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

[hiepphotog]

Clinical = Lack of character.

If all lenses start to be telecentric and "corner-to-corner sharp @ WO lens with a good to excellent aberration correction", then yes, all will be clinical.

Planar or heliar designs aren't clinical. Distagon is clinical.

But then Zeiss Otus is the very "corner-to-corner sharp @ WO lens with a good to excellent aberration correction." And you said it's not clinical.

Also, it's hard to just base on the design name to swiftly label a lens as clinical or not. I know from my own experience that the Distagon 28/2 "Hollywood" is full of characters , same as the Distagon 35/1.4. I have not heard anyone saying those two are clinical.

 

[f64]

Wasn't there somebody who said "i cannot define pornography, but I can tell it is when I see it"?

Apart from this, I find Hulyss definition (too sharp, gritty bokeh, bad transitions to oof) quite clear, even if one cannot measure it. But measuring things has become an obsession, and often people measure things that are not so important just because it is easy to measure them.

Let me peddle tube amplifiers again. Tube amplifiers are audibly but not measurably more "musical" than solid state (at least for classical music). Yet they were almost wiped out because solid state has a lower measurable distortion.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Clinical = Lack of character.

Thanks. That doesn't define anything.
You simply replaced one word with three.
Could you please define those three words then? TIA.
I mean in terms of well defined quantities from optics.

 

[algrove]

3 different magnifications (distances), uncropped frames. FE 55/1.8 on the clunker A7R, the Hague. No vaseline was used or needed.

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

But I do see lipstick on the straw.:grin:

 

[ohnri]

PP actually CAN simulate everything. I can show you some virtual landscapes I'm codding... you won't notice they are made out of calculations. Even sea or rivers. The scary thing is that it is limitless. Some applications are so powerful that only imagination can be a brake (and computing power also).

I am going to come down on the other side of this one.

Even highly connected super computers are unable to simulate any molecule much more complicated than a hydrogen atom.

In the art world, I have yet to see any PP representation of oil painting that is even somewhat convincing.

In photography, it is probably a closer call if someone has unlimited time, skill and computing power. But since I have none of those I will just use my lenses based on my artistic choices and get the results I like that way.

-Bill

 

[hiepphotog]

Wasn't there somebody who said "i cannot define pornography, but I can tell it is when I see it"?

Apart from this, I find Hulyss definition (too sharp, gritty bokeh, bad transitions to oof) quite clear, even if one cannot measure it. But measuring things has become an obsession, and often people measure things that are not so important just because it is easy to measure them.

Let me peddle tube amplifiers again. Tube amplifiers are audibly but not measurably more "musical" than solid state (at least for classical music). Yet they were almost wiped out because solid state has a lower measurable distortion.

Well the term "clinical" gets tossed around willy nilly that I'm not sure it is used correctly. A very sharp lens like the Otus doesn't have gritty bokeh to me. And the consensus for bad transitions to oof is too abrupt transition? (happened to associate with the known 3D effect in some Leica/Zeiss lenses). Is it the combination of all those characters or just one would suffice?

 

[ohnri]

Bill, I think none here is saying the well-corrected lens is superior for all artistic scenarios. I think it's the "character" side that somehow implies that the technically better lens is not a good choice. Just quote you again :"a lens that is 'too clinical' often does not readily lend itself to certain artistic choices." I think it should read "a lens that is 'too clinical' often does not readily lend itself to my artistic choices." I doubt that there is a universal, pre-defined, accepted by the majority list of certain artistic choices that "too clinical" lenses would not fit.

Let's just compromise and say it's all down to personal preference. For me, I'm happy that I don't have to think of a way to fix that purple fringing on my model's hairs without making it unnatural, or to fix that mid-zone resolution drop in a landscape. I'm also happy that whatever effect I put on a picture via post-processing, I can replicate the same look in another if I want to.

Overall, I like the predictability of my tools.

And I am happy that you are happy.

I also like the predictability of my tools.

Otherwise, they are not so much tools as random number generators.

-Bill

 

[algrove]

This thread turned out to be very interesting. Thanks everybody.
If you indulge me, here is an image of sunflowers I happen to like.

Question: How would you characterize the lens and its performance the image was shot with? TIA.

WATE:lecture:

 

[hiepphotog]

In line with Vivek and K-H are doing, what would you guys say about this lens?

