The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Mild Rant - What the $%&^ Does "Lens is Too Clinical" Mean?

fotografz

Well-known member
'Clinical' does mean something and can be ascribed to some lenses. It simply means 'well corrected'. I am no optics expert, but in such a lens there is unlikely to be much by way of uncorrected spherical aberrations, which are responsible for 'glowy' lenses and I also understand can be associated with very pleasing out of focus areas. It may also mean vignetting is well corrected, limited CA and that resolution is very high across the field, with uniformly high contrast.

If you think though the above, it explains why a Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 produces a look that is very different to a pre-asph leica 50mm Summilux.... or a Canon 50mm f1.2L.

In subjective terms, I tend to associate very well corrected lenses with 'clinical', because they produce results that are very clean looking... resolution is darned good everywhere, as is macro and microcontrast, there is unlikely to be much tendency towards flare, colour is rich... all from fairly wide open. The result is a look that suits some subjects but may not be desirable for others. I think most people would agree that most people (most of the time) probably want a 'clinical' lens for urban architectural work (tho by no means all the time), whereas for female portraits, a less agressive look is often desirable, with a fall off in resolution at the periphery, a tiny bit of glow wide open etc. Clinical lenses can look rather like a scientific scan of the subject and provide too much information in too perfect a manner.

Personally, I feel some lenses are becoming too perfect and shots from the super high resolution 90mm Sony G for the FE mount is a good example. Detail and microncontrast are on steroids. There is no grace to the image. Yes, you can inject these things during PP, but the more perfect a lens is the harder it can be to produce finished images that lack the inherent aggressiveness in the lens.

So in summary, I don't think it is in people's heads at all and an optics wizard would be able to explain all of this much better than I can. Some people split hairs and fixate over nuances, for sure, but go shoot a 35mm Summaron on a Leica Monochrom and then a 35mm Biogon-C and try to argue that the word clinical does not fit one lens a lot better than the other.... or try a Canon 50mm f1.4 FD on a Sony A7 at f1.8 and compare it to the Sony 55mm f1.8.
Well said IMO.

By no means am I an optical expert either ... but after decades of work and a zillion lenses later, you do come to favor certain looks over others for different subjects. After all, this is science in the service of art, not the opposite, (although there is photography in the service of science, but I do not think that is what we are talking about in this case).

As an interesting parallel, I experienced something similar when scanning film. While working with darkroom enlargers and highly corrected Rodenstock/Schneider/Nikon/Leica/etc enlarging optics ... people often modified the enlarger heads to add a level of light diffusion that retained the acuity but softened the light distribution and mitigated the harshness, or whatever you may call it (contrast?). When I switched over to scanning films, I was hard pressed to get the look and feel of darkroom enlargements that I favored.

When Minolta brought out their MF scanner, you could get a diffusion kit for it that helped tame the harshness a great deal. However, when I moved to working with an Imacon scanner for their Flextight technology and faster scanning, I tested a 848 and a 949 ... the 949 most importantly featured a diffusion light source that made it far more desirable over the other models. This was the closest to a darkroom enlarger look I was able achieve with digital reproduction.

"Clinical", "Character", "Roll-Off", "Bokeh", "Micro-Contrast", "Edge-Sharpness", and so on, are imperfect attempts to put certain aesthetic qualities into words. In this case,"Clinical" literally means: "Analytical, or coolly dispassionate", which is probably why folks get defensive when it is applied to a lens they favor ... "dispassionate" could well be felt as something of an antithesis to artistic endeavors.

Hopefully, there is still room for personal discriminators such as "Like" even "Love" when making photographic art ... whether referencing "Clinical" or "Character" ... (or a balance between each as seen in the eye of the beholder).

So, while I have the 55/1.8 for my Sonys, I much prefer the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH for it's more balanced look and feel. Frankly, the AF of FE lens is why I have it at all. So far, the FE lenses I've tried leave me a wee bit cold ... where that aesthetic opinion may well be seen as a compliment by others.


