Have the standards changed?

[Tullio]

Although I've seen impressive pictures taken with some of those old MF vintage lenses, I've also seen some very poor results, images that if taken with a regular P&S would be considered unacceptable, the photographer would be considered mediocre and the camera would most likely receive real poor reviews. However, those images seem to be totally acceptable here and in other m4/3 forums. So, what gives? Are these pictures with very poor IQ considered OK (or even a piece of art) because people understand and realize the challenges involved in shooting with old glass and consequently end up giving more credit than they deserve or have people's photographic tastes changed as a result of this new world that opened up with this great m4/3 format or perhaps a combination of the two? Just wondering!

 

[Vivek]

Not sure which images you consider "impressive" and which ones "poor". It all depends on your outlook.

Have you seen images taken with collimating lenses such as the Rodenstock Heligon 50/0.75 or pinholes on CaNikons?

Is there a set of rules that documents the said "standards"?

 

[Kewk]

Could be a couple of things.

Firstly, old lens are worse in a lot of ways when compared to modern glass, but they do offer some unique qualities. For example prefer the "look" of the old Summitar common to the modern, super sharp, Summicron 50mm. I wouldn't call the IQ poor but you might depending on what you want out of a lens.

Secondly, I generally don't comment on lousy pictures unless the photographer directly asks for criticism. I think a lot of people feel the same way so positive feedback is more common than negative. Nobody likes to have their new lens dumped on.

 

[Bob]

Tullio,
There are lots of issues that you raise, but lets just pick on glass for a moment.

Frankly, the film emulsions of old were not very demanding of lenses. Film has problems of its own, emulsion thickness (causing diffusion), granulation, haliation and so forth.
Lens coatings used not to be that good either. Many of the older lenses with several elements used to need to print on a grade harder paper to compensate for the veiling flare.

Digital is much more demanding, every nuance of lens performance subject to nyquist sampling limitations are now visible, and as for curvature of field, well film's three dimensional structure was more forgiving, digital's almost completely planar sensitive surface converts what used to be gradual sharpness fall-off into something much more exaggerated.

New lenses are a lot better technically. Some has to do with glass, but more due to superior coatings and better lens design software and cheap processing horsepower to run it with.

OTOH, much of the charm of the older glass was precisely in how it renders its aberrations. The (ahem, flame throwers down gentlemen) "Mandler glow" was not due to "high technical quality" it is due to well balanced aberrations. Our lenses today are much sharper, have flatter fields, and lower aberrations which sometimes we trade-off for the convenience of zooms.

So, in short, old glass makes images on digital sensors without crisp and pure clinical rendition, but can give us instead some of the "character" called for in certain images.
-bob

 

[Tullio]

Not sure which images you consider "impressive" and which ones "poor". ...

After I wrote my post, I realized that this question would be asked. In the end, it's all a matter of personal taste and I certainly realize that. So, when a camera is reviewed, there are a number of things the reviewers take into consideration in terms of IQ and certain standards they have put in place based on people's expectations in order to rate them. Otherwise, there would be no need for anyone to review anything since in the end it would all be up to personal preference, which can vary considerably from person to person. With that in mind, what I mean by impressive can be translated to good sharpness, color rendition, great resolution with lots of details, nice bokeh, things like that. When I look at a particular picture (and this is just me), I try to take many things into account before I say to myself "this is real good" or "this is good" or " what a piece of j***" or anything else in between. Sometimes the image may not look very sharp but I think one can tell (or suspect) that the photographer meant it to be like that. Other times, it seems obvious that the IQ is not good because the lens is poor. I believe we all make that determination in our heads before we give thumbs up/down.

 

[Jack]

I think another aspect is the smaller cameras have allowed or encouraged more new, less experienced shooters to participate. In the end, this is a very good thing, but then we have a more diverse selection of images to view...

You have me thinking that in addition to the PaD (Picture a Day) series that have become so popular, some of us should consider a BoW (Best of Week) series to post...

