Shooting newspapers, brick walls, and pixel peeping

[sanmich]

lately I have read some reactions on the forum of the type:
"what the heck with pixel peeping, go out and shoot!"
While it can sound a very intelligent piece of advice, I can't help but continuing shooting rulers and newspapers, and play pixel peeping...

The reason is simple:
It can take a long time until I really challenge the performance of a piece of gear by seriously enlarging a picture, and then discover that a lens is not shimmed as it should, not calibrated, or simply a bad sample. And it's not theory only. I've had lots of lenses or rangefinders that needed calibration or whose performance wide open was not what I expected.
For some reason, the argument "Did HCB pixel peeped?" sounds also wrong to me. I would be very surprised if he didn't, or hadn't his gear tested but competent labs. I remember a pro PJ that went though lots of samples of a canadian Summicron 35 on MTF benches until he found his love.
Then of course.....
Then, you have to forget about it and go shooting 🙂

 

[Alpacaman]

Unfortunately, obsessing over gear is enjoyable as well 🙂

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I think what you ultimately do with gear makes the difference. I never print larger than 17x22 inches. If my cameras and lenses make great looking 17x22 prints, it is irrelevant to me how they look on the monitor at the equivalent of 42 inches wide. Pixel peeping makes it too easy to be dissatisfied with perfectly good gear.

 

[Nokton48]

When I get a new lens, on the first rolls I make sure I shoot rulers and newspaper. If it's not right I'm not willing to use it as a scale-focusing lens. I want accuracy in my work. So I test it and get it fixed, if need be.

 

[gavinlg]

To test a lens, I put it on my camera and shoot a subject. When I get the results scanned, or off my memory card onto my computer, I then know if the lens works properly, or how good it is. Lenses that do very well on resolution tests a lot of the time don't do so well in real world use for me. Lenses that supposedly have focus shift problems that supposedly make them useless for real world use (canon 50mm f1.2L) have that reputation because people shoot a piece of paper lines on it as a "test". Unless you shoot paper with lines on it, that test is useless. I owned a 50L, and it was brilliant in real world use. Never once noticed a repeatable focus shift. Similarly brick wall/focus/resolution/distortion tests do nothing to show how a lens works with certain kinds of light, how it shapes it's images.

I've done a lot of the whole pixel peeping thing, on all my gear. I finally realized though that it means nothing in the end - now I don't do any of it.

Just my opinion, though I wish I had come to it sooner.

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Not sure about the testing thing, I generally do 3-4 shots to make sure the focus really is about where I expect it to be when focusing the rangefinder... assuming the focus falls where I expected Im pretty much done.

The interesting thing is that I have a nice collection of high-end Nikon gear from 1990 and up which when used on current sensors simply don't seem that sharp at all. yet this stuff paid my rent for years.

Tend to agree with fdigital that a good lens don't always test well.


Bo

 

[john_s]

I think it's wise to be critical of new gear and take some shots that really test it thoroughly. For me that can include a ruler or sheet of print.

Then, you have to forget about it and go shooting 🙂

 

[JayGannon]

I couldnt care about the MTF etc of a lens, I will shoot a ruler to check the focus scale but thats it, as long as the focus is accurate generally almost any decent pro grade lens is going to outperform either my body shake (Rarely use tripods) or by sensor/film.
Focus would be the only thing I would check personally.
I would put money on the vast majority (70%+) of professional photographers not knowing what a MTF chart is. Or ever having their gear 'tested'.

 

[jsrockit]

I've never ever done this... I just go out and shoot and I'll be able to tell if it is "off" or not. Perhaps the margin for error I can live with is larger than you guys. I'm more concerned with the charecter of the lens.

 

[shadowfox]

For me, photography is my creative outlet. After I hand-picked the reliable/predictable gears, I welcome imperfection because sometimes it will open up a unique place for that particular piece of equipment in my toolbox.

Example, I have a super scratched Olympus tele lens that I keep around just for those "romantic" portraits 😀

And test roll for me is like a treasure hunt, sometimes you'd be surprised at what you get:

This picture told me that I have a problem with the alignment between the taking and viewing lens on this camera, a TLR.

But at the same time, I personally find this photo very satisfying. Much more so than if I shoot a ruler to find out the same problem.

 

[robklurfield]

testing nothing. just liked this wall. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

testing nothing. just liked this wall. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I like that picture, the chairs really make it, especially the one loner in the group.

 

[robklurfield]

thanks, Chris. the odd man out, that chair.

 

[Steve M.]

I have to use a lens "in the field" to get some idea of how it's IQ is. Recently I bought a Contax 139Q SLR w/ a Planar 50 1.7 because I wanted a sharp 35mm lens, but almost immediately after buying it I was second guessing my choice. Seems the bokeh was supposed to be less than ideal. So I bought a Konica Auto S2, a Pentax K1000 w/ SMC 50 2.0, and a Nikon FT2 w/ non AI 50 2.0 and 105 2.5 lenses, and had a shootout just going around the neighborhood and taking some portraits of the wife.

Haven't got the shots finished from the Konica, but what I see from the Planar probably wouldn't have shown up on a MTF chart. It's certainly sharp, but w/ B&W film has one of the nastiest IQ's of any lens I've ever used. And yes, the bokeh is all jittery and rough. The Pentax glass is really nice. Not too sharp unless it's at f8, pleasant bokeh. The Nikon is the keeper so far, bearing a late run from from the Konica. Sharp enough w/ the 50, even sharper w/ the 105, and creamy smooth bokeh. As important as it is to assure that your lens is focusing correctly, nothing beats going out and shooting it in real life situations, at least for me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If testing lenses is part of how you earn a living, you soon learn two things.

The first is that brick walls, rulers, twigs against the sky (for flare), evenly illuminated surfaces (for vignetting), test charts and newspapers are a quick, easy way of establishing technical limits. These pictures tell you what the strengths and weaknesses of the lens are likely to be, and it strikes me as foolish not to do them. You're only looking at the price and effort of exposing a roll or two of film, after all.

The second is that real life shooting, after you've done this, tells you all the things you don't get from the 'limit' tests, and often illustrates that theoretical objections aren't always important.

Cheers,

R.