- Marc
 

turtle

New member
I have both fairly 'clinical' lenses and some older more characterful ones. Personally, I favour the middle ground (plus or minus a bit each way), tending to avoid anything with an overwhelmingly strong fingerprint. However, its clear that super modern and super old lenses can be used very creatively and it would be a mistake to think 'a lens is a lens', because those differences can have a profound impact on the image and how the viewer responds to it.

As several people have stated earlier, 'clinical' can be wielded as a criticism, which is fair enough if you do not desire those qualities in your imagery; however, it's inappropriate to hurl it about as an absolute and apply it to others' needs. After all, Gursky or Burtynsky seem to get along OK with high resolution cameras and modern optical marvels.

Horses for courses...

Another area of opinion is the matching of lenses with sensor size. Personally, I think less stressed lenses and more sensor real estate tends to look better, even if the objective is high resolution. This is an area that is going to get really interesting, because the 5DS is probably going to seem pedestrian in terms of upper end resolution by 2025 standards!
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Great Topic for discussion!!:salute:

I don't relate to the word 'clinical' at all when it comes to describe how a lens works...

that is not to say that I don't think there have been many posts made in this thread that have made for interesting and informative thinking - thanks folks!

My favourite lenses for people or street are not the lenses I use for landscape or architecture. The subject matter and my style I guess - dictate what type of lens I love to use or have to use - according to situation/subject matter and purpose.
I really believe that the a photographer develops, the more strong biases to certain focal lengths and certain looks dictate choice.

g doesn't lie- my own stats tell me how few focal lengths I use these days and how often I shoot with any ...my most used lenses 20 years ago - was the 70-200 Canon - replaced later with a 70-200 2.8 Leica - much better look.
Today ? I don't even own a 70-200 zoom.

In 35mm format - I shoot every lens I own - predominantly wide open - so I care only for how a lens renders wide open.

The total look I chase is a soft seperation from subject to non subject space...when it comes to people shots ..in landscape or architecture - I want wide and as low distortion as possible along with maximum corner to corner sharpness - man give me sharp and give me more sharp - I want sharp...sharp..at f11 - dude- yeah I want sharp at f11..all the way back to wide open..that has to be sharp too...I want sharp in my tech lenses..give me the impossible and give it to my now!

I don't get 'to clinical' as a criticism..or a compliment really.

anyway that's my 2cents!:thumbup:
 

jfirneno

Member
:worthless:

Wow, I've always wanted to try out that message!

If anyone has two equivalent lenses (same focal length) that can be used to illustrate this clinical characteristic that would be educational for me and the hopefully for the OP. I've seen photos that demonstrate the smoother transition but I don't think I've ever seen the comparison with a clinical lens that consisted of the same exact scene shot on the same exact camera. And it doesn't have to be a Sony lens. Just any two that illustrate the difference under controlled conditions.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
A nice test would be the Sony 55 and the Loxia 50. Had them both and they do render slightly different. I would have to look on my hard drives to see if I had the same shot but they would be different times so that would be a variable. I just rebought the 55 simply because of the AF until I can get a decent 24-70 and if they do come out with a second version of it than I'll get the Loxia. I do like the character better. But again I need a decent 24-70 and I have been burned on the current one twice.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Somehow the term "Clinical" or "Too Clinical" doesn't seem to get applied to the Leica AA 50/2 by its users. Why? There the preference is for terms like "life like" or the image is "as if you look at it". I consider that a better, neutral way of characterization. I would rather use that description for the AA 75/2 or the FE 55/1.8 or the FE 90/2.8 G as well.

