[Alex645]

One thing that interested me was that there is more of the table runner visible to the sides on the bowl/pot with the 31mm - maybe some of our optical experts can explain that - is it just because the front element of the lens is physically further away in the smaller prime?

I am not an optical expert, but you can also see in the background corners that the zoom had a wider angle of view. To achieve that, it's going to distort more of the edges and corners and effectively squeeze the space to the side of the bowl.

Why does the same focal length in a prime create different angles of view than the same focal length with a zoom, assuming you're using a "locked down" tripod for both shots?

[Kerrowdown]

What would YOU consider a "clinical" image?

For me, nearly all of my product photography is most certainly "clinical". Usually devoid of any interpretation at all, unless specified by client which happens rarely.

It means having full and total control of everything... set up, lighting, exposure, camera, and even for me so far as lunch.

Everything to get the job done meeting the clients brief, as usually contractually agreed in advance.

This would be a good example of type of image I'm trying to describe (keeping it on a photographic theme too)... obviously before any retouching work has been carried out.

[normhead]

For me, nearly all of my product photography is most certainly "clinical". Usually devoid of any interpretation at all, unless specified by client which happens rarely.

It means having full and total control of everything... set up, lighting, exposure, camera, and even for me so far as lunch.

Everything to get the job done meeting the clients brief, as usually contactually agreed in advance.

This would be a good example of type of image I'm trying to describe (keeping it on a photographic theme too)... obviously before any retouching work has been carried out.

Product photography should be part of the definition of "clinical" photography.

And, did you take the memory cards out of every one of your cameras for that shot?

In the images of the pottery above, the 31 would be the better image, because often in advertising images, there is going to be print on top of the image, and the smoothest bokeh means less problems keeping the print readable.

[Kerrowdown]

Product photography should be part of the definition of "clinical" photography

Thanks for your supporting comment and agreement.

[normhead]

Thanks for your supporting comment and agreement.

Hey well, I have to encourage you when you're right.

[Kerrowdown]

Hey well, I have to encourage you when you're right.

Aye... it don't happen often according to Lady Kerrowdown.

[goatsNdonkey]

I was going to quip that if it's a picture of a hemorrhoid, it's going to be clinical. Then, I realized that if Pepperberry Farm took a picture of a hemorrhoid it wouldn't be.

I tend to lean toward the idea of clinicality being more in the hands of the photographer, not the lens. On the other hand if a photographer has two similar lenses and only finds one of them to give that overly technically accurate but boring rendering, while the other one offers that extra drama or character, we must assume that it isn't just the photographer.

It seems to me that it might be worth considering the clinical lens as a challenging optic, one that requires altering technique to coax character out of it. Maybe that means doing crazy things like only shooting it only wide open, or shooting it at focal length extremes if it is a zoom, or turning off auto focus and manually focusing it, or anything that pushes it into realms where its perfection breaks down. If shooting it with film, try the grainiest film you can think of and see what happens. And if you really hate it, put some scratches on the front element! (could try that on an UV filter first if one is timid) -- just let it try to be clinical after that!

[mikesbike]

In the bowls photos, the FA31 photo seems to be a bit brighter, and perhaps more glare from the bowl than the 24-70 photo. I tried to check the EXIF data to verify that they had the same exposure settings, but the images are private on Flickr, so it wasn't possible.

This is the best laid-out test yet, but I don't think either of these lenses are "clinical".

Although there is a tiny difference in brightness, I don't think it is from the exposure settings. Possibly a slight change in lighting. Both lenses do a great job, which says a lot for the zoom lens, since it is being compared to a top-quality prime. To me, the FA 31mm LTD photo is a little more 3-D. I think that is in part due to its superior bokeh. Not that the bokeh of the DFA 24-70mm is bad, but the defocused edges are a little bit harder and defocused details slightly busier compared to the FA 31mm LTD.

The DFA 24-70mm might not fare quite this well against the DA 70mm LTD because then it would be at the long end of its zoom range. But who knows? Its sharpness might diminish but its bokeh might be at its best!

[Racer X 69]

A clinical image.



An image shot in a clinic.




An image shot at my desk. Definitely not clinical.

[pepperberry farm]

I was going to quip that if it's a picture of a hemorrhoid, it's going to be clinical. Then, I realized that if Pepperberry Farm took a picture of a hemorrhoid it wouldn't be.

Not sure if you meant that I can ruin a clinical shot or if I can make art out of a pig's ass....

(:

[goatsNdonkey]

Ouch!

a clinical image.



an image shot in a clinic.




an image shot at my desk. Definitely not clinical.

---------- Post added 11-19-17 at 12:43 PM ----------

Not sure if you meant that I can ruin a clinical shot or if I can make art out of a pig's ass....

(:

I may have been thinking of the more farm-related context....

[pepperberry farm]

I may have been thinking of the more farm-related context....

I'll accept that as a compliment, then.....


(:

[timb64]

A clinical image.



An image shot in a clinic.




An image shot at my desk. Definitely not clinical.

Thanks,I was just about to have my dinner

[Scorpio71GR]

The DA 50 and DA 35 are the results of our present culture. 20 years ago lens designers did hot have to worry so much about the overall sharpness of a lens. Now days people seem to obsess about it to the point of needing medication. People want a lens that is not only sharp, but sharp from border to border. Something has to give somewhere to keep costs down. The DA 50 and DA 35 are both fine lenses but they do not have the colour rendering of the older M or K lenses. They however are sharper which is what most people want. I have tried landscape shots with my DA35. The shots are good and sharp but lack that pop I like to see. Not all modern lenses are like this. I can shoot the same image with my DA 50 and with my DA*55 and both will look different. In the end it all comes down to individual taste.

[goatsNdonkey]

The DA 50 and DA 35 are the results of our present culture. 20 years ago lens designers did hot have to worry so much about the overall sharpness of a lens. Now days people seem to obsess about it to the point of needing medication. People want a lens that is not only sharp, but sharp from border to border. Something has to give somewhere to keep costs down. The DA 50 and DA 35 are both fine lenses but they do not have the colour rendering of the older M or K lenses. They however are sharper which is what most people want. I have tried landscape shots with my DA35. The shots are good and sharp but lack that pop I like to see. Not all modern lenses are like this. I can shoot the same image with my DA 50 and with my DA*55 and both will look different. In the end it all comes down to individual taste.

I'm just guessing that the human eyeball, in perfect optical health, does not have corner to corner sharpness. To even see corner to corner sharpness, I suspect that we have to aim our eyes' sweet spot at the corners of the image we are assessing. And let me confess, further, that I don't think my eyeballs' retinas even have corners!