[wigwamtrout]

The visual differences in the examples are quite easy to see. If they aren't apparent immediately to everyone, that doesn't mean they aren't there. The thing is though, flatness can be quite appealing, especially if a person is attuned to the charms of the flattened paint surface, the (2D) space in much modern painting. Reading (understanding) anything, including graphic art can be surprisingly tricky. Our mind and eyes can deceive us. Judging needs to come slowly, usually with much time and experience. With that, I'll leave the world of abstraction, or abstract art ha ha, and proceed to a little descriptive story, flatly told.

I've just sorted and edited over 1000 carefully shot pictures from Big Bend National Park. So, I've lived in, been saturated in a world of images for quite a while lately-too long a while. Anyhow, the images are from old film lenses and brand new designs of all focal lengths (primes and zooms), shot on numerous camera brands. Flatness and the lack thereof really delineates the image style from lens to lens, system to system. It's the main thing that describes a lenses character and the main thing that's seen after hours and hours, days and days of editing. It took this heavy load of editing and arranging slide shows for me to become entirely aware of this. OK. So, my overall impression is that the flatter images coming from the new designs give very consistent results, often stunning results, but also seem to grow wearisome to the eyes at times. The older lenses produce "rather sophisticated" images in comparison but are less consistent, or, I should say, less predictable from image to image. Their images tend to be more challenging to read, harder to deal with in post production. Space is carved up with more intrigue. That's particularly true in this recent outing with the one old sonnar (German-Russian design) in the group, that lens producing some of the most attractive and least sucessful shots. Depending on the shot, all of the lenses excelled of course. So, it comes down to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each design. I already knew, for instance, that the sonnar design would be a bit dicey with some landscape shots and great for others, but I still put it to the test just to see what I could get away with (I mean what kind of spatially intriguing shot I could get out of the park with...ha ha). I also knew, for instance, that a particular Zeiss wide angle would be relatively automatic in getting "perfect" shots. Using that lens is a piece of cake as they say. The "less flat" lenses I would not want to do without, and, except for the sonnar, are certainly consistent enough. When I go to Big Bend again in May, I'll not shoot the new and extremely expensive auto focus Canon super super wide zoom, nor any Nikon or Tamron or Pentax etc...auto focus lens of any focal length, but rather Takumar and Pentax M primes and a Zeiss wide angle prime. Especially, I look forward to shooting three very old Takumar lenses for their sharpness, transparency and 3D qualities-the 8 element 50 1.4 ST, the old auto Tak 55 1.8 and the 200 3.5 (gorgeous results, super super sharp 4 element design). An old Tessar design Tak macro gets "uniquely flat" images (a macro and Tessar...how could it not?). So, I'll take that lens along (it gets no ca, needs no hood, is good for macro and landscape and won't flare-how conveeeeenient). I'll use the Takumar 20 4.5 (many many elements and the greatest flawed lens I know of) if clouds or rain gets up for the gorgeous colors it produces. I left these old lenses at home for the last shoot, so, now it's their turn. Only when light is harsh will I need an SMC coating to avoid wash out. So, in general, there is merit in using simpler, older designs with less coating for the very reasons stated in the article. That is why so many folks like the simpler, sometimes older designs. But, I'll still get great shots with the new sophisticated Zeiss design and the old macro Tak, even if the images will be "flatter" and simpler. So simple doesn't always get simple, and sometimes sophisticated does get simple, and, in the case of the Tessar Tak, ultra "simple" design (4 elements) does get simple, ha ha. I'm flat out of here!

PS-this list of various lenses...better to be long winded, more specific when a subject has gotten too simple a treatment...proofs in the pudding as they say.

---

Last edited by wigwamtrout; 04-07-2016 at 02:38 AM.

[dsmithhfx]

the flattened paint surface, the (2D) space in much modern painting

This is a good addition to the discussion. However I think you are overlooking a rather striking difference between a painting (as a physical object), versus a digital photograph.

[wigwamtrout]

This is a good addition to the discussion. However I think you are overlooking a rather striking difference between a painting (as a physical object), versus a digital photograph.

