[kernos]

have noticed that there is a similarity in how the FA 31mm and FA 77mm render skin tone and texture. I can see it, but I can't describe it. Perhaps wiser heads than mine know the answer or at least can tell me that I'm hallucinating.

FA 31mm 5.6


FA 77mm 2.2

---

Last edited by kernos; 06-11-2017 at 07:07 AM. Reason: added bigger jpegs

[Kerrowdown]

Is there a word for this

Aye... "Pixie Dust".

[alpheios]

Most members here will probably tell you that the word you're looking for is pixie dust

[kernos]

Looking for something a little more scientific, like peer reviewed, independently verified pixie dust:-) No seriously, there is something about the way skin seems to have more depth and presence but I don't have the words to describe it.

[pathdoc]

Microcontrast?

[kernos]

Could be microcontrast. Do you have a definition? There is also a sort of not sharpness about the skin textures particularly in the 77mm picture. My DA 50mm 1.8 might actually have more resolution here and produce a less satisfying image. Here's a shot of the same guy the week before at 1.8

[c.a.m]

Is there a word for this

Yes: Pentax.

[D1N0]

I would say the micro contrast balance. Not too much so it becomes too much a registration accentuating details too much and freezing the subject. And not too little making the rendering bland or low quality. A picture looks more dynamic and It makes skin look like it is glowing without actually seeing the glow. Especially with close ups.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

I would say that lens has a very specific 'je ne sais quois' if that helps any. 😉 (I know it doesn't.)

It's nice to be able to nail something down to one thing, but there are many scientific principles at play to give each lens their characteristics and it's the combination that matters. (color, contrast, micro contrast, depth of field, sharpness and focus fall off at center / edges, bokeh, focal length, etc.)

If you want one word, I would say rendering since how each lens renders a scene is unique. One hypothetical explanation I've read is that modern lenses are designed for razor sharpness edge to edge while some older favorites are designed for center sharpness and got softer at the edges, which creates a more visually appealing image for portraits.

---------- Post added 06-11-17 at 12:29 PM ----------

There's also something to be said about that classic Pentax color. I don't know what exactly, but definitely something.

You'd think a piece of 'clear' glass would treat all colors equally, but I've read many things about rich reds and vivid landscapes. I don't know if it's due to optical shape or glass chemical composition, but many people love that 'Pentax color.'

[SpecialK]

Pixel peeping.

[mikesbike]

I think sharpness with the FA 31mm is a little better, actually, and there seems to be better contrast along with better dynamic range. Gradation of color, and of dark to light. I don't think there is a single word for it. Maybe the Japanese have one as they do with "bokeh", speaking of which that of the FA 77mm portrait is superb!

[Alex645]

In a word? Aesthetics.

This specific "look" or result is going to be a very complex combination of lens design and quality, sensor, and then in-camera image processor that gives that signature aesthetic.

Gear wise, the lens is going to have the biggest influence, but the Canon, Sony, or Foveon sensors (although not as variant as film emulsions) have a secondary effect as will the way the camera then processes the RAW or jpeg image.

[Kerrowdown]

Looking for something a little more scientific, like peer reviewed, independently verified pixie dust:-)

Now look here, your just trying to get all techie on us... just accept that "Pixie Dust" is the path to the true way forward in terms of good glass.