[Dewman]

While browsing the lens reviews here on PF, I noticed this comment concerning the Pentax-DA 50mm f:1.8 lens: "One of the criticisms I've read about the DA50 is that it has little character, that is produces shots that can be clinical in quality.

Read more at: SMC Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8 Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database




So.... can someone explain what constitutes a "clinical" look?

[UncleVanya]

Dull lifeless, boring. Sharp without anything else to it. It's famously one of those "know it when you see it."

[pepperberry farm]

since you pulled that quote from my review of the DA50/1.8, you could have asked me what I meant; I meant to convey the accurate rendering of the lens, both in color and detail, but the clinical detail of the lens can be off-putting to some shooters....

[Bui]

I'm interested in this topic. Can some of you provide an example of a "sharp, clear" images but clinical? I'm not able to imagine such :-)

[ccc_]

when I shoot birds I call them specimen shots...accurate, soulless records

for certain audiences they are the preferred images though
the last few years I have submitted images to a birding group...two or three for them...two or three for me
with only one exception they have chosen the specimen shots

this one was later cropped to add some drama, but it is an example

---------- Post added 11-17-17 at 09:59 AM ----------

Dull lifeless, boring. Sharp without anything else to it. It's famously one of those "know it when you see it."

exactly so

[BigMackCam]

For me, it describes a lens that accurately and sharply reproduces a scene, but fails to imbue it with any character. My Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is just such a lens... It's sharp, has decent contrast and renders out-of-focus areas quite nicely for an inexpensive zoom - but images tend to look rather bland. This doesn't make it a bad lens; it simply has less character than some others

[conniption]

I switched to film (for the most part, except for sports where there's some amount of "spray n pray" necessary) because I felt everything was looking clinical. Clinical to me means too perfect, too sharp, it's more about sharpness and rendering to me. Anything too perfect is without soul, lifeless and boring

[pathdoc]

There's a place for that, and it's in my profession (and no doubt those of others here too).

[BigMackCam]

There's a place for that, and it's in my profession (and no doubt those of others here too).

I think there are numerous places where this kind of lens can work well. Architectural shots, for instance. Certain types of product photography too...

[mattb123]

I think a clinical feel has a lot more to do with the photographer than the lens. But maybe some lenses make it harder to get that sterile effect.

[jpzk]

In my line of work, a clinical image infers a detailed study of the "specimen", whether it be a plain radiograph, a CTscan image or a MRI study.
So I was a bit surprised to see, here, that "clinical" means quite the opposite.

[skierd]

I've always taken it as a synonym for "boring", with regards to photography. No magic, no pixie dust, just an image.

[microlight]

I tend to regard 'clinical' as a feature of photographic style (or lack of it) rather than being lens-related. Too many of my pictures are unfortunately clinical as defined, because I haven't taken the time to make them interesting, or given them an 'angle'. Then they just turn into a record of time and place. But I shall keep trying!

[Alex645]

I switched to film (for the most part, except for sports where there's some amount of "spray n pray" necessary) because I felt everything was looking clinical. Clinical to me means too perfect, too sharp, it's more about sharpness and rendering to me. Anything too perfect is without soul, lifeless and boring

I agree, but some films are also more "clinical" than others. Kodak TMax 100 and Delta 100 IMO for example. And although I didnʻt shoot a lot with Olympus cameras, whenever I used Zuiko primes, I was both blown away by the razor sharp quality but it felt "clinical".

I once had a room mate who used Zeiss primes on his Yashica SLR (both subsidiaries of Kyocera). Again, high res, little vignetting, accurate color, little chromatic aberration, but missing character....some flaw that gave it unique look.

This is where bench tests and charts and numbers is meaningless to the art of photography; left vs. right brain; mind vs. soul.

[biz-engineer]

Clinical is an attribute given to a lens in some situations:
- to avoid buying that lens when its price doesn't align with the number that reads at the cash position of your bank account statement (such as a Zeiss Otus, a Leica etc.)
- to avoid wanting it when not available for K mount (the latest Sigma 500 f4, or the Tamron G2 versions)
- to avoid using that lens for photographing aging yet attractive ladies to avoid being deleted from her list of potential candidates (for that you'd use the kit lens and look for the lowest sharpness setting in the DXO charts)
- to avoid having to drag the sharpness adjustment in your RAW development tool in the wrong direction (that doesn't happen very often...)
- the lens was designed by Pentax medical division to explore the inside of human bodies.