 

[Tullio]

...
Secondly, I generally don't comment on lousy pictures unless the photographer directly asks for criticism. I think a lot of people feel the same way so positive feedback is more common than negative. Nobody likes to have their new lens dumped on.

I agree and in a way I do the same. I don't necessarily think that when people don't comment is because the image is mediocre but perhaps it's simply because it's nothing out of the ordinary, which is perfectly fine. Some people like to post anything and everything, some others are more selective while others are in the middle. I think we (photography lovers) to a certain extent have to adjust (or tweak for lack of a better word) our photographic taste as time goes by because standards change. Centuries ago, artists portrait women as being voluptuous. Today, slim is it. I'm trying to understand how the world of photography is changing so I can fine tune my points of view.

 

[Tullio]

...
You have me thinking that in addition to the PaD (Picture a Day) series that have become so popular, some of us should consider a BoW (Best of Week) series to post...

These exercises certainly encourage creativity. Many days I have no chance to step outside the house as I'm buried with work. As a result, going around the neighborhood to look for interesting subjects to photograph is not an option. I find that there are plenty of stuff in my house (inside and out) I can take pictures of. The trick is to make them look interesting.

 

[Vivek]

Yes, changing of times.

For a long time, Imogen Cunnigham was the standard (in most circles, I should add)for some types of photography.

While may be unprecedented and captivating (depending on the time and perspective), some did not even get the recognition they might have deserved.

Snow flakes?

For e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473771.stm

 

[kevinparis]

From my own personal viewpoint, as someone who takes photos for a personal artistic pleasure, is that quality of image is more important than image quality.

By this I mean that the content of the picture - its subject matter, its composition, the story it tells or conveys supercedes any technical aspects of the picture.

If people are looking at photos and only judging terms in terms of sharpness/CA/bokeh or indeed what camera they were taken on, then the photo has fundementally failed.

I accept that there are situations where these technically aspects become important - but these are more in the realm of scientific/technical type photography - not in artistic photography.

go back and look at some of the photos from the past that have lasted and remain powerful, from people like cartier Bresson, Tim Page, willy ronis or whatever... I am sure many of them wouldn't pass the stringent standards of image quality that seems to be todays gold standards

just my thoughts

K

 

[Tullio]

...
OTOH, much of the charm of the older glass was precisely in how it renders its aberrations. The (ahem, flame throwers down gentlemen) "Mandler glow" was not due to "high technical quality" it is due to well balanced aberrations. Our lenses today are much sharper, have flatter fields, and lower aberrations which sometimes we trade-off for the convenience of zooms.

So, in short, old glass makes images on digital sensors without crisp and pure clinical rendition, but can give us instead some of the "character" called for in certain images.
-bob

Bob, another question in my mind is, are we now experimenting with all those old glasses because comparatively speaking they are "cheap"? I've spent a good chunk of money on reasonably cheap old lenses (macro and 135mm particularly) only to be disgusted with the results. Some lenses I come across on eBay I have never ever heard of (not that I'm an expert on old lenses or anything but when I do a Google search on them, a lot of times I get no results, so I have a hard time believing they were that popular to begin with). Their low prices are certainly an incentive for one to try them out. But, when you spend $30 here, $70 there, another $95 elsewhere, and the results you get from those lenses are somewhat on the poor side, then it starts to bother me.

 

[Bob]

Bob, another question in my mind is, are we now experimenting with all those old glasses because comparatively speaking they are "cheap"? I've spent a good chunk of money on reasonably cheap old lenses (macro and 135mm particularly) only to be disgusted with the results. Some lenses I come across on eBay I have never ever heard of (not that I'm an expert on old lenses or anything but when I do a Google search on them, a lot of times I get no results, so I have a hard time believing they were that popular to begin with). Their low prices are certainly an incentive for one to try them out. But, when you spend $30 here, $70 there, another $95 elsewhere, and the results you get from those lenses are somewhat on the poor side, then it starts to bother me.