I see dsmith that you took the time to read a somewhat long post, one hastily written, too quickly written and way too short in actuality for all the subjects I touched on. Actually there is no striking difference at all between these physical products, a painting on canvas, a printed photo, an illuminated digital image on a computer screen (having a sort of slide like quality)-no difference touching on the essential subject being addressed in this thread. What we are dealing with is the idea of modeling (volumetric) or chiaroscuro to use terms from the art world (think da Vinci, Rembrandt). Some lenses are natively much better at spatial shaping (or getting depth) at a variety of apertures (not just large ones) than other lenses. This is the issue at hand as concerns this thread.

Of course our subject is not touching, concerning for example, the pleasant sensation of walking up to a Van Gogh painting, observing via visual shock how art books and prints can't reproduce built up paint surfaces (more especially thick, shadowed textures) that are integral to a final, possible optical impression. I'm sure you're not thinking about this sort of thing...real REAL, actual physical 3D, ha ha. So, back to chiaroscuro or modeling, right? No differences in the art mediums pertaining to the discussion here. As a matter of fact, over time, I've been surprised at how alike painting and photography are, fundamentally-I've been doing both for very long time.

We can talk about flattening of picture surfaces in the way that Cezanne usually gets credit for, ironically leading to a virtual, heightened multi-dimensionality in cubism (think Gris, Picasso). Well, this could go on and on...reading graphic art...very complex! Yet, what is so simple is the point in question, the native differences between lenses pertaining to modeling. There are many things that contribute to the perceived 3D look of a photograph including post production! But here we are discussing, basically, the obvious native difference between lens designs. The young man who posted examples concerning older simpler, newer flatter lenses is pointing out real visual characteristics, though these can be tricky to perceive.

I enjoy taking and looking at photos, so I like the look of lots of various lenses and often don't scrutinize two comparable shots from two different lenses of different vintage or design. However, if I am thinking 3D and photographic lenses, in the world of Pentax, I'm going for my 8 element 50 for its walk in picture style! Of course nothing remains entirely simple in picture world, so I might reach for an old convoluted many elements wide angle design (old Tak 20) for its ability to get you graphic beauty, depth, due largely to its great and sophisticated "flaws," intentional ones I'm convinced. So, the old Tak 20 4.5 proves there are multiple ways to design lenses that acquire pleasing and sophisticated 3D images-in context of this thread, natively, forget the photographer. Ha ha!

Thanks for your thoughtful input pathdoc...

[pathdoc]

Ha ha!

Just a hint - a paragraph break here and there would make your posts a lot easier to read. Ha ha.

[dsmithhfx]

concerning for example, the pleasant sensation of walking up to a Van Gogh painting, observing via visual shock how art books and prints can't reproduce built up paint surfaces (more especially thick, shadowed textures) that are integral to a final, possible optical impression. I'm sure you're not thinking about this sort of thing...real REAL, actual physical 3D, ha ha.

Actually I'm thinking about exactly that. One may observe similarities between painting and photography, but painting (even "modern" painting, though I suspect you are referencing the flat paint styles of some abstract, pop and op artists of the last century) has a hand-rendered dimensionality that especially digital photography (even printed) entirely lacks. Unless you have actually both painted and photographed extensively, you probably won't understand no matter how hard you look.

[wigwamtrout]

I have done both very extensively, painted with every medium, sculpted, and so on. I'm 59, a concert pianist conductor by trade. Art has been my life long profession.

We are getting into a certain fineness that reminds me of painting and drawing class conversation at the university-especially graduate level. I like it. But, this thread is simple. Basically one thing...lenses...flatness and lack thereof. Simple! This conversation isn't about how hard or soft a pencil is, how hard one presses, how thick ink is or textures of various papers (I'm a water colorist also). All subtlety does apply, even the difference in renderings of two comparable lenses straight from the factory, but, I believe this thread discusses quite OBVIOUS differences in lens design. As I said though, these differences may challenge the discretion of even quite talented photographers.

[dsmithhfx]

this thread is simple. Basically one thing...lenses

But you digress

Very well, I will leave off this discussion (the merits of different lens types doesn't really interest me, just get on with it, eh?), but one more observation: painters and photographers have quoted each other's ideas extensively. The painters I personally find have the most interesting things to say about photography as a technical and social phenomenon are Francis Bacon, Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke.