Separate from the technical aspects of a lens it seems to me is a characterization of the esthetic aspects one tries to achieve in an image, especially for portrait shots of humans. I don't find different reactions from male or female, young or old folks. All of us would like to be portrait in a positive light without showing our imperfections. So a lens capable of "life like" images doesn't seem to be an optimal choice for that, especially when used on a high resolution camera like the A7r2 that records gory details. Here, lenses designed specifically for portrait shots seem more appropriate - unless one likes excessive retouching in post.

I like to use the above mentioned lenses for nature or landscape photography in particular on my A7r/2 cameras. I have also noticed that my lens preferences seem to have changed accordingly. I would add the Leica WATE to that list or the Batis 25/2 if I could get one. :grin:
 

ohnri

New member
Many lens defects lead directly to different or interesting visual effects in the final image.

Not all of those defects are easy to copy in PP. Some are impossible, others time consuming. And, in any case, there is an argument to be made for getting as much of the final image in camera as possible.

For example, I often read that it is always better to have more sharpness because you can take it away in post but cannot add it.

But suppose I pre-visualize an image with less than complete, brilliant, far corner to far corner stunning sharpness. I may be lucky enough to have a great lens in my bag that gives me almost exactly the sharpness fall off or pattern of sharpness I want straight off.

That may apply to other qualities, such as micro-contrast or color as well.

Now, should I use this miracle lens that gets me 90% of the way to the final image I desire? Or should I use a technically, quantifiably superior lens that will require a ton of PP work and may never look the same anyway?

Then, when my friends proudly offers to let me shoot with their perfect 55mm and I am sitting there with my old, defect filled Noctilux, Summicron or Nikkor and I say no thanks and they ask why, what to say?

'Too clinical' is a quick and easy way to describe differences that I probably lack the common vocabulary to describe.

Although I generally just say I prefer one lens to another and leave it at that.

For instance, I prefer the 50 Loxia to the 55 Sony.

I prefer the 90 Macro to the 85 Batis even though the latter is smaller and faster.

I never really liked my 75/2 Summicron but I did like my 85/1.5 D Nikkor.

I would sometimes get images from my M9 that were beautiful in a way I cannot duplicate with my more technically perfect cameras.

I sometimes print on paper that gives a beautiful rendering which is technically less perfect instead of trying to get that effect in PP.

Every tool in the chain is at my disposal to get the image I want. Often, a more perfect lens starts me off a long way from home.

You can't have my Noctilux. You can't. So stop asking. Use your Otus.

-Bill
 

algrove

Well-known member
Yes, all it means that the lens is too good for person using it. Putting a bit of vaseline on the front element can bring character back to a clinical lens.
IMHO, I would put vaseline on a 010 filter, but not directly on an element
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Something ...

Personally the imperfect element exists between the viewfinder and the subject. I.e. Me.

- - -
 

f64

New member
I do not have the 55 FE, nor I plan to buy it, but I feel some discomfort with some images I see. I would not use the term too clinical, I feel that these images are as artificial as most HDR images are.

Let me take a different angle. When the first CD player came out, I rushed to buy a few discs to replace the classical music releases I had. Well, I was less than overwhelmed. And I was not alone: lifeless, too analytical, etc. were the keywords. Sounds familiar? Bullshit, engineers said, this is a faithful reproduction and sampling is more than adequate, given that that nobody can hear frequencies higher than 20 kH. It turned out that engineers were wrong (as they often are; I know, I am a member of IEEE). Though very few can hear a pure tone at that frequency, sampling clips harmonics that we perceive even if they are way above 20KH. A few decades later, digital converters use oversampling to smooth the signal. Nice, but I found out many years ago that the way to go was to use Conrad Johnson tube amplifiers rather than solid state. Tubes smooth the signal.

So, in short, the perceptual aspects of listening to the music were ignored and the outcome was bad.
My question is: is the same thing happening to digital photography? Are we ignoring important perceptual aspects? B&W on film is way different from digital. Overdetailed color images are not as satisfactory as 4x5 transparencies. Or, at least this is my feeling. Personally I resorted to the analog of a tube amplifier, and I use old lenses (sometimes really old) and I often add grain.
 
