Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-17-2017, 06:12 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,400
as I read through this again I wondered if the body isn't the culprit

my old k2000/km seldom requires color enhancement in post nor does my k01
however my k3's almost always need a tweak regardless of what lens I use

my little Fuji x30 produces the best OOC images of any of my cameras except the k01

11-17-2017, 06:50 PM - 3 Likes   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 377
Lens don't make clinical photos - people do.
11-17-2017, 08:26 PM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Dewman's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Idaho
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,186
Original Poster
I would think that if the photograph has enough inherent sharpness, has enough room for a fair amount of cropping.... and one has a good editing program, there would be no reason to have a "clinical" image. Yea or nay?
11-17-2017, 11:04 PM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,520
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
I would think that if the photograph has enough inherent sharpness, has enough room for a fair amount of cropping.... and one has a good editing program, there would be no reason to have a "clinical" image. Yea or nay?
I realize it could be just expectation bias but I bought my DA 35 f/2.4 with very high hopes. I have since seen someone else use one with good outcomes - it is not a hopeless cause. But in my hands it was not the tool for me. I have grown and the FA 35 was an unexpected acquisition. The results from the FA 35 could be my growth or they could represent real differences in the lens.

11-17-2017, 11:56 PM - 2 Likes   #35
Pentaxian
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,013
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
I would think that if the photograph has enough inherent sharpness, has enough room for a fair amount of cropping.... and one has a good editing program, there would be no reason to have a "clinical" image. Yea or nay?
I think there have been two different interpretations of "clinical" in these posts:

a) Clinical lens: One that is technically proficient, but without distinctive characteristics.
b) Clinical image: One created by a photographer that is without technical flaws, but is lacking artistic or aesthetic appeal.

It should be noted that cinematographers use clinical lenses but then will use filters, gels, lights, smoke, and post-processing effects to then 'degrade' the raw film or video to create pixie dust.
11-18-2017, 12:23 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,213
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The results from the FA 35 could be my growth or they could represent real differences in the lens.
I've had the DA35 2.4 plastic, it is sharp and cheap, but micro-contrast is not there. The FA35 f2, from what I've seen in images, has decreasing sharpness in corners/edges, but the micro-contrast is completely different. IMO, even if the lens formulation is the same in DA35 2.4 and FA35 2, I don't think the glass materials and coatings are the same. I much prefer the images taken with the FA35 2.
11-18-2017, 01:12 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 919
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
I think there have been two different interpretations of "clinical" in these posts:

a) Clinical lens: One that is technically proficient, but without distinctive characteristics.
b) Clinical image: One created by a photographer that is without technical flaws, but is lacking artistic or aesthetic appeal.

It should be noted that cinematographers use clinical lenses but then will use filters, gels, lights, smoke, and post-processing effects to then 'degrade' the raw film or video to create pixie dust.
I am curious about the idea that post-processing would help a clinical lens. The microcontrast comment seems reasonable. But it also could be that PP could improve a clinical image with a clinical lens, but on the other hand, the fact that it comes out of the camera that way might be enough of a turn-off that people don't really feel that there is any point. It may need enough character coming out of the camera to even give you any hope at all of making a decent image?
11-18-2017, 02:36 AM   #38
Pentaxian
timb64's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Out in the sticks,Suffolk,UK.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,092
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
b) Clinical image: One created by a photographer that is without technical flaws, but is lacking artistic or aesthetic appeal.
There are plenty of us guilty of that one

11-18-2017, 02:54 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,194
My personal definition of a clinical lens is one that gives results that are sharper than reality itself. The real world simply doesn't have the scalpel-cut edges that we see in so many modern photographs.

The other factors that can cause a clinical look are really just decisions made by the photographer. Allowing auto white balance to drain away any feeling of the ambient light gives a clinical effect, as does excessive lightening of shadow detail.
11-18-2017, 03:10 AM - 1 Like   #40
Pentaxian
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,332
I believe that what gives a lens its "unclinical" look is probably its faults. It's just that some feel those faults are artistic and charming with what they add.
11-18-2017, 04:19 AM - 1 Like   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,542
I guess I don't really buy the whole discussion. Some lenses are better than others -- sharper, more contrasty, better at transitions from in focus to out of focus -- but in the end, images come down to things like light, subject and composition. But I generally see the word clinical applied to what I think are just generally uninteresting photos.

I've taken that sort of photo plenty of times too, but I don't generally blame the lens.

Last edited by Rondec; 11-18-2017 at 04:32 AM.
11-18-2017, 04:23 AM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,314
I would like to see the same scene shot at the same time with one lens that's supposedly clinical and another that's not, eg FA35, DA35.
11-18-2017, 04:46 AM   #43
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 8,515
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I don't really buy the whole discussion. Some lenses are better than others -- sharper, more contrasty, better at transitions from in focus to out of focus -- but in the end, images come down to things like light, subject and composition. But I generally see the word clinical applied to what I think are just generally uninteresting photos.
But... Taking two identical shots, exactly the same subject, composition and lighting, captured with two different lenses of the same focal length, at the same aperture setting... Would you agree that one can look more pleasing than the other because of the way it is rendered by the lens?

An uninteresting photo isn't much use, regardless of the lens used - except perhaps as a record. An interesting photo can - I would argue - have that extra something because of the optical qualities of the lens used. I don't think that has to mean it's especially sharp or super-contrasty (though it could mean that depending on the viewer's preferences)...
11-18-2017, 04:54 AM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
IgorZ's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,116
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
But... Taking two identical shots, exactly the same subject, composition and lighting, captured with two different lenses of the same focal length, at the same aperture setting... Would you agree that one can look more pleasing than the other because of the way it is rendered by the lens?

An uninteresting photo isn't much use, regardless of the lens used - except perhaps as a record. An interesting photo can - I would argue - have that extra something because of the optical qualities of the lens used. I don't think that has to mean it's especially sharp or super-contrasty (though it could mean that depending on the viewer's preferences)...
I would definitely agree with that. Just took the same photo with FA 43,Helios 44, and takumar 58 f2. I can tell you they look very different. Haven't really decided yet which one I like most...
11-18-2017, 05:04 AM - 1 Like   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,194
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I would like to see the same scene shot at the same time with one lens that's supposedly clinical and another that's not, eg FA35, DA35.

I definitely did some comparison shots last year between the DA 35mm/2.4 and the Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 that I think showed exactly that clinical vs characterful difference. . . but now I can't find the darn things so I must have deleted them. I'll leave Recuva running while I'm out this afternoon and see if I can undelete them. I got rid of the DA 35mm so I can't reshoot the comparison.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
31mm, 50mm, bit, bowl, dust, exif, exposure, f/1.4, flickr, image, images, k-mount, lens, owner, pentax, pentax lens, pentax-da, photo, pixie, pm, post, reviews, shot, slr lens, specimen, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WOuld you consider Sigma 16mm F2.8 good for landscape Neel1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 08-12-2012 04:23 AM
What would you consider a "good price" for a used K-5? JohnBee Pentax K-5 36 07-21-2011 07:29 PM
Trigger voltage? - Lester A Dine Clinical Box Power Supply Model II (ring flash) Nick Siebers Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 02-10-2011 11:50 PM
Why would you even CONSIDER the Lowepro Slingshot 100?? Silverkarn Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 10 10-26-2010 09:43 AM
If you weren't using Pentax, which DSLR brands would you consider? Prognathous Pentax DSLR Discussion 74 02-16-2010 09:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top