means to "think" about what you want to achieve and how you want to do that. This is also difficult 🙂

I would quote (from memory) Steve McCurry, who suggested that in order to improve your photography you need to "get out of your comfort zone". This is especially true IMHO in street or social/documentary photography, where you need to approach your subject and overcome shyness, distance, etc

Just my opinion.

Cheers, Horea

 

[robklurfield]

Horea, that is keen observation about getting out of one's comfort zone.

 

[Chris101]

I have no idea what lens was used on the picture of Vespa-girl. It's a pretty good snap, the character is evident in how it makes the background look, but most of the character of the photo is in the sense of the person who is the subject, and the light.

I don't mind commenting on photos I know nothing about, because showing/looking at a photo is a non-verbal mode of communication. The message I get may differ widely from the intention of the photographer, but that's okay. Once the photograph is released into the public, the photographer relinquishes their claim to have the "proper" interpretation of it. Perhaps there will be a consensus as to what it means, perhaps not.

It's one of theose "there is no wrong answer" situations.

 

[sanmich]

Maybe some types of photography are more gear-sensitive than others.
For what I do, I just ask a lens to be sharp, not to flare or have distortion, to be as small as possible while still sporting f/2 for insides.
I have left the character lens boat about two years ago.
That being said, I still have a summicron DR for the extra sharpness in the center and the gentle contrast, in case I shoot something a bit different...

 

[haempe]

I think, we all hope to find a lens, which makes automatically great photos, because it has character. 🙄
Nonsense, I know, but the hope dies last...

Edit: Sounds a bit like a religion, sometimes will come the messiah-lens and will save my career as timeless photographer...

 

[emraphoto]

i feel a bit silly saying this but i could never tell a sonnar from a 'cron from a distagon nor do i care all that much. i have always chalked it up to low standards.

there is nothing wrong with folks who find pleasure in such things. different interests i suppose. me? i am interested in people and photographs. their are other about who lean to the aesthetics over the gear. i reckon this has them commenting less in the gear-centric debates thus the shallow wake.

as Chris has mentioned, there is no wrong answer.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I think its easier when looking at photos to say "that's an Elliott Erwitt" and "that's a Bruce Gilden". The character of the photographer imparts more in the picture than their lenses.

Not to say discussing the differences between lenses is any different than discussing differences in style, just things get taken too seriously sometimes.

 

[ricnak]

Rob.

What lens took which picture? I'll pass on that challenge but.... I don't think it was a Canon lens???

Nice picture btw. Nice focus, light and nice and relaxed.

I think the photographer is more important than the gear when it comes to character and the photographic image.

Actions/results speak louder than gear.

h

 

[Roger Hicks]

'Magic' tends to be in the eye of the beholder, but when you have a lens that is 'magic' for you, it's easier to take good pictures with it. It doesn't matter what the lens is, or whether it suits anyone else: it 'clicks' with you, and you make some of your best pictures with it. Of course, if you never make good pictures, it may be because you are forever dissatisfied, in which case the problem probably lies in you, not in your gear.

It's just occurred to me that perhaps some types of lens attract some types of photographer: some like to be closer, some like to be further away, some always shoot in good light, some shoot a lot in poor light, some like very shallow depth of field, and some are poor (in the sense of no money -- been there) while others are pathologically mean.

For me, 'character' is wildly overrated -- I really can't see 'Sonnar character' or 'Tessar character' or even, God help us all, 'Mandler character' -- but there still are a few lenses that are 'magic' for me. Paradoxically this doesn't include the lens I use most of all, my last-generation pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux. It's small; it's light; it's fast. That's all I ask of it. The 35/1.7 Ultron delivered better image quality, but was half a stop slower and I didn't like the ergonomics. Likewise the 35/1.2 was faster, but too big and heavy.

I've been on the receiving end of both types of comment, lens character and photographer character. For example, one of my friends was fascinated by my 38/4.5 Biogon and always picked out any picture taken with it, so he could clearly tell which lens was which, while others say I have a distinctive style which I can't really see myself.

Something that is indisputable, though, is that there have been people on the forum whose sole aim seems to be nasty, either to the world at large or to selected targets. This could discourage some people from baring their souls too much. With the possible exception of a few FSU lens addicts, on the other hand, few people seem to get too upset by comments about lenses. So maybe talking about gear is a defence mechanism.

Cheers,

R.