I was struck by Marc's remarks about enlargers and scanners as part of the optical system. Seems to me it's a matter of style, and we really try to develop an integrated system that expresses what we want the viewing outcome to be. The lens is one element, but the whole system including the film or sensor is full of elements that can augment or clash.

Also we 'grew up' with different standards that are still lodged in the back of our minds. If I were 30, a Sony and a 55mm Zeiss might seem 100% 'natural' to me. But also, lodged in memory, is the integrated combination of Summicron, TX, D76 1:1 (or Rodinal), Focomat, Focotar, and Portriga or Brovira. Or in color, Vericolor S or L (certainly not Kodachrome, not my style).

So two factors in play are the style we have in mind for any given project, and our subconscious notion of what looks most 'photographic.' In this context, the notion of what's clinical or not, and whether it's good or not, is bound to be variable.

Part of the fun is viewing and enjoying differences in styles. And picking up the residue when other folks' preferences change. I'm so glad I acquired Sharpness Czar Joe Colson's WATE when it wasn't sharp enough (clinical enough?) for him. :p

Kirk

View attachment 113314

(Just joking – that's what a bit of NIK Structure can do to a file!)
 
Last edited:

danlindberg

Well-known member
Quick and dirty comparison on a rainy day (for a change in Spain).

One lens bought 1982, Canon FDn 1.4/50 (with Novoflex adaptor)
One lens bought 2015, Sony FE 1.8/55

Shot on A7R.


 

turtle

New member
I'm not sure this is quite accurate, because the Leica S 100mm Summicron was supposedly designed to be a little gentler on skin than it might otherwise have been. Other lenses have been designed to 'back off a little' (Zeiss claimed the 85mm f1.4 ZE/ZF planar was designed to retain some spherical aberration at wider apertures so it was kinder on portraits), but there was a problem: this meant that when tested by reviewers, it showed more 'deficiencies' than more perfect lenses and it was rejected by many photographers who therefore thought it inferior. Manufacturers will make what sells and resolution and numbers sell, however, while there are many photographers exploiting super high resolution and micro contrast with great effect, there are just as many photographers scratching their heads wondering why they can't get their D810 and Otus to produce images that look like Garry Winogrand's :D

I guess the point I am try to convey is that its great to have options. Most colour landscape shooters want as much perfection as possible, but fewer B&W street and documentary shooters do, because the way the image is rendered has a fundamental impact on how it engages the viewer and how the viewer accesses the 'data'. In my view, it is not about 'looking back' or nostalgia - this is the simplistic response one often hears about why some people make their digital images look like film - but about accessing that data (and its volume). Ultra-clear imagery could be described as 'direct', whereas there is a lot of (particularly B&W) imagery that relies upon a greater degree of indirectness. Ultimately, we choose tools that achieve the desired 'data-viewer' relationship (and if we make this connection with the literal difficult, you can take the viewer somewhere other than the obvious). As cameras and optics spiral further into a numbers arms race, it is harder for photographers to find equipment that inherently offers 'less directness'.

On the subject of lenses showing more of what people see in front of them, I think we are at a point in technology where we are able to extract far more than can be seen or perceived with the naked eye. HDR is a classic example of this taken to an extreme (hence the polarised opinion). A great deal of colour landscape photography is also far more saturated and rich than the real scene ever was, so using 'reality' as an explanation for why super sharp super high contrast lenses is desirable may not resonate with everyone. A question: which is more 'accurate' to how we see (or even perceive) things: a shot on 100 speed 35mm colour print film using a point and shoot, or a perfectly processed, saturated and carefully manipulated 36MP colour digital shot, as turned out by most advanced amateurs today? This may seem absurd, but I'd be really interested to hear what other people think. For me its the Boots developed colour shot with the P&S. This is not to say one is 'better' only that more data does not necessarily mean 'more real' to the viewer. How many colour landscape photographers today produce work that is not more saturated and contrasty than reality?

As for working files in PP to reduce imperfection, I think its very much harder than it sounds. I suspect this is why some people still prefer film (or are returning to it), because to achieve that sort of look, its easier to start out with it in the DNA of your materials.

Regarding B&W and colour, I think they are mostly quite different and this is reflected in the materials/technology people desire. If you were to survey colour and B&W shooters, I suspect the latter would be (on average) less inclined towards massive resolution and perfect lenses. That's possibly because B&W is inherently 'indirect' and that is often exploited in many different ways by B&W photographers to create the relationship they want between viewer and image. The same improvements in optics that cause many super-colourful photographers to swing from the rafters are making some B&W digital shooters struggle.... and return to old glass and lower resolution cameras that allow them to create the indirectness they seek.


+1

"Too perfect"? That's crazy talk. An oxymoron even. ... Modern lenses, whether they're designed by Zeiss, Sony, Leica or SK, are designed to match modern high resolution sensors, extracting every pixel of detail and microcontrast possible with modern optics..... They capture more accurately what I see in front of me. I can add softness and blur in post-processing. Or use Vaseline. :)

Joe
Czar of Sharpness
 
I'm not sure this is quite accurate, because the Leica S 100mm Summicron was supposedly designed to be a little gentler on skin than it might otherwise have been. Other lenses have been designed to 'back off a little' (Zeiss claimed the 85mm f1.4 ZE/ZF planar was designed to retain some spherical aberration at wider apertures so it was kinder on portraits), but there was a problem: this meant that when tested by reviewers, it showed more 'deficiencies' than more perfect lenses and it was rejected by many photographers who therefore thought it inferior. Manufacturers will make what sells and resolution and numbers sell, however, while there are many photographers exploiting super high resolution and micro contrast with great effect, there are just as many photographers scratching their heads wondering why they can't get their D810 and Otus to produce images that look like Garry Winogrand's :D

I guess the point I am try to convey is that its great to have options. Most colour landscape shooters want as much perfection as possible, but fewer B&W street and documentary shooters do, because the way the image is rendered has a fundamental impact on how it engages the viewer and how the viewer accesses the 'data'. In my view, it is not about 'looking back' or nostalgia - this is the simplistic response one often hears about why some people make their digital images look like film - but about accessing that data (and its volume). Ultra-clear imagery could be described as 'direct', whereas there is a lot of (particularly B&W) imagery that relies upon a greater degree of indirectness. Ultimately, we choose tools that achieve the desired 'data-viewer' relationship (and if we make this connection with the literal difficult, you can take the viewer somewhere other than the obvious). As cameras and optics spiral further into a numbers arms race, it is harder for photographers to find equipment that inherently offers 'less directness'.

On the subject of lenses showing more of what people see in front of them, I think we are at a point in technology where we are able to extract far more than can be seen or perceived with the naked eye. HDR is a classic example of this taken to an extreme (hence the polarised opinion). A great deal of colour landscape photography is also far more saturated and rich than the real scene ever was, so using 'reality' as an explanation for why super sharp super high contrast lenses is desirable may not resonate with everyone. A question: which is more 'accurate' to how we see (or even perceive) things: a shot on 100 speed 35mm colour print film using a point and shoot, or a perfectly processed, saturated and carefully manipulated 36MP colour digital shot, as turned out by most advanced amateurs today? This may seem absurd, but I'd be really interested to hear what other people think. For me its the Boots developed colour shot with the P&S. This is not to say one is 'better' only that more data does not necessarily mean 'more real' to the viewer. How many colour landscape photographers today produce work that is not more saturated and contrasty than reality?

As for working files in PP to reduce imperfection, I think its very much harder than it sounds. I suspect this is why some people still prefer film (or are returning to it), because to achieve that sort of look, its easier to start out with it in the DNA of your materials.