 

[algrove]

In line with Vivek and K-H are doing, what would you guys say about this lens?

Bokey pattern is not smooth to me with swirls:grin:

 

[iiiNelson]

In line with Vivek and K-H are doing, what would you guys say about this lens?

I agree with Algrove that the bokeh looks nervous to the point that it's initially distracting from the subject. Just my subjective opinion though.

 

[hiepphotog]

I also agree with you guys, but what would you say about this lens in term of clinicality? Would it fall under the desirable "character" lens? Or is it the undesirable "clinical"? Or is it in the purgatory zone (neither here nor there)?

 

[iiiNelson]

I also agree with you guys, but what would you say about this lens in term of clinicality? Would it fall under the desirable "character" lens? Or is it the undesirable "clinical"? Or is it in the purgatory zone (neither here nor there)?

It certainly has character but not all characters are good. I'd say for me this lens would work better in greyscale images.

 

[k-hawinkler]

In line with Vivek and K-H are doing, what would you guys say about this lens?

Why not, I'll take a stab at it. The fence in the center seems in focus. The colors are fine.
The bokeh seems a tad on the nervous side, but its not psychedelic.
Without knowing how it was processed it's hard to judge how to improve the image in post.
Impossible to judge edge performance.
In the upper part of the image I see 3 horizontal lines, one in the blue to the right, two in the green to the left.
Could be power lines.

Well, I don't think in terms of desirable or undesirable traits.
If I had this lens I would try to figure out if and for what use it would excel.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay flower shot Sony 55 , fence shot either a noctilux or the voightlander 35 1.4.

Okay the flower shot if shot at 1.4 or 1.8 it's done with a more modern lens like the 55. It's still very sharp at its focus point but it does fall of very nicely. But overall it's well corrected which leaves out let's say a Leica R 80 lux which you could never get that contrast wide open or sharpness which leads to me a more modern optic. Fence shot is a tough one but the bokeh is to nervous. Might be a complex lens design creating the nervousness. Now watch me be off. Lol

Now can I go back to the 300 dollar bottle of Scotch in the other thread .

 

[algrove]

OK K-H
Don't tell me you used the APO 75/2!:toocool:

 

[k-hawinkler]

OK K-H
Don't tell me you used the APO 75/2!:toocool:

Thanks Lou. I am writing the solution to the riddle right now and will post it in a few minutes. :grin:

 

[algrove]

It's getting very late here, but I cannot sleep without knowing the answer.:bugeyes:

 

[hiepphotog]

Why not, I'll take a stab at it. The fence in the center seems in focus. The colors are fine.
The bokeh seems a tad on the nervous side, but its not psychedelic.
Without knowing how it was processed it's hard to judge how to improve the image in post.
Impossible to judge edge performance.
In the upper part of the image I see 3 horizontal lines, one in the blue to the right, two in the green to the left.
Could be power lines.

Well, I don't think in terms of desirable or undesirable traits.
If I had this lens I would try to figure out if and for what use it would excel.

Thank you K-H for the detailed response. I bolded the text that would sum up my view toward lenses.

This is a test shot (no PP at all because of this) in a series which I shot to learn about the lens bokeh and sharpness profile at different apertures and distances. Smooth bokeh ain't its strong point at any aperture or distance . But it happened to be one of my favorite. Whenever I picked it up, I wanted to go out and shoot.

 

[hiepphotog]

Okay flower shot Sony 55 , fence shot either a noctilux or the voightlander 35 1.4.

Okay the flower shot if shot at 1.4 or 1.8 it's done with a more modern lens like the 55. It's still very sharp at its focus point but it does fall of very nicely. But overall it's well corrected which leaves out let's say a Leica R 80 lux which you could never get that contrast wide open or sharpness which leads to me a more modern optic. Fence shot is a tough one but the bokeh is to nervous. Might be a complex lens design creating the nervousness. Now watch me be off. Lol

Now can I go back to the 300 dollar bottle of Scotch in the other thread .

Guy, I thought we are playing the describing a lens character game, not naming the lens . That would be quite a hard task.

In light of this, I would like to guess the lens is the Sony G 90 Macro. Since we have all this talks about this lens being "clinical," I think K-H would want to show a more artistic side of the lens.