The lack of 3D information in modern corrected lenses?

[mdarnton]

People who can't perceive the difference in things are always very highly interested in discrediting the viewpoint of those who do. It's always been that way. That's why I haven't followed this thread--I knew from the first question that it would be a festival for blind photographers to grind their sad axes.

 

[jsrockit]

In fifty years I've only seen one or two lenses so bad I couldn't make the image I was after.

Ain't that the truth...

 

[willie_901]

Finally read this article. It's a bunch of hooey. The examples shown don't demonstrate anything.

I love modern lenses for their accuracy, resolution, lack of flare and CA, and their clean imaging properties. I've not seen a modern lens yet that made my images seem flat due to its design—only things that cause that are my poor rendering work or assessment of the light.

I love older lenses for their aberrations and peculiarities that produce pleasing results I find difficult to obtain in rendering. Aesthetically pleasing imperfections, if you will. They're just as likely to cause flat appearance with poor lighting or bad rendering as the modern lenses. The aberrations and flaws often mask it, but it's really no different. They can't achieve in a technical sense what the modern lenses can, no matter what I do, but they can make very pleasing photographs nonetheless.

G

A great summary for this thread.

 

[willie_901]

Please show me the 3D pop of a brick wall taken straight on.

Well with a brick with a textured surface lit skillfully from the side could have lots of "pop". I'm not so sure about the 3D part though. However not even an old lens in could induce pop with a brick that has a smooth, dull surface.

 

[willie_901]

I get a kick out of the guys that shot tech pan in their 35's trying to make it look like 4x5. As an exercise I guess it's ok but practically why not just use a 4x5 or even medium format. At least with LF those of us into vintage Petzval lenses and soft focus we're going back to the roots of LF.

A 4 X 5 camera is expensive, heavy and inconvenient. Then there are the lenses to deal with (finding, buying, carrying them around).

However I agree with you completely about MF. Subjectively I consider MF is the sweet spot for analog media.

 

[jsrockit]

People who can't perceive the difference in things are always very highly interested in discrediting the viewpoint of those who do. It's always been that way.

I'm not so sure it is about not seeing any difference... it's just that maybe many of us might think our energy is better spent elsewhere (like content and framing) than in lens characteristics. Don't get me wrong, I have some lenses that I swear have a little magic (Nikon 58mm 1.4g is a favorite). However, I just find many lenses are pretty good (not that many stinkers out there, especially in modern lenses) and won't inhibit me from getting a great shot if I'm lucky to do so.

 

[x-ray]

People who can't perceive the difference in things are always very highly interested in discrediting the viewpoint of those who do. It's always been that way. That's why I haven't followed this thread--I knew from the first question that it would be a festival for blind photographers to grind their sad axes.

I must be blind but I've had a pretty good career as a blind photographer and artist. Much of the nearly 50 years of my professional editorial work has been for magazines including Esquire and Life. My commercial clients have been some of the largest Fortune 500 corporations and my art is in several museums as well as corporate and private collections. The fact is that the myth and magic make no difference in the end as far as my work goes. It's all about content.

Roger I actually knew Ansel in the mid 70's and spent quite a few hours in the darkroom with him. I was incredably fortunate to get to know him and view his negatives and portfolios and discuss them with him. Ansel did produce a series of murals and a few very large prints on the order of 6 feet but the vast majority of prints were from 8x10 to 20x24 inches.ost early images were either 4x5 or 8x10 negs and later images were shot with his Hasselblads. The 6x6 was due to arthritis in his hands. I certainly wouldn't call these grotesque enlargements. Angels large prints were just as fine as his smaller prints too.

Clients often request large prints to fill a particular space. Last year I did a commissioned piece for Emory University Hospital in Atlanta that was 6x10 feet from an 8x10 neg. Two years before I did four 50 and 60 inch prints for the Marina Bay Sands Casino in Singapore. These too were from 8x10. I'd hardly call either grotesque enlargements.

 

[Corran]

A 4 X 5 camera is expensive, heavy and inconvenient. Then there are the lenses to deal with (finding, buying, carrying them around).

Not to derail anything but I have to comment whenever I see this hilariously wrong statement.

My ultra-light kit for hiking is a Chamonix 4x5 and 90mm Angulon, which weighs about the same as any of my 35mm cameras and a lens. Add an extra lens or two and usually the 4x5 wins in the weight category. Compared to my Pentax 67 kit, the 4x5 is half the weight A decent starter camera + lens can be had for under $300.

Film is of course more expensive 😀.

 

[x-ray]

Not to derail anything but I have to comment whenever I see this hilariously wrong statement.

My ultra-light kit for hiking is a Chamonix 4x5 and 90mm Angulon, which weighs about the same as any of my 35mm cameras and a lens. Add an extra lens or two and usually the 4x5 wins in the weight category. Compared to my Pentax 67 kit, the 4x5 is half the weight A decent starter camera + lens can be had for under $300.

Film is of course more expensive 😀.

I agree there are quite a few excellent field cameras that weight very little and lenses can be had for a song now. It's easy to find a 90 super Angulon under $200 in excellent shape and a 150 and 210 for about the same. For the cost of one new leica lens you can have quite a 4x5 system or even 8x10 for that matter.

A couple of Grafmatic holders and carbon fiber tripod and you're in business.

As to my other comments earlier I'm not trying to offend anyone. It's my opinion and observation.

 

[Godfrey]

If I'm going to go LF again (haven't for many years), I'll do 8x10 and Impossible Project instant film. It all fits in my rollaway camera case except for the tripod .. Just a bit of a startup investment hurdle .. But it would be worth it! 🙂

G

 

[wolves3012]

People who can't perceive the difference in things are always very highly interested in discrediting the viewpoint of those who do. It's always been that way. That's why I haven't followed this thread--I knew from the first question that it would be a festival for blind photographers to grind their sad axes.

The reverse situation also often occurs. People who have invested in expensive gear (not only in photography) often defend it by saying that they are able to tell the difference, even where science can show that isn't possible. When their superiority is challenged they don't like it, usually resorting to using fluffy terms, pseudoscience, mysticism and the like.

At the end of the day, photography is generally either a record or artistic. No amount of gear expense makes one an artist, whilst recording things also (usually) needs no uber-exotoc gear. It's nice to have and, if you can afford it, why not? Just let's not pretend that possession confers superiority and superhuman senses. Possession only says that you have the means and desire to acquire it.

 

[photomoof]

People who can't perceive the difference in things are always very highly interested in discrediting the viewpoint of those who do. It's always been that way. That's why I haven't followed this thread--I knew from the first question that it would be a festival for blind photographers to grind their sad axes.

Well sure, I have read online, for 25 years, that I am an idiot to waste my money on Macintosh computers, since there is no difference between them and a cheap Dell.

But this is a thread about the "science" and the "examples" in the article linked by the OP.

Anyone who is only marginally awake, knows artists and photographers have been dealing with the concept of creating a 3D representation since Giotto and Duccio began to painting in the 14th century.

Personally I just hate the concept of referring to Giotto as having "3D Pop," it is just so darned Kardashian. 😎

 

[Pete B]

Angels large prints were just as fine as his smaller prints too.

You must have been close 😉
Pete

 

[goamules]

I shoot a lot of Large Format, monthly. From 4x5, wholeplate, 8x10, and even 18x20. There is a time and place for it. Movements, resolution, tone, all that stuff. A little 35mm gives you none of that (and certainly no magical, "3D") except "being light". If a postage stamp negative enlarged to 5x7 looks "great", you should see what an 8x10 negative looks like, printed contact, with no enlargement.

Yes, large format is heavy. Curtis, Steiglitz, Struss, Adams, and all the others learned to deal with it, before there were 35mm "mini cameras." Some of us still do.

Here is one of my largest cameras, and a fairly large lens (I have larger). Note the little camera in the background under the photos? That's a 7x11.

 

[photomoof]

There is no question that 8x10 film produces amazing results. Here some photos from the studio of perhaps my favorite photographer/artist, Thomas Demand.

http://yoshimakino.us/thomas-demand-studio/

Recent book, "The Dailies:" http://mackbooks.co.uk/books/1084-The-Dailies.htmll

 

[x-ray]

If I'm going to go LF again (haven't for many years), I'll do 8x10 and Impossible Project instant film. It all fits in my rollaway camera case except for the tripod .. Just a bit of a startup investment hurdle .. But it would be worth it! 🙂

G

Sounds like you've shot 8x10 before so you know what a pleasure it is to work with. I still have my 8x10 Deardorff and still shoot it. Actually last week I had an assignment that I shot on film. I was for an automotive equipment maker and 8 images will be printed 96x150 inches. I decided to shoot 4x5 due to budget but if budget hadn't been limited i would have shot 8x10. I hadn't shot film on a job in about 6 or 7 years and it was such a joy to do again.

Enjoy shooting your 8x10. There not much prettier than an 8x10 contact or transparency.


Garrett, That's a beauty of a camera and lens. I know you'll put them to good use. I follow you on the LF forum and you do some lovely work.

 

[goamules]

Thanks. I love LF, and the older 35mms too!

 

[goamules]

These type of threads go on forever when there are no clear answers, or scientific comparisons. "you just gotta have faith..." It's like arguing about "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

[Godfrey]

It's been thirty years since I had the 8x10, but I enjoyed it when I was doing it. 🙂

G

Sounds like you've shot 8x10 before so you know what a pleasure it is to work with. I still have my 8x10 Deardorff and still shoot it. Actually last week I had an assignment that I shot on film. I was for an automotive equipment maker and 8 images will be printed 96x150 inches. I decided to shoot 4x5 due to budget but if budget hadn't been limited i would have shot 8x10. I hadn't shot film on a job in about 6 or 7 years and it was such a joy to do again.

Enjoy shooting your 8x10. There not much prettier than an 8x10 contact or transparency.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Okay, I read this up to here.....

Okay, I read this up to here.....

My take is that a lens, or combination thereof, that mimics the aberrations of a single multi-form jell lens, gives the greatest 3D
illusion.

The End.