Regarding B&W and colour, I think they are mostly quite different and this is reflected in the materials/technology people desire. If you were to survey colour and B&W shooters, I suspect the latter would be (on average) less inclined towards massive resolution and perfect lenses. That's possibly because B&W is inherently 'indirect' and that is often exploited in many different ways by B&W photographers to create the relationship they want between viewer and image. The same improvements in optics that cause many super-colourful photographers to swing from the rafters are making some B&W digital shooters struggle.... and return to old glass and lower resolution cameras that allow them to create the indirectness they seek.
I don't think any accomplished photographer would process a picture as close as what they were seeing in reality: neither landscape or street/documentary. Even film has its own contrast curve, color profile, etc. And so is this whole B&W thing. Photography is not about reality. We are all dramatizing/romanticizing reality to convey our emotion/mood/view of the scene to the audiences. Garry Winogrand had his own style of shooting and "processing" his pictures. I think many photographers do not place much priority in post-processing his/her shots, citing that such endeavor is a waste of the photographic time. I think they just don't want to learn the craft or do not actually know how to do it properly.

With that, I don't see any lens as "boring" or "clinical" or "transparent" (like some Leica togs describe the 50 AA). It's just whether the way the lens rendering the scene complements your vision or not (shooting and "processing" style). I bet if Ansel Adams or HCB is still alive today, they would know how to post-process in Photoshop (and many other plug-in out there) very well and they might very well choose those very "clinical" lenses as their tools if they think it works for their style.

At the same time, I feel that some would use those "character" lenses as a crutch to create something cool for the mass. It's not unlike the dreaded bokeh shots (very fast lens), garish HDR shots (too much texturized and saturation), or meaningless light-painting. I know it's much more time-consuming to get rid of the purple fringing in my shots or have to remember to compensate for that focus shift in my imperfect lens. Seeing less pores/textures is not always a plus.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Just a note: Old fondler lenses don't do well on modern Leica digitals. Even Leica have moved away from those and have been designing better lenses. The latest even have black painted (no shiny brass metal shows) RF coupling! Revolutionary. :clap:
 
"Old fondler lenses don't do well on modern Leica digitals. Even Leica have moved away from those and have been designing better lenses."

Rarely do I want to reply 'that's just wrong,' but I guess I'll try it.

IMO if you made the point correctly it would be that Leica is now making lenses that optimize for higher resolution and contrast, period. But this doesn't for a moment imply that older fondler/Mandler lenses "don't do well on modern Leica digitals."

It only means that modern sensors and older fondler/Mandler lenses, when combined, offer the advantages/disadvantages of lower resolution, lower contrast, and other things you don't happen to value.

Kirk

View attachment 113325

Homage to August Sander; MM with Mandler lens – not quite as old as these two guys
 

dandrewk

New member
If you have a lens that gives "character" for some uses and then another that is more "clinical" than the first, I can understand. I have and do own such doubles. However, IMHO, with the advent of sophisticated software one can easily soften a "clinical" lens image, but not, when needed, easily sharpen a "character" lens image.
This is more or less what I was getting at with the original post. If a lens is clinically perfect... what's wrong with that?

It all comes down to the extent of post processing one wishes to do. Personally, I PP EVERY shot, no matter what. Obviously some shots require more effort than others, and I have several tools at my disposal. Clicking the shutter is the most critical part, but (for me) that's just step one.

So, I can "correct" a flat/clinical image to flesh it out, give it more character, "pop" and color. Like algrove said, that becomes difficult and unwieldy if the underlying images has character flaws. This is not a knock on these lenses, and each has an important place in a photographer's arsenal.

Another consideration is how the image is to be viewed. I have a 27" 5k monitor, so I view images much closer to 1:1 resolution without zooming. Shots of a broad landscape taken with FE55 or FE90, when processed to bring out full tonality, vibrance and micro-contrast, look positively three dimensional on my screen.
 
Top