[TwoUptons]

So, my overall impression is that the flatter images coming from the new designs give very consistent results, often stunning results, but also seem to grow wearisome to the eyes at times. The older lenses produce "rather sophisticated" images in comparison but are less consistent, or, I should say, less predictable from image to image. Their images tend to be more challenging to read, harder to deal with in post production. Space is carved up with more intrigue.

Even though I'm not an artist by profession, I can see this as well, and I agree that it is complicated to understand (and admit that I don't, entirely)...

There is a continuum of characteristics we can quantitatively assign to our equipment that blends with those we can only describe qualitatively.
And there will be a set of those characteristics that will make capturing one's vision simple or impossible.

Resolution seems pretty simple to quantify, for example, but in what unit do we measure bokeh? mg of pixie dust?

Focusing speed I can measure, but how do I measure the utility of a flip-out screen (or waist-level finder) when it comes to a shot where the camera needs to be on the ground? (depends on the age of your knees and how muddy the ground is... is your gear WR?)

And those characteristics have to interface with the version of reality that we want to capture.

If I'm on a trip where I'm time-constrained and record-keeping is what I'm after, I'll bring the most modern, most convenient equipment I have. It matches the need.

If I'm trying to build a skill, challenge myself, or aim for a sophisticated vision, I'll take more time to match the gear with the need (Macro? Not the K300 f4, usually...)

If I'm trying to record my daughter doing something awesome, the constraint is gear proximity, and the result is usually a cell phone snap or whatever DSLR is on the dining room table... (how many of us have a camera on the dining room table, I wonder...)

Different gear for different visions, different needs, and no single right answer.

Today the Graflex, tomorrow, the cell-phone fisheye...

-Eric

[wigwamtrout]

Even though I'm not an artist by profession, I can see this as well, and I agree that it is complicated to understand (and admit that I don't, entirely)...

There is a continuum of characteristics we can quantitatively assign to our equipment that blends with those we can only describe qualitatively.
And there will be a set of those characteristics that will make capturing one's vision simple or impossible.

Resolution seems pretty simple to quantify, for example, but in what unit do we measure bokeh? mg of pixie dust?

Focusing speed I can measure, but how do I measure the utility of a flip-out screen (or waist-level finder) when it comes to a shot where the camera needs to be on the ground? (depends on the age of your knees and how muddy the ground is... is your gear WR?)

And those characteristics have to interface with the version of reality that we want to capture.

If I'm on a trip where I'm time-constrained and record-keeping is what I'm after, I'll bring the most modern, most convenient equipment I have. It matches the need.

If I'm trying to build a skill, challenge myself, or aim for a sophisticated vision, I'll take more time to match the gear with the need (Macro? Not the K300 f4, usually...)

If I'm trying to record my daughter doing something awesome, the constraint is gear proximity, and the result is usually a cell phone snap or whatever DSLR is on the dining room table... (how many of us have a camera on the dining room table, I wonder...)

Different gear for different visions, different needs, and no single right answer.

Today the Graflex, tomorrow, the cell-phone fisheye...

-Eric

Right! To all of it!
Next time out to the park at Big Bend, I will have a nice WR Pentax zoom with me just in case, and, the flip screen on my small mirrorless camera with a sharp Zeiss WA will get me fine shots if I want to get low but don't want to bend my older knees too much, or crawl on the ground. All of my digression was really to say in a positive fashion how a little honest looking will get you a comprehension of the young mans posts on flatness, and to complement him on saying a plain thing and backing it up. He corroborates my own impressions and those of many others. On quite diverse subjects, I have learned much from the young, and or amateur aficionado. I feel, now, even more inclined toward some of my older lenses if that is possible.

Dsmith, I have had some vague interactions with the work of the modern artists mentioned above (except Richter whom I've seen recently, it seems-maybe Austria, maybe not) but I can't remember reading any of their commentaries concerning photography. I'll have a look, see perhaps. Thanks for heads up on that. It's never the wrong time to reconsider old concepts and entertain new ones. I know you will agree with me on that since you have such an interest in and knowledge of cutting edge art. I mean that. I'm not patronizing! Thanks