I have discovered something about interesting images and gear

peterm1

peterm1

Veteran
Local time
9:08 AM
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
7,689
Like just about every other member of this site I crave the best and highest performing lenses. But you know, the photos that I like the best consistently are ones that are in some ways the most flawed. In my case I love images shot thru windows - all those sumptuous reflections and distortions. Of course I am an arty type so my images don't pretend to be anything other than something I like and enjoy. I am not after veracity. What I am after, I suppose, is beauty. And that is something that is more difficult to define than anything found in an MTF curve.

These are some shots from the last couple of weekends just shooting people in cafes. I may have posted some here already. All of the images are vastly compromised in a technical sense but I like them.

So, not asking others about my images but how do others feel about this issue. Is it the case that we should really be content with much more basic lenses if the most interesting images (in my view anyway) are the ones that are technically somewhat ordinary -vignetting, ghosting, blur etc?

(All shot with a DSLR and a variety of lenses - mainly older MF ones)


Cafe Study 2 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Through a glass darkly 10 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Cafe Study 1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Cafe Study 3 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

And from earlie. These all shot with a Leica M8 and voigtlander glass


Through a glass darkly 5 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Through a glass darkly 3 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
 
This are two different things - photography and gear-o-cracy. They can coexist or can be practicized each alone. Just like with too different dishes, seating them separately helps for digestion. That's my short version.
 
None of my favorite photographs draw their effectiveness from sharpness, resolution, or any other technical quality. Instead, they all rely on expressiveness. So I'm with you 100% on this point.

John
 
Beautiful photos, the kind I like very much and very often take myself.

Yet - even shot through some crude glass windows and with many reflections etc etc, it's quite obvious that they were all shot with fine lenses having a lot of resolving power and able to render a rich amount of subtle colors... ;)
 
For me, the quality of most every lens made today exceeds what I need to make the pictures I want to make. (Most always, I actually soften what comes out of the cameras, or use a soft filter on what goes into the cameras.)

Also, my negativity about the images from other people is virtually never "I think the optical quality of the lens degraded this picture" - it is always, the interpretation of the scene that I don't like.

PS. . . . Peter, I've said it before, I love most everything you post on this forum !
 
Yes, point taken, but as has been said, these shots are with good contrast fine lenses, and fast too by the looks of your depth of field. That Block Arcade is pretty dark, and those tearooms, very dark. In line with your sentiment, I have craved speed for years and now use an f2.8 or slower lens nearly all the time now. The good results with a good lens or a bad lens is more about the photographer and his comfort and experience with the tool in hand than what that particular tool is.
 
Miroslav Tichy came to the same conclusion from the other direction..

Of his technical methods, Tichy has said, "First of all, you have to have a bad camera"
- Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
I got rid of a couple of decent performing LTM/M-mount lenses because they were perfectly good competent sharp lenses, but lacked character. I kept the Summar, precisely because it gave me something extra.

Matt
 
Hmmm...even if I wanted character, I usually like to be the one adding it in post, not having to work around them while shooting. Old lenses are for fun, new ones are for getting the job done cleanly and swiftly ;)
 
Personally, I find there's also a certain sense of satisfaction at producing pleasing images with cheap, simple, old, or flawed equipment. If I'm able to get a good (not technically good, but aesthetically attractive to me) shot with a old $10 folder or a meniscus-lensed Brownie Hawkeye, it's gratifying in a way that something produced by more capable equipment cannot be.

That said, of course, there are plenty of circumstances where using such equipment is impractical or otherwise ill-advised.
 
Well you could come at this from the other direction.

If you cannot take good, interesting pictures with your RF and a $20 FSU lens, then upgrading to a Summicron just plain ain't going to help.

In others words Peter, I don't think it's the flaws in your lenses that make your pictures interesting.
 
For me it's ease of ergonomics, how well I function seamlessly with the camera, that's much more inspirational than optical precision.

For example, lately I've been enjoying the Olympus 15mm-f/8 body cap lens on my Lumix G5 much more than the assortment of AF lenses in my kit. Though it's not as sophisticated optically, needing a touch of CA and field curvature correction in post, and works well only in bright light, the fact that it has a preset detent position for hyper focal distance, no AF lag and is extremely compact, means I can grab quick shots much easier. Not the best lens in the kit - in fact, one of the worst lenses, optically, ever reviewed by DPReview - but many people who've tried it have testified to its simple, practical utility that somehow transcends optical quality.

~Joe
 
peterm1 said:
...
So, not asking others about my images but how do others feel about this issue. Is it the case that we should really be content with much more basic lenses if the most interesting images (in my view anyway) are the ones that are technically somewhat ordinary -vignetting, ghosting, blur etc?
...
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

basically you need to get out and use your gear (OK for the still life enthusiasts, even that is not necessary). If you enjoy using your gear and it stimulates you to take pictures at all, then it's first priority is covered.
What ever come next, your vision, your instinct for a scene, the timing, the framing, the basic technical skills (focus, exposure) are much more important than what MTF value the lens will be able to deliver.

If all this comes together you will be able to achieve an interesting picture with a "bad camera".

So yes, I do agree but only as far as that the technical aspects should not be the most important aspects. Artistic intention should not be an excuse for being sloppy, which obviously you aren't .
Having written all that, I still love to use the Planar on the MM :D.
 
How I like to annoy and not agree...:D

yes 80% of the time, technical superiority is irrelevant to a picture.
BUT
sometimes, a good part of the image is played by a texture, or a surface, or fine details.
In these cases, a good, sharp lens, with decent micro contrast really helps.
 
Just a note of wholehearted assent and support. When the project impels supreme attention on the part of the artist and when, like your series, its results compel comparable attention from a casual viewer., the project is more important than the gear. Though who but other photographers go to a show and ask, 'What did s/he shoot this with?'

If I were a mathematician or physicist, I might hazard a formula about the proportionate relevance of the project to the gear. Instead I'll just quote a favorite bit of Klee: "You must adapt yourself to the contents of your paintbox." You have plenty of skill and technique for the tools you use. What else matters?
 
"Peter I don't want to hijack your thread with some other pics but your superb ones remind me one of mine too much so that I can't help sharing it here. I took it in September 1984 (so long ago...) when I was still a student."

By all means do post your work, please. I would love to see other people's work. In any event I do not see it as "my thread". To me these threads belong to the community and are only as good as the contributions made by people in the community.

I like you photo by the way.

In partial answer to some other posts, I guess I am not saying that we should all now use crappy lenses. Rather that the equipment is secondary. Which in some ways perhaps many on this forum understand in as much as they are the ones who love classic gear from 20,30 40 even 50 years ago. In many cases that gear still performs admirably well but does have limits (like poorer coating (or no coating for that matter) that sometimes enhances these kind of impressionistic images that I like to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom