Alan Chan wrote:
>
> Glad to know that I am not alone on the list. As a chinese who have the
> chance to read both English and Japanese magazines, I have found the printed
> photos were very different. In Japanese photo magazines, there is always the
> "smoothness" quality which is rare in US and UK magazines. I think that's
> when I started to notice the difference and refined "quality". Especially
> the one called "Photo Technic".
On the Leica lists they are, of course, extolling the virtues of
Leica lenses, and talk of their superior imaging quality. Yet, if
one were to look at certain lens tests, some Pentax lenses outshine
some Leica lenses. But those are just tests, and the final
photograph is made up of a variety of factors. Resolution,
sharpness, contrast, light fall off, bokeh, and other
characteristics all contribute to what the final photograph will
look like, as will the film used, how it's exposed, the developer
and developing technique used, and so on, all the way through the
enlarging and printing process, or the projection process if one is
using slides.
So, when one reads the results of a lens test, might it not be a
prudent idea to find look into what the entire process involved and
what materials were used to obtain the final result, and then see
how that compares with your use, needs, and expectations? It's also
my understanding that some lens tests are just done on a machine of
some sort, and camera, film, or prints are actually made. If that's
the case, what meaning do those tests have to any real world
photographic experience? Yet people read those results and, if the
numbers look good, it's concluded that this lens is best, or that
another lens is of poorer quality.
I take pictures of people. I want to know if the lens i choose is
going to give me the results I want, which may, however, be
different than the results someone else wants, even though we may be
shooting the same subject matter, and, perhaps, even the same
subject. For example, there is the often debated issue of lenses
used for portraits. Some say a lens can be too sharp for portraits,
and prefer "softer" optics. Others prefer a lens with less
resolving power and which hides or softens certain details. Which
is the better lens for a portrait - the sharp one or the soft one?
And does someone like Mark Cassino, who takes close up shots of
insects give a fig about the qualities of a given lens for portraits
when he wants to use it for close ups?
The good photographer will understand what he or she wants as a
final result, and choose an appropriate lens, or the one that can
best do the job required. Some of us on this list are fortunate to
have a wide variety of lenses, often several of a particular focal
length. So, while an A*85/1.4 may offer superb sharpness and
contrast, and wonderful bokeh, this photographer may opt for a
different 85mm lens for a particular shot, one that offers different
characteristics, and which may be, according to some test results,
optically inferior, yet which will be a better choice for the
subject and situation.
When shooting B&W I am not concerned with how warm or cool the color
rendition of a lens is. When shooting certain subjects at a certain
distance I may be more concerned with bokeh than with sharpness,
while when shooting even the same subject, but from a different
perspective, sharpness may be more important than other
characteristics.
I recall an article I read about a year ago in which the contrast of
a certain view camera lens was discussed. Photos were used to
exemplify the article. It turned out that this particular lens was
an older one, perhaps not well coated, or of an older optical
design. When used with a particular film the photograph looked flat
and washed out, but when used with a different film the photo was
vibrant and alive, with nicely saturated colors and decent
contrast. The photographer liked that old inferior lens because it
allowed certain results, results that he could not get with newer,
better quality optics.
So, let's not put so much importance on lens tests. Let's pay more
attention to what the final photo looks like, and if it satisfies
the shooter.
---
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