There might be a reason they are so cheap.
The lenses with great character that have been "discovered" often demand higher prices.
-bob

 

[Tullio]

...
By this I mean that the content of the picture - its subject matter, its composition, the story it tells or conveys supercedes any technical aspects of the picture.

If people are looking at photos and only judging terms in terms of sharpness/CA/bokeh or indeed what camera they were taken on, then the photo has fundementally failed....

I agree to a certain extent. Art photography is one thing and it has its place and time. However, it's not for everyone. It's art and as such, it's subject to interpretation and personal taste. I can see a photographer setting the camera to ISO 6400 just to obtain the grain and lack of definition produced by the camera (assuming the camera does not handle ISO 6400 that well, of course), or using a particular lens that is known for its softness in order to obtain a gentle look. The thing is, in general, people like their family photos, landscape/architecture photos taken while on vacation to be sharp, colorful, well exposed and all that and for that, the camera/lens being used will play a bigger role than the photographer's techniques and skills.

 

[monza]

I agree with Kevin.

The quality of a photograph has zero to do with the technical abilities of the camera that took it.

Great photographs can be taken with obsolete, outdated equipment, and poor photographs can be taken with the latest state of the art camera.

 

[Tullio]

There might be a reason they are so cheap.
The lenses with great character that have been "discovered" often demand higher prices.
-bob

Yes, they do but still, comparatively speaking (and I'm referring to some of the new good digital lenses), they are "cheap". Of course there are some old lenses out there going for thousands of dollars but those are not for everyone and not the ones I'm referring to.

 

[Tullio]

...
The quality of a photograph has zero to do with the technical abilities of the camera that took it.

That is very subjective. Not everybody is a skilled photographer and for those people, the camera is it. And let's face it, that includes a huge percentage of the population. I've met many people who bought DSLRs thinking that they were much better and the IQ they produced would surpass any P&S, only to find themselves frustrated and disappointed with the results because the learning curve was much steeper than they first anticipated. In the end, they sold their gear and switch to a good P&S. Now they are happy. Does that count for anything? I certainly think so.

 

[monza]

Well of course, not everyone is a skilled painter, or musician, either. No amount of changing brushes or oils or guitar brand is going to make a difference...

What's subjective is what an individual prefers. One person's admirable photograph may be another person's reject...this is independent of the equipment.

 

[kevinparis]

Think almost every cameras out there today is capable of taking clear sharp colourful well exposed pictures - probably better than the majority of cameras available 10 years ago and certainly 15 years ago - if you have any go look back at the snap shots taken with 110, disc cameras, APS, or even consumer 35mm film cameras. Think you might find that anything with more than a couple of megapixels blows them away.

The fact that you are even trying other lenses indicates that you are trying to add something to your pictures - you have progressed from snapshooter to photographer. Being artistic/creative doesn't mean you are producing "Art" per se, but just going the step beyond blindly capturing whats in front of you

A different camera doesn't make you a better photographer... just gives you a different palette to play with - cameras don't take photographs, people do

all just my opinions - no offence intended

K

I agree to a certain extent. Art photography is one thing and it has its place and time. However, it's not for everyone. It's art and as such, it's subject to interpretation and personal taste. I can see a photographer setting the camera to ISO 6400 just to obtain the grain and lack of definition produced by the camera (assuming the camera does not handle ISO 6400 that well, of course), or using a particular lens that is known for its softness in order to obtain a gentle look. The thing is, in general, people like their family photos, landscape/architecture photos taken while on vacation to be sharp, colorful, well exposed and all that and for that, the camera/lens being used will play a bigger role than the photographer's techniques and skills.

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

tools are used to frame (shape) aesthetics ... artists are not critics, critics are not artists, and curators are neither...







Hudson

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

One person's admirable photograph may be another person's reject...

I totally agree, Robert, and it is what happened to me when I started a "bokeh" thread in another (general) photography forum.
I got some reactions in the sense that my pics would have been their "non-keepers" for images that were applauded to in the "bokeh" thread here

Go understand ...

But then, apart from the blatantly evident technical errors (and even those can look very nice), photography is a very personal thing.

C U
Rafael