[utak]

During the lock-down, with time on my hands, I did a review of my most successful lenses on Flickr. Which lenses are the most Explored and why? Why are some of my most viewed lenses not the most Explored? What lenses produce photos with the most faves? And above all else, how important are the lenses versus the compositions?

The Flickr Explore algorithm can be very quirky in how it selects images. I’ve had 160 Explores from 46 different lenses and 7 million views. Not nearly as many views/Explores as some on the Forum, but a big enough sample to see some clear patterns in all the quirks.

I'd like to share my conclusions with you, and I’d welcome your comments and observations. Hopefully it is of some interest and not too ego-centric! (Of course it reflects the focus of my lens collection).

In general - camera lenses are more important than the cameras. The Helios 44-2 is a case in point. It’s a popular lens, capable of eye-catching rendering. Including all of my Helios 44s (not just 44-2) I’ve had 28 Explores with various cameras, far more than any other lens series. And it’s not simply because of the number of photos I’ve posted – nearly 10% of photos from the rare early 44 have been Explored.

However, the most important (and not particularly earth-shattering) lesson I’ve learned is that compositions are more important than camera gear. Post processing also plays a part in this. I like to take a lot of bokeh images, and buy lenses that produce "monster bokeh". But a number of my most successful photos have no bokeh at all. And one of my most successful landscape shots was taken with a macro lens. So, looking at my most viewed lenses with only a few Explores – like the Biotar for example - I definitely need to improve the quality and variety of my compositions.

Here's a video on YouTube about the results with photos, if you’re interested: [EDIT - I've re-loaded the video in HD after someone commented on the low resolution of my videos - I'm very new to YouTube uploading!...And I took the opportunity to amend the title and a few minor parts of the text...]

You Tube

You Tube

And if you’d rather read the lens results, here they are:

Top 5 Explored Lenses
1. Helios 44-2
2. Pentax F 100mm Macro
3. Super-Takumar 50/1.4
4. Pentax DA 10-17mm
5. Macro-Takumar 50/4

Top 5 most viewed lens albums
1. Auto-Takumar 35/2.3
2. Macro-Takumar 50/4
3. Pentax K 135/2.5
4. Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2
5. Auto-Takumar 55/2.2

Lenses used on the top 5 faved photos
1. Tamron 17-50
2. DA 35mm Limited
3. F 100mm Macro
4. Macro Takumar 50/4
5. Helios 44-2

---

Last edited by utak; 06-14-2020 at 04:03 AM. Reason: Re-loaded the video

[pepperberry farm]

cripes, man, I was told there would be no math......

[pepperberry farm]

cripes, man, I was told there would be no math......

good topic - if we knew more about the algorithm, we could tailor our shots to be more 'explore-able'....

now I have to go look at my own and make some lists....

[photoptimist]

The best gear in the world cannot fix a bad composition but bad gear (or the wrong gear) can sometimes ruin a good composition. Thus the photographer needs both the right gear and the right composition. Moreover, focal length and aperture play an integral role in composition -- if a photographer only as a 50mm f/2.8 lens, there's a world of great compositions that they will miss because the composition requires wider angle, more telephoto point-of-view, or shallower DoF.

That said, looking out at the entire world of lenses, cameras, and compositions, it's the good compositions that are harder to find than the good lenses and cameras. Sure, there's some crap lenses and cameras out there. But the percentage of crap compositions is much much much higher.

Most photographers -- myself included -- would do better to invest in their brains than in their gear (but gear is easier to improve with one-click "buy-now" than are brains).

[davek]

IMO, gear can be bought. Composition must be learned and developed.

[ramseybuckeye]

Good luck in figuring out Explore, it is supposed to be “interestingness”, but how that is decided is the mystery. Most of the photos you see are good, but not all. I posted a photo I took I f a raccoon in a tree behind our house, that took one handed while holding a flashlight that got explored. I’ve also posted a cell phone pic that got explored. I really don’t think fest has much to do with it other than how the photographer uses the gear. It’s more composition that makes the photo interesting, with the occasional odd inclusions. You research is very interesting, I’ll have run a similar study some time.

[utak]

Good luck in figuring out Explore, it is supposed to be “interestingness”, but how that is decided is the mystery. Most of the photos you see are good, but not all. I posted a photo I took I f a raccoon in a tree behind our house, that took one handed while holding a flashlight that got explored. I’ve also posted a cell phone pic that got explored. I really don’t think fest has much to do with it other than how the photographer uses the gear. It’s more composition that makes the photo interesting, with the occasional odd inclusions. You research is very interesting, I’ll have run a similar study some time.

