The Important Concerns

[Bill Pierce]

Some of today’s lenses combined with high megapixel sensors are capable of producing images of exceptional sharpness and detail - when used properly. It’s just that sometimes it’s difficult to be proper.

Sometimes it’s easy. You can take your Apo-Lanthar on your Sony A7R IV, crank up you shutter speed and take a handheld sunny day landscape whose detail will amaze even those who press their noses against big prints. But the same handheld technique isn’t going to produce those results with the same camera with limited wide open depth of field at hand held slow shutter speed and high ISO’s.

When I read reviews of digital cameras, I think they often concentrate on the sensor’s capability in the arena of fine detail and sharpness along with the capability of holding this qualities in large prints. Look at the film work of Gene Smith, Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson and Gary Winogrand. There are some great shots sadly lacking in all of those departments. There are a lot of qualities that make a camera useful. And the incremental improvement in sensor performance should not be at the top of the list. More important there are a lot of qualities that make a picture good. Fixating on the technical excellence of our work may bypass some more important concerns. I know I’m often guilty of this.

Any thoughts?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I'm comparing the Nikon Z-Mount 58/0.95 with the 50/1.0 Nokton and the Z-Mount 50/1.2 with the 50/1.2 Nokton.
If I were buying lenses to use on visible-only camera mounted in a controlled environment, good choice and the Lab budget can easily handle it. I have lenses that spent their entire life mounted on an optics bench. I've pulled lenses from scientific equipment that was being tossed out.

For anything outside of that: The Noktons are a fraction of the weight and cost. There will be no difference when using for real-world applications. Other than Nikon wanting bragging rights about optics, I simply cannot understand why they built these lenses.

 

[jsrockit]

I think it was not always easy to get a very sharp and in focus photo in the old days due to slow film and slow lenses. Hell, even some cameras maxed out at 1/500th of a second which can still show shake if you lunge at a subject on the street and hit the shutter release mid-lunge. I think that makes their photos even more compelling. Also, some of the images they made were the first of their types.

It is pretty easy to get an in focus photo that is sharp these days with autofocus cameras with high ISO capabilities. Most modern lenses are sharp enough. Sharpness and detail are easy now. However, composition / framing, compelling content, creativity and a knowledge of the mediums history still take effort and/or hard work.

 

[JeffS7444]

Is there any reason that I can't take my inspiration from Gursky, Araki, and others with very different approaches?

 

[Bill Pierce]

Is there any reason that I can't take my inspiration from Gursky, Araki, and others with very different approaches?

Gursky would be a worthwhile inspiration for a lot of us. He had a show at the Modern at the turn of the century that I thought was so good I visited several times, dragging a bunch of my friends in to see it.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Some of today’s lenses combined with high megapixel sensors are capable of producing images of exceptional sharpness and detail - when used properly. It’s just that sometimes it’s difficult to be proper.

Sometimes it’s easy. You can take your Apo-Lanthar on your Sony A7R IV, crank up you shutter speed and take a handheld sunny day landscape whose detail will amaze even those who press their noses against big prints. But the same handheld technique isn’t going to produce those results with the same camera with limited wide open depth of field at hand held slow shutter speed and high ISO’s.

When I read reviews of digital cameras, I think they often concentrate on the sensor’s capability in the arena of fine detail and sharpness along with the capability of holding this qualities in large prints. Look at the film work of Gene Smith, Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson and Gary Winogrand. There are some great shots sadly lacking in all of those departments. There are a lot of qualities that make a camera useful. And the incremental improvement in sensor performance should not be at the top of the list. More important there are a lot of qualities that make a picture good. Fixating on the technical excellence of our work may bypass some more important concerns. I know I’m often guilty of this.

Any thoughts?

Are not camera manufacturers addressing areas like IBIS/OIS, better high ISO performance, and improved autofocus at the same time as they increasing sensor resolution?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"Important"... 😎😛😀

Look at this Winograd era guy known ... I can't remember his name exactly because he is not close/good enough.
Joe Mehyerowitzh?

He left from film Leitz to digital RF LCAG. He has tried LF (OP knows what it is). But no cigar. He is still right guy in the right place for $$$, but for 99% he is not a good photog.

I'm one of the few who had spend months of learning about GW. I'm one of the few who knows, get a chance to look at GW's photos taken between some 50mm and tele lens, Canon LTM and late of his Leitz.
I looked at those photos (GW's time prints) with glasses on my schnobel and close.
While I was this close, sure, I could see lens sharpness difference. But it was totally doesn't matter. The content was the GW King of Street Photography.

Garry Winograd. Real street photog. If he would make at long as as nylon fetish Japanese dude, GW would switch to GRD/GR and wipe the floor with it on giftlesses who still cares about gear.

IMO.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Are not camera manufacturers addressing areas like IBIS/OIS, better high ISO performance, and improved autofocus at the same time as they increasing sensor resolution?

Absolutely, although the improvements at this point are for the most part incremental. My point is that while it makes for technically better pictures in situations that can take advantage of these improvements, not all situations lend themselves to being able to take advantage of these improvements. And yet film photographers who had no IBIS, no autofocus (and, often, limited accuracy in the manual focus department)and greater quality loss at high ISO managed to take brilliant photographs. There are many pictures that benefit from the improved image quality of today’s digitals. But there are probably more that benefit from perception, timing, a “vision” if you want the cliche, along with hard work and ruthless self editing. That’s kind of obvious, but I still see an overemphasis on evaluating technical image quality in looking at both cameras and photographs on the web rather than say handling and viewing or the beauty of a moment.

 

[ranger9]

This discussion reminds me uncomfortably of one of Don Marquis' Archy and Mehitabel stories in which an old actor cadges drinks while constantly lamenting that today's actors "haven't got it here" (gestures toward heart.) And those stories were published in 1927!

I definitely see a lot of technically impeccable images today that "haven't got it here," but that's not because their makers use better imaging technology... it's because photography has become easy enough, and is practiced by such a vast number of people, that the field is dominated by grifters and scammers whose principal skills lie in the realm of self-promotion. Those people certainly can make lame images while using the most advanced technology... but they also can make equally lame images using primitive low technology (and some of them do, hence all the photos you see that don't have anything going for them except that they were made with an ancient camera or an "alternative process.")

Since neither high technology nor low technology seems to guarantee virtue, I'd argue instead that the higher-technology image IS more useful, simply because more can be done with it. If your artistic vision demands low fidelity, it's fairly easy to get it by removing information from a high-quality image. On the other hand, you can't create higher fidelity by adding information to a low-quality image... it's a one-way process!

 

[Dralowid]

kind of obvious, but I still see an overemphasis on evaluating technical image quality in looking at both cameras and photographs on the web rather than say handling and viewing or the beauty of a moment.

So a 'good or great picture' is a 'good or great picture' whatever it was taken with? It was ever thus...

Focussing on the technical side is a polite way of avoiding being critical about the quality of the picture itself.

 

[robert blu]

Fixating on the technical excellence of a photo is like focusing on calligraphy or layout choices when reading a novel !

I'm in the camp where content is more important than technical details. Photography is communication. The idea first!
But this is just me. Of course there are many areas where an high performance sensor helps, think of landscapes, sport, macro...

I have seen excellent work made with not very sharp images (like the work of Brigitte Grignet L'Agence VU) and many works with absolutely perfect images but without soul, boring.

 

[Tom R]

Sure, technology makes it possible for anyone to make a technically perfect image. But, technology is a commodity/service that is limited only by its supply and the purchaser's desire and wealth. It's easier to buy things than make (create) things. It's also easier to put-off confronting our own limitations and challenges with the excuse "If only I had < you fill in the object/service here> I'd be able to make < the object in question >."

Perhaps gear/services acquisition is just another form of procrastination.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Absolutely, although the improvements at this point are for the most part incremental. My point is that while it makes for technically better pictures in situations that can take advantage of these improvements, not all situations lend themselves to being able to take advantage of these improvements. And yet film photographers who had no IBIS, no autofocus (and, often, limited accuracy in the manual focus department)and greater quality loss at high ISO managed to take brilliant photographs. There are many pictures that benefit from the improved image quality of today’s digitals. But there are probably more that benefit from perception, timing, a “vision” if you want the cliche, along with hard work and ruthless self editing. That’s kind of obvious, but I still see an overemphasis on evaluating technical image quality in looking at both cameras and photographs on the web rather than say handling and viewing or the beauty of a moment.

If your point is that the great photographers took great photographs with cameras without all the modern technology, then I of course agree. The focus on the technology results from manufacturers wanting to sell cameras and camera enthusiasts wanting to talk about cameras on camera forums like RFF.

 

[Dogman]

If your point is that the great photographers took great photographs with cameras without all the modern technology, then I of course agree. The focus on the technology results from manufacturers wanting to sell cameras and camera enthusiasts wanting to talk about cameras on camera forums like RFF.

This.

My type of photography never comes close to using the bleeding, cutting edge of technological designs. If getting the most out of today's amazing cameras and lenses means always shooting in bright light from a tripod with critical focus, I'm not riding on that train. But, like everyone else, I like good cameras and sharp lenses and I love to engage in forum banter concerning arcane subjects of little practical concern.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I'm comparing the Nikon Z-Mount 58/0.95 with the 50/1.0 Nokton and the Z-Mount 50/1.2 with the 50/1.2 Nokton.
If I were buying lenses to use on visible-only camera mounted in a controlled environment, good choice and the Lab budget can easily handle it. I have lenses that spent their entire life mounted on an optics bench. I've pulled lenses from scientific equipment that was being tossed out.

For anything outside of that: The Noktons are a fraction of the weight and cost. There will be no difference when using for real-world applications. Other than Nikon wanting bragging rights about optics, I simply cannot understand why they built these lenses.

A successful fishing lure doesn't have to catch fish, it only has to catch fishermen.

 

[Shafovaloff1]

To Bill Pierce: I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 with a Leica Design Aspherical lens that is now quite old. The detail I get from it is astounding by my standards. It has shake compensation and a 10X optical zoom. Actually I picked up a few spares on the Ehay site cheap so as to not be without one. The one thing about the camera is that the front element must be mark free to have the full optical benefit of the design. Regan|Washington National Interior. There is a jetway I used to pull up to while with American Eagle years ago at the far right side barely visible. So long as we exited the RW at mid-field, after a short field landing, we could taxi right up to it! 🙂

 

[JeffS7444]

When I acquire a new piece of photographic equipment, I think it's natural for me to want to try it out on familiar scenes and situations in order to gauge it's worth. But I try not to change gear so often that these "test images" become a major part of my work: I half-jokingly suppose that my next major camera body upgrade ought to be the Sony A7R8! It's okay to become bored with one's cameras, because the hardware was never designed to be a source of never-ending wonder in itself.

 

[Shafovaloff1]

Jeff: I once thought I was a photographer. However, I do take a lot of pictures to explore the design of lenses and film. I enjoy this site because there are quite a few photographs from real photographers who post them as art which I enjoy most every time I check the forums. I appreciate photography as an art as well as the technical designs of the equipment. I hope those who post the art keep doing that and those who post photographs of the equipment over coffee, as "still art" keep doing that too. Thank you Rangefinder Forum!

 

[jsrockit]

"Important"... 😎😛😀

Look at this Winograd era guy known ... I can't remember his name exactly because he is not close/good enough.
Joe Mehyerowitzh?

He left from film Leitz to digital RF LCAG. He has tried LF (OP knows what it is). But no cigar. He is still right guy in the right place for $$$, but for 99% he is not a good photog.

You have to be kidding me right? He's had longevity (50+ years of being exhibited in major galleries and many, many books by great publishers) while reinventing himself several times... you can say you don't like his work, but you can't say he is not a good photographer.

https://www.joelmeyerowitz.com

 

[Mos6502]

Absolutely, although the improvements at this point are for the most part incremental. My point is that while it makes for technically better pictures in situations that can take advantage of these improvements, not all situations lend themselves to being able to take advantage of these improvements. And yet film photographers who had no IBIS, no autofocus (and, often, limited accuracy in the manual focus department)and greater quality loss at high ISO managed to take brilliant photographs. There are many pictures that benefit from the improved image quality of today’s digitals. But there are probably more that benefit from perception, timing, a “vision” if you want the cliche, along with hard work and ruthless self editing. That’s kind of obvious, but I still see an overemphasis on evaluating technical image quality in looking at both cameras and photographs on the web rather than say handling and viewing or the beauty of a moment.

It's simple really. At the most fundamental level, the first thing all good photographs have to be is interesting. There is nothing interesting in sharpness for sharpness sake. There is nothing interesting in detail for detail's sake. Photographers get hung up on technical details, or more bluntly, quantities, because that's what marketing tells them to get hung up on. If it can be quantified, it can be marketed. Our numbers are better than our competitors numbers, etc. But unless you're doing something that requires scientific accuracy, all these quantities are more or less beside the point.

I think I might point out Atget as a photographer whose work is very interesting, despite its technical deficiencies. His equipment was out of date even at the time he was making photos, and you'll often see vignetting and other issues in his photos. But his compositions, eye for details, etc. are exquisite. I'm sure there is somebody out there obsessing over what sort of lens and camera Atget used, but I think most of us will appreciate the work without thinking too much about that, or considering if we'd make photos as good if only we used the same! (or thinking his photos would be even better if he had the latest whatever available to us)