Lens Character vs. Photographer Character?

[BobYIL]

robklurfield wrote: "Why so much talk about lens character and so little talk about the character of our images or even ourselves?"

Because we have the freedom of choice, because we sometimes have a tendency to regard our equipment as being one of the limiting factors of ours 🙄, because we constantly are on the pursuit of "bettering" of what we try to express. And because we know how difficult it is to see and be able to express in the selective transparancy of photography, with something from our eyes and looking aesthetically noteworthy.

Photography is a very peculiar sort of art; while we cry for the optical engineers to turn out better and better corrected lenses each year, years teach us what comes out as being the last could be far from what we dreamed of seeing through. It is our own sort of character of seeing that seeks for character and signature in lenses too...

And we poor souls are not alone in this regard. A certain Cartier-Bresson was known of sticking to the same collapsible Summicron since its introduction until he gave up photography in 1974, by sending it several times to Leitz for cleaning and recoating during the years the Summicron has evolved two times... James Ravilious has even taken lens choice to one further dimensions: Backward to the uncoated...

So Rob, you can also take it rather as a "reflection" of our own characters..

Regards,

Bob

 

[ferider]

Looks like a classic 50, Rob; at f2 or so, you say wide open. Warm colors, must be a Leica lens. Your Summitar, maybe ?

🙂 J/K, you shouldn't label your flickr photos ....

Not sure why I like lenses, history of optical design, trying them out in real situations.

Then again, I shot a friend's wedding a week ago. They liked the outcome (I asked them to hire a pro as well), and I got a good nr. of keepers, IMO. Still I look at some of those, and I love what I see as signature of the lenses that I used. Like re-discovering why I bought them, finding the character that I saw in my and other tests, in a real situation as well.

When I see flickr postings, I do like to detect a photographer's "signature", style, etc. And take it as a big compliment when people detect a style in my photos.

Not sure how the 2 come together. Feels like 2 completely different and orthogonal aspects of photography.

Cooking or working on my cars/motorcycles is somehow similar. I love a good knife or wrench. However, when used, I forget the object that I'm using and focus on the job at hand. I have a couple of Damascene cooking knives for instance - beautiful, fun to handle, to sharpen with a Japanese stone, etc. Do I care when I use them, other than that they have to be sharp ? No.

FWIW.

Roland.

 

[Bingley]

It seems to me that "lens character" usually describes a particular result that can be seen when a lens is shot wide open, and involves things like lens design, coating (or not), bokeh, and sample condition. I mean, I can tell the difference between images shot w/ a Summitar wide open and a Canon 50/1.8 at f.2.0. Once I stop down, however, I have a harder time distinguishing one lens from another.

That said, isn't "photographer character" another term for photographic style? The kind of photograph that the individual photographer is drawn to, likes to take, as well as the power of the image itself? I think this has less to do w/ gear than it does w/ skill and vision.

I should add that, while I've enjoyed collecting and trying out gear, I'm reaching a point where I need to focus (pun intended) on shooting and developing technique, and doing so doesn't require a lot of lenses or camera bodies. Time to start thinning the collection a bit, I think. 🙂

 

[porktaco]

because criticizing a person risks social awkwardness, whereas criticizing a lens is easy and impersonal.

still, we should risk commenting on each other here. safe place.

 

[KenR]

Giving a critique is easy - accepting it is hard and losing a friend who can't take the critique is even harder. Even after I yell at my lenses and call them bad names, they just stand there and don't say talk back to me and they don't cry.

 

[dave lackey]

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?

<sigh>

Rob, I was going to answer the lens v photo character part but then you extended the character to ourselves. Since I have become irrelevant (since 2008), I honestly don't know how to respond.😕

 

[Doug]

Dave, if you are irrelevant in some respect (and I really doubt it), it would be in some commercial way, not relating to personal character. I too was "commercially challenged" for a time; it saps confidence and is the toughest job. In RFF that does not diminish respect, and you are certainly not irrelevant here. 😎

I do agree with some comments above that publicly discussing the character of member photos is a delicate matter. In Gallery comments, for instance, it's all too easy to say "great photo!" for those you like, and say nothing for the rest. I'd hope for useful insightful commentary that is put in a positive tone. And there is a talent and skill in critical analysis...

 

[dave lackey]

Thanks, Doug. There is an old story about "Your character determines your fate" that I may post some time later on when I can get my thoughts together. But, I think maybe Rob may be onto something here.

Surely, the camera you choose sets you up for a system of lenses. The resulting images are a product of those lenses in the way that the photographer used them. A lot of interconnections here.

A Summarit gives a totally different image than my Cron although both of my lenses are 50mm. It is also a fair statement that depending on the individual photographer, the 50mm may be just fine for his/her work or not. It is also fair to say that some photographers like to be very close to their subjects and some do not.

So, the choice of camera, lens, proximity to subject, subject material, and many other things is really all about the photographer and his preferences. I don't think it is "character" but more about personality. Is the photographer comfortable with interacting with the subjects? Is the goal to get the ambush photo so as to keep the "purity" of the moment?

Personally, I like the closer portraits up to a point beyond which I am not comfortable. This is about the closest I get with street portraits usally limited by the minimum focusing distance of the Summarit. However, the 50 Cron focuses a lot closer but I usually stick with a portrait distance close to the Summarit's min.

R4+50mm Cron:

 

[gb hill]

As soon as I saw this photo of "vespa girl" I thought Summitar. It has that soft characteristic & renders a pastel like color that is so much like Kodak's Portra 160NC. The only other lens that looks similar to this is Brian Sweeny's J-3's. Whatever lens was used it's a nice portrait & vespa's are cool.😀

 

[SciAggie]

The OP poses an interesting question; I think the answer is fairly simple. As others have said, discussing gear is not personal. Discussing gear is safe, and for many here, and intersting way to pass the time. There is nothing wrong with it.

Discussions of the character of photographs and photographers is a much more slippery slope - no matter how carefully it is approached. I believe the reason is that there is a little bit of our character imbedded in each photograph we post. I remember that my wife taught me a great deal about the necessity of being thick-skinned. I would work and work on an image that I was quite pleased with and show it to her with great pride only to have her rip it apart. She meant no harm, it was her opinion. I guess I'm saying that a friendly discussion requires the recipient of criticism to be able to take the criticism without being offended - and we have no control over that.

We tend to be a thoughful and friendly bunch here so we tend to stick to topics that are safe.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Indeed, thin skins are an inevitable problem, as is the starting point "My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with the facts."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I went through 4 different front elements on this J-3 before I got the character from it that I wanted.

Wide-open on the M8.

 

[dave lackey]

Very nice, Brian... very nice.

 

[gb hill]

Nothing non characteristic about that look Brian. If you have a Sumitar I'd like to see if their really is some similarity in your J-3's or if it's all in my mind!🙂


Edit: Sorry Rob for turning this into a gear thread. 😀

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Summitar has a lot of "Swirlies" -football shaped bokeh- that the Sonnar does not have. The coated Summitars that I had were even lower contrast than the Jupiter-3. William (Wlewisiii) has my Summitar for his Leica. Nice, coated with round aperture.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Ohhh.. Why do we discuss it... Because it is interesting?

Or because no other forum on the Internet thinks it is interesting, and We've all gravitated here.

But this shot shows that the J-3 OOF circles do not get spread out like the Summitar footballs when off-center.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Collapsible Summicron Footballs are less pronounced than Summitar Footballs. I'll find a Summitar shot.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

So back to why we discuss it here.

If you look at the Polls for "professions", you find a large number of members in the technical fields with photography as a hobby. As an Engineer with a lifetime interest in Photographjy, I find it interesting. Add 32 years of working in Optical Sciences as a computer engineer, it's kind of natural that I am going to discuss it. But if anyone wants to discuss device drivers, FORTRAN, and assembly language in my forum, feel free...

 

[gb hill]

The Summitar has a lot of "Swirlies" -football shaped bokeh- that the Sonnar does not have. The coated Summitars that I had were even lower contrast than the Jupiter-3. William (Wlewisiii) has my Summitar for his Leica. Nice, coated with round aperture.

....bokeh...aarrrggghh thats what distinguishes a true experienced lens junkie from a mere armature such as myself. I never even considered bokeh, which in Robs photo it's not distinguishable. I do see similarities in the J-3 & the summicron you posted as well as Rob's photo as far as color & softness is concerned.

So as for Robs shot I would certainly narrow it down to the collapsible summicron or summitar. I don't think he has a J-3. Then again Canon did make a sonnar ltm didn't they?😱

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Yes- the Canon 50/1.5 is a Sonnar and has Focus Shift like a Banshee. (Does not make sense, just sounds good.) I just shaved 0.05mm off of the shim after pixel-peeping with the M9.