The fingerprint thing

S

Sparrow

Veteran
Local time
10:10 PM
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
12,418
The fingerprint thing

I can’t see it, other people obviously do as they can talk “shop” about it, they can see from the photo the attributes of a particular lens or brand or even nation and I can’t do it
Despite 42 years of taking photos and making my living by my art, aesthetic critique and sensibility all my life if I research a particular lens all I see is diverse images, I don’t see any trend, no identifying fingerprint
I’m not saying I don’t prefer some lenses over others, I do, but I can only form that opinion after actually using it for many months I can’t look at other peoples images and see the lens in them, all I see is the picture.
Am I the only one? Someone explain
 
Stewart, in this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34401&page=4

post #25 I posted 2 links to 2 of my pics taken with 2 different lenses. Check out the "look" of each pic. Don't worry if you don't like the photo, just see the difference. The Summar is flarey, sharp in the middle, softer at the edges, the Tessar is sort of cooly, clinically sharp all over (what's in focus). I think the different "fingerprints" of these lenses is easy to see.
 
Hi Frank, I can see that, and I admit the Tessa looks a lot like my Rolleiflex (f3.5 Tessa)
Would you be able to identify any print made with that lens? Or are you seeing a tendency here?
 
I'm of the opinion that very few, even experienced photographers, can reliably and consistently tell many things from viewing the finished photo, including:

The brand or model of lens. The focal length, and often the approximate f-stop used yes, but not the brand or model.

The brand, model, or type of camera used. Photos from a 35mm rangefinder are indistinuishable from those from a 35mm SLR or a 35mm P&S or even a 35mm disposable in most cases. I daresay the differences between photos from a Canon, a Nikon, and a Leica are mostly within one's imagination.

Whether the camera used was film or digital. Yes, some digital images have that "you know it when you see it" look, and some films (such as Kodachrome) do have a fingerprint so to speak, but from simply viewing an image on line, or even a good print, it's very hard to authoritatively proclaim that it's film or digital.

That oughta be food for discussion. :)
 
Last edited:
Stewart, you are correct. Consistently being able to identify the lens type/brand used is impossible, but there are trends, and given 2 pictures and the 2 lenses used, one can often attribute the correct lens to the image. There are some lenses and lens types that have stronger and more easily recognized character than others. The Summarit comes to mind.

And seeing the actual prints, rather than scanned negs/images on a monitor makes it much easier too.
 
I have a theory. There are those who think that everything tastes like chicken, and then those who know when something doesn't taste like chicken.

You may not know all the time when something is not chicken, but to claim that it is impossible to tell when it is not chicken, is just plain silly.
 
I find it rather depends on the shot.

Most of my photography is done to record memories. Periodically, I surf through my old memories. Usually, I *think* I know what lens I used to take a particular photo. Usually I am right. Sometimes I am wrong, and find myself surprised.

Despite this inaccuracy, I do feel my different lenses each have a characteristic look.
 
FrankS said:
Stewart, you are correct. Consistently being able to identify the lens type/brand used is impossible, but there are trends, and given 2 pictures and the 2 lenses used, one can often attribute the correct lens to the image. There are some lenses and lens types that have stronger and more easily recognized character than others. The Summarit comes to mind.

And seeing the actual prints, rather than scanned negs/images on a monitor makes it much easier too.
Click to expand...

I don’t know about the Summarit, I could get 9 out of 10 comparing the 35 Summaron and the cv f2.5, I’d have no chance with say a cv 50 f1.5, 50 sumercron and Oly 50 f2, perhaps it’s the level of recognition I’m misunderstanding.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I have a theory. There are those who think that everything tastes like chicken, and then those who know when something doesn't taste like chicken.

You may not know all the time when something is not chicken, but to claim that it is impossible to tell when it is not chicken, is just plain silly.
Click to expand...

So it’s a tendency, a trend. not a signature? More pullet v capon rather than chalk and cheese
 
I, too, have this issue with "the look" of a lens. I once shot and I-50 in nearly new shape, J-8, J-3, and a I-50, non-colapsible model, and tried to tell the difference. Same shot x4, and the only time there was a hint was at the widest apetures, after stopping down they shared the same sharpness one expects for FSU lenses, and as you can see I like them.
 
Richard Black said:
I, too, have this issue with "the look" of a lens. I once shot and I-50 in nearly new shape, J-8, J-3, and a I-50, non-colapsible model, and tried to tell the difference. Same shot x4, and the only time there was a hint was at the widest apetures, after stopping down they shared the same sharpness one expects for FSU lenses, and as you can see I like them.
Click to expand...

Yes that’s my experience, the best I can say is that with some lenses I get a better average, but if I look back to photos from the 80s I now can’t be sure what lens made them
 
I am rather unfussy about wine, whereas some folks really get into the nuances of taste and spend big bucks on wine. This may be similar.
 
FrankS said:
I am rather unfussy about wine, whereas some folks really get into the nuances of taste and spend big bucks on wine. This may be similar.
Click to expand...

True some of my friends read the label before they taste it
 
Maybe when life is too good/easy, there is a human tendency to create issues to deal with, so they get fussy about lens signatures, wines, clothing, brand names, etc.
 
I don't care about signatures. All I'm looking for is good general performance, like contrast and sharpness. But as someone I know said:

'As long as it's between two consenting adults...'

Clarence
 
Getting back to the post topic you tipplers, I have never been able to understand how certain lenses have superior colour rendition over others. I would have thought it was purely a case of light and resolution ... how do certain lenses read colour differently? I have been told that the lens on my little CLR Voigtlander is is a superb colour renderer ... it's a Colour Skopar! :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom