Have the standards changed?

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Tullio,
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

Well put. And there are even some legacy lenses that render images with character which are also rather sharp and crisp.
Not all of my dearest photographs are made with those crisp and clinical (kit)zooms, but when you need that they are great.

I would never be able to get some of the results, I meet with old lenses, with one of the perfect lenses of nowaydays. Furthermore some people like to investigate the charms and quality these older lenses can have. It is just a matter of taste and interest.
If I look through some pictures in my library with just the simple subject flower I see some nice and perfectly sharp, colourful and with a nicely blurred background shots with the Olympus SWD 12-60 lens but I prefer to look at a picture I took with a € 5 Aus Jena 50/2.8 lens. How can that be?
May be because perfection is boring and leaves no room for coincidence, which is of main importance for photography. Serendipity one could say; create the best conditions to meet unique coincidence. Besides place and subject, one of those conditions can be an older lens.
Of course this doesn't work if you run into something in action and you need to react fast. Then you wish you had a fast kitzoom. Solution; 2 cameras.

Art is actually very democratic in the sense that everybody can and has an opinion about it even if one knows nothing about it. And that will remain so, I quess.

Some people post a lot of pictures and some post a lot of opinions and some do both and that results in a sort of automatic hierarchy of authority in forums which can be irritating but are just natural.
It all adds to our knowledge, so that's good.

Michiel

 

[lattiboy]

To add to this, I've experimented with a good deal of legacy glass and been overall astonished with the quality. Specifically old Olympus glass (especially the 85mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4) and Contax/Zeiss stuff (the 45/2 has become kind of legendary around here for the sharpness)

I'm now using Konica glass because it's so incredibly cheap and a few specific lenses (the 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2) are close to the Zeiss stuff w/r/t sharpness and have lovely OOF rendition and color.

 

[Kewk]

By the way, this thread reminded me of my grandfathers slide slow. He had very low standards for what made it in the slide show we had to watch every Christmas.

He'd have 12 pictures in a row of the same fish with only three in focus, then one of his shoes he took by accident, then one of the sky, then back to the fish this time upside down, then one half picture from the end of the slide roll... If Kodak sent him 36 slides, he put all 36 into the carousel.

So compared to my childhood slide shows, standards are way up, though I really miss them.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Although I've seen impressive pictures taken with some of those old MF vintage lenses,

sure ... I have a Bessa RF and a Bessa I 6x9 120 roll film camera which I use too. Its impressive just how much advantage you can get from that many acres of film (compared to the 18x13.5mm of 4/3).

To put that into perspective and remembering that 4/3 is about 1/4 the dimensions of 35mm, this is 35mm overlaid 6x9

its like bringing an uzzi along to a fight with an artillery piece.

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!

or is it because you don't get to see them well handled in the digital domain?

for instance, some time ago I was doing somelens tests and found that the Bessa seemed to suck I discovered that its only an effect of how we test.

Taking a boring out the window shot like this with my Bessa

and with a 10D

which is actually not as wide as the Bessa lens was, so should have an advantage ... but then getting to the details:
Bessa 6x9

10D

both are 100% segments (and the Bessa was only scaned on a flatbed scanner) the 10D suddenly looks 'lacking'


try reading this blog post too, might surprise you.

The Bessa does ok for "portraits" too

if you're doing enlargements to x10 (that's roughly 90cm on the long axis) the smoothness of tonality in black and white will surprise you.

 

[photoSmart42]

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!

I guess I'm not sure what the point of this thread is other than to express a dislike for some photos people have posted on this forum. Here's a couple of points that come to mind:

1. There is a big difference between a photograph and a picture. You deliberately compose a photograph, whereas you snap a picture (and for the most part hope you get kinda what you wanted). Both have their merits. As long as the photographer who holds the camera gets what they intended to get, it's a valid expression of their art and of their unique point of view.

2. To that end, lens IQ (I guess as defined here as sharpness, contrast, MTF, etc., etc.) may or may not play a part in the end result. A cheap lens that has a certain character may be exactly the effect the photographer wanted to express. Lenses are tools of the trade, and if one understands the limitations of the lenses they have in their bag, then one can use those limitations as an advantage in getting the right effect.

