Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-17-2017, 12:47 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Larrymc's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mississippi, USA
Posts: 5,245
I would think you would want a lens to accurately (clinically) portray the scene or subject.....then there is processing. Someone explain "Pixie Dust" and how you can determine the "Pixie Dust" quality of a lens with a RAW file?


Larry

11-17-2017, 12:54 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,348
Almost any image from a u4/3 system is "clinical".

The image will be very sharp, very crisp, with correct colors but somehow the image won't have perceivable 3D depth. I don't know if its because of how sharp transitions to blurry or if a certain cast is added/subtracted.

I think a clinical image is a reproduction of what people saw but an image with "soul" and "character" is closer to how the human mind remembers a scene.
11-17-2017, 12:57 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,508
Hard to analyze in words. It is not about sharpness. Could be subtle differences in color and contrast as rendered by the lens. Sometimes adding something as simple as a multi-coated skylight filter, which is very slightly warming, can be a game-changer for such a lens. Using a lens hood or shooting from a shaded position can improve contrast as well.

But nothing will correct or change those transitions from subject to background, etc. and other subtle rendering factors, to convert such a lens into a FA 77mm Limited.
11-17-2017, 12:59 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,175
QuoteOriginally posted by Larrymc Quote
Someone explain "Pixie Dust"
Pixie dust is what's added to the clinical lens to make it non clinical, however it doesn't explain what clinical is.

11-17-2017, 12:59 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,842
I'm interested to understand this too, maybe some examples would help, any one have?
Side by side, dull and clinical vs soul with character.
11-17-2017, 01:06 PM   #21
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Larrymc Quote
I would think you would want a lens to accurately (clinically) portray the scene or subject.....then there is processing. Someone explain "Pixie Dust" and how can you determine the "Pixie Dust" quality of a lens with a RAW file?
I don't subscribe to the notion of "pixie dust", per se. It's largely subjective and over-used. In general, though, I think it describes the unusually-pleasing character that a lens brings to images.

If I were to take an artistic portrait with my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 at 50mm f/4, then take the same shot with my Zenitar-M 50mm f/1.7, also at f/4, I can tell you now that - for my own tastes - I would prefer the shot from the Zenitar lens. I can observe some obvious factors at play, but couldn't begin to tell you every contributing factor that makes the Zenitar image more appealing to me.

Optical formula, sharpness at various points of the image frame, quality of out-of-focus rendering (both in front of, and behind, the focus distance), the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, colour, contrast, various aberrations, field curvature, vignetting, geomeric distortion, flare resistance etc. all contribute to the rendering characteristics of a lens. Some of these can be partially emulated in post-processing, but some of them are almost impossible to recreate substantially.
11-17-2017, 01:13 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Larrymc's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mississippi, USA
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Pixie dust is what's added to the clinical lens to make it non clinical, however it doesn't explain what clinical is.
Ahhhhh........nobody Splained it to me Dat way!!!

11-17-2017, 01:20 PM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by beachgardener Quote
I'm interested to understand this too, maybe some examples would help, any one have?
Side by side, dull and clinical vs soul with character.
I'd love to see this too and would post a side-by-side comparison, but I don't own any lenses that have that clinical look...because I not a 'collector' and prefer pixie dusters on my cameras.
11-17-2017, 01:32 PM - 2 Likes   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I think there are numerous places where this kind of lens can work well. Architectural shots, for instance. Certain types of product photography too...
For architecture, IMO it depends on whether you're trying to merely document the architecture or to sell it. Likewise product photography (and if you are a real estate agent, architecture shots ARE product photography). For most people, buying stuff is not entirely a rational thing. When I buy equipment for my job or my hobbies, or a new car or a house, I want to know how it will function for me, not what it will look like, but not every purchase is approached in the same manner. I want my glossy advertisements to show me all the switches and knobs so I can have a guess at how to work my new toy before I even go to a store to try it out; others might be more motivated by a picture of Bear Grylls clutching a K-1 as he charges into or out of some very tricky situation (never mind that he might not be the best person to take pictures with one). Humans are a many-and-varied species.
11-17-2017, 01:41 PM - 2 Likes   #25
amateur dirt farmer
Loyal Site Supporter
pepperberry farm's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: probably out in a field somewhere...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,257
so far, it's similar to the definition of pornography.... not sure of the definition, but know it when seen....
11-17-2017, 01:43 PM   #26
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
For architecture, IMO it depends on whether you're trying to merely document the architecture or to sell it. Likewise product photography (and if you are a real estate agent, architecture shots ARE product photography). For most people, buying stuff is not entirely a rational thing. When I buy equipment for my job or my hobbies, or a new car or a house, I want to know how it will function for me, not what it will look like, but not every purchase is approached in the same manner. I want my glossy advertisements to show me all the switches and knobs so I can have a guess at how to work my new toy before I even go to a store to try it out; others might be more motivated by a picture of Bear Grylls clutching a K-1 as he charges into or out of some very tricky situation (never mind that he might not be the best person to take pictures with one). Humans are a many-and-varied species.
Agreed, 100%

I recall an example from last year (I think) when I was photographing office buildings in a nearby city - mostly wide angle shots, positioned down low and pointing up the sides of the buildings towards the sky. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 was great for that, as I only wanted the lens to document what it was seeing, without adding much (if any) character of its own. The creative aspects were the composition and lighting, and that was enough; I didn't want or need anything added by the lens.

I guess the point I was making is, "clinical" doesn't mean "bad" (nor, in fact, "good") in every situation. It depends on what we're photographing, and what we expect the lens to bring to the party
11-17-2017, 01:50 PM - 2 Likes   #27
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,123
My studio is a trash heap (or, as MrsD. more politely puts it, a "midden"). Clinical doesn't even get a look in.
11-17-2017, 02:06 PM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,171
DA 35 F/2.4 is clinical. FA 35 F/2 is not. I can't post shots side by side I no longer own the DA 35. Honestly I'm not convinced it is just the lens. I think expectation bias has an effect but I continue to see images that are ho hum using the clinical lenses. I disagree about m43 however I can see that point as potentially true for some lenses.
11-17-2017, 02:09 PM - 1 Like   #29
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
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.
(Laughs). Love it!

11-17-2017, 02:41 PM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 232
I agree that the DA 35 f/2.4 is clinical. I was just thinking that as I read through the posts. I haven't shot one image with it that I thought was "interesting". The images are sharp, well exposed, and boring. It's the only 35mm lens that I have, so it could be that I'm just not inspired by the focal length. I'll have to try the FA 35 f/2.
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 & K-5 II 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 11:54 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