3. Sometimes cheap lenses with poor IQ is all that people can afford to purchase, especially in this economy. At least they're out there making an effort to learn the craft, and posting on forums like this is a great way to elicit feedback so you get better. The beauty of the m4/3 format cameras is that it allows that sort of experimentation with non-name brand lenses and gear for cheap, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise that people would go out and buy cheap lenses with 'poor' IQ since that's a major selling point for the system.

4. I don't think I accepted any terms and conditions when I signed up for this forum and others that I will only post 'good' photos, and I'm certain others who post here regularly haven't either, so what gives? If you think a posted photo deserves some constructive feedback, then offer it. I'm sure most people here would be OK with that if it comes from a place of trying to help and not one where you're simply trying to be mean and condescending.

So what is this thread really about?

-Dragos

 

[pellicle]

So what is this thread really about?

-Dragos

no idea ... but when did that ever stop anyone here before?

 

[Diane B]

I also see photos by well regarded photographers that many people (probably the average viewer) would find just totally without merit. They were composed, particular lens chosen, processing technique done extremely well--and some just won't get them at all. That's okay--personally I'm a process person--not caring much about recording something as the person next to me could probably do as well (though I certainly do that kind of photography also) but wanting to inject some of myself into what I shoot--or at least ultimately put into my galleries or print. So I like to see how someone else sees a subject or landscape, etc. and try to be open minded about it (not implying others don't also) and consider what the goal was. Sometimes its just trying different lenses to see how they can be used to express oneself.

Edit: I did want to add, when traveling, one often does want to record what one sees--but perhaps put their own perspective on it--as using a very wide angle lens or a lens that can selectively isolate the subject--and on and on.

Diane

 

[Robert Campbell]

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

Apparently, some of C-B's images are indeed technically poor, while those of Ansel Adams ain't -- but then they were doing very different things...

 

[apicius9]

Interesting dicussion. If you don't mind a comment from a personal perspective:

While old enough to have more experience, my interest has changed from 'taking pictures' to 'photography' with the appearance of the m4/3 system. For me, it is totally fascinating to use 80 year old movie lenses on a modern digital camera, and I have fun sharing these pictures. But I have to say that of all the forums (and I only look at a few that have a m4/3 section) getdpi is already the most intimidating one with regards to posting pictures because there are so many talented people posting here, including professionalls who have been doing this for a while - and who will have seen many things and used many lenses before which are a new world to me as a beginner. So, I am sure I am contributing to lowering the standard through posting technically questionable pictures with old lenses, taken with a meagre and just developing skill set. Personally, I would love to learn through constructve feedback and I know that there is almost endless room to improve. I would also find it discouraging to expect all pictures posted to conform to a 'standard' - however defined - that is hard to achieve for someone who just gets started with this.

So, in addition to Jack's suggestion of a best of the week, I think something like a 'beginners' section' where people can explicitly post to get constructive feedback would be a great idea - if that works with the structure of the forum.

Stefan

 

[Tullio]

I guess I'm not sure what the point of this thread is other than to express a dislike for some photos people have posted on this forum. ...

No, not at all...you totally misinterpreted my post. As I mentioned previously, if I really dislike something, I don't go and bash. I ignore. I find no reason to be rude or obnoxious (specially considering that I'm no expert and am not in the position to tell anyone that his/her work sucks). I'm simply trying to have a feel for what's going on as far as how IQ is being perceived these days. If you search some of the popular photography forums going back 3+ years, you'll see that images that today might get an applause, back then were heavily criticized. Until not too long ago, high ISO noise was a big no-no. One can find thousands of posts discussing camera's abilities to control high ISO noise. Today, Olympus offers an Art filter that produces noisy images (just as noisy or even noisier than some old images produced by old cameras at ISO 800 when that was the highest ISO one could get) and that's considered cool! The same applies to many of the old glass being used on m4/3. So, what I'm really after is to having a feel for how we perceive IQ today. Art evolves just like anything else.

 

[pellicule]

I think that getdpi attracts the best folks on the net. You should not feel intimidated, there are all sorts of threads following different topics.
When you see something interesting then post, I think posting within the context of the thread will be more rewarding/relevant, and of course you can always start your own.

Interesting dicussion. If you don't mind a comment from a personal perspective:

While old enough to have more experience, my interest has changed from 'taking pictures' to 'photography' with the appearance of the m4/3 system. For me, it is totally fascinating to use 80 year old movie lenses on a modern digital camera, and I have fun sharing these pictures. But I have to say that of all the forums (and I only look at a few that have a m4/3 section) getdpi is already the most intimidating one with regards to posting pictures because there are so many talented people posting here, including professionalls who have been doing this for a while - and who will have seen many things and used many lenses before which are a new world to me as a beginner. So, I am sure I am contributing to lowering the standard through posting technically questionable pictures with old lenses, taken with a meagre and just developing skill set. Personally, I would love to learn through constructve feedback and I know that there is almost endless room to improve. I would also find it discouraging to expect all pictures posted to conform to a 'standard' - however defined - that is hard to achieve for someone who just gets started with this.

So, in addition to Jack's suggestion of a best of the week, I think something like a 'beginners' section' where people can explicitly post to get constructive feedback would be a great idea - if that works with the structure of the forum.

Stefan

 

[photoSmart42]

No, not at all...you totally misinterpreted my post.

Fair enough. Your post read more negatively than it was intended =).

If the concept of good IQ is changing, I think it may be a reflection on a trend of going back to the good ole' days that I've noticed not just with photography, but in other areas as well. That's not such a bad thing IMO. There's something to be said about the character of old (I'm going to try my hand at 4x5 view cameras soon for that reason). This new camera format simply allows such a conversation to happen, and as a result folks are re-discovering that old character in a new digital format. If you want uber-sharpness, you can always get an expensive Leica or Zeiss lens. If you want some character that's unusual, you can get it with a $50 CCTV or cine lens (well you used to anyway). The stuff in between becomes a question of judgment and personal preference.

 

[Vivek]

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

Hudson

I have no idea who Hudson is and I only know him through his posts with hiccups but there are a lot of similarities in our thinking.

Tullio started out with a very good opening post which denigrated (IMHO) into yet another discussion about tools (well, Tullio was trying to muddy the waters- so to speak- by going on about $10 lenses vs something else).

I think it is a personal journey that one has to figure for themselves. Sure you can have friends, mentors, fora, etc that may help you along. But, just as camera and lenses, they also ultimately become tools (no way meant in anything remotely negative).

 

[Tullio]

Fair enough. Your post read more negatively than it was intended =).

I guess I need to choose my words better. However, the title of my post suggests a possible "change" in the standards and not that the standards are going down due to poor quality images.

Anyway, I agree with your comments this time. The format has opened up the doors to a new world of experimentation. A great number of old vintage lenses were collecting dust somewhere in someone's attic. Today, they are being revived, sold on eBay (and prices keep going up and up).

 

[sonomichele]

It has certainly become much easier to be technically critical than it was some years ago. You might have had a few prints in your hand to compare, but now with images downloadable on the 'net we can all poke at them at 100 or 200% and see all the flaws. It makes it so much easier to perseverate about the details rather than the art.

 

[vlatko]

It has certainly become much easier to be technically critical than it was some years ago. You might have had a few prints in your hand to compare, but now with images downloadable on the 'net we can all poke at them at 100 or 200% and see all the flaws. It makes it so much easier to perseverate about the details rather than the art.

Bingo!

Add to that the fact that it's much easier to market a camera that has clean high ISO than a camera that gives you terrific highlight roll-off and the fact that it's much easier to review the first over the second.

Add also the fact that forums tend to attract technically inclined nitpickers who really don't know much about photography because it's easier to be critical about the sharpness and the absence/presence of noise than about the photo itself.

Then you get an atmosphere where it looks like the technical details of the camera and the lens are everything. They are not. Far from it.

 

[spiderfrank]

Vlatko for president !!!