Yes, it's certainly a mystery. The only time I've had the same photo Explored twice on the same day, was when I posted a colour and a b&w photo of the same image. And it was taken with a mobile phone! Here's the b&w photo:



---------- Post added 06-12-20 at 01:29 PM ----------

The best gear in the world cannot fix a bad composition but bad gear (or the wrong gear) can sometimes ruin a good composition.

That's an excellent point. Some bad old lenses are beyond help from even the most aggressive post processing.

[kypfer]

One conclusion that may be considered from the findings is that more people are interested in "conventional" well-composed photographs than photographs that feature "bokeh" or whatever as their prime "raison d'etre". Doesn't make one or the other "better", just of less or more interest to a larger group


One of the problems with these "analysis" programs is that they rarely ask sufficient questions so as to derive a meaningful result. Like asking "do you prefer red or green" with no option to say "neither, I like it blue!"


Just my opinions ... YMMV

[ramseybuckeye]

Sure, there's some crap lenses and cameras out there. But the percentage of crap compositions is much much much higher.

This is so true.

Sadly, a lot of people can't tell the difference. Even though most people will like a better composed photograph compared to one that's not, their typical comment would be; "wow, whoever took this must have a really good camera". But of course we now also have people that think their cell phone cameras are as good as medium format, thanks to them believing every advertisement the've ever seen, and viewing their world through a 3x5" screen. They think their photos could be printed to a five story mural SOOC.

[roberrl]

Interesting that the Macro Takumar 50/4 is the only lens on all three lists.
Is it simply the most used ?

[Benz3ne]

But the percentage of crap compositions is much much much higher.

Guilty as charged! My apologies!

[utak]

Interesting that the Macro Takumar 50/4 is the only lens on all three lists.
Is it simply the most used ?

That's a good question. This does make some difference, but I don't think that's the sole reason.

I've gone and checked the top numbers of photos posted (sorry Dave)…

280 - DA 35mm Limited - it took me years to get even one photo Explored by this great lens, and then it was landscape
263 - Macro Takumar 50/4
253 - Helios 44-2
221 - F 100mm Macro
209 - Super-Takumar 50/1.4 - 8 elements version
199 - DA 10-17mm
188 - Tamron 70-300
184 - Pentax K 28/3.5
184 - Auto-Takumar 35/2.3
179 - Pentax K 85/1.8
169 - Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50/1.8 radio-active version

Total photos posted = 5,274.

[ChristianRock]

The one and only time I've ever had a picture "explored" was when I took a picture of a new lens I had just gotten on a window. That was it - lens on the window, nothing else in the picture.

Maybe that's my best picture?

I took that as a sign to never leave my day job for professional photography

[automorphism]

I actually disagree. I think camera gear and composition/light are equally important. By gear, I don't mean "camera X vs Y" of the same generation. I mean using a 85mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/5.6 on a kit lens for a portrait. Since we're always pretty much assuming that the gear will be used by the same person, the gear is actually the most variable. Also, composition can often be 'fixed' in post whereas gear cannot.


Not saying they're not both important, but I think people saying good photography skills is more important serves one function: as a rant by people on the internet who are either sick of hearing people moan on about gear and think their gear will improve their abilities, or a rant by people who can't afford good gear.

I think it's more objective to say that they are equally important. I also think that this statement is often uttered by photographers who take pictures of people and flowers, in which you can have all kinds of possibilities, even with cheap gear. People who do astro, architecture, macro, and decent, sharp BIF actually do need the proper gear, and yes it is sometimes expensive.

[normhead]

I actually disagree. I think camera gear and composition/light are equally important. By gear, I don't mean "camera X vs Y" of the same generation. I mean using a 85mm f/1.8 vs. 50mm f/5.6 on a kit lens for a portrait. Since we're always pretty much assuming that the gear will be used by the same person, the gear is actually the most variable. Also, composition can often be 'fixed' in post whereas gear cannot.

You don't have to have an 85 1.4 for portraits.
And I'd love to see an example of a composition "fixed " in PP. You're talking about cropping. Cropping does not save a poorly composed image.

Read through this and tell me which of the elements of composition can be "fixed" in post?

Composition-Pop photography - oversize-images - PentaxForums.com

So given that you have to have something, that was never in dispute, and that I have a 50 macro, a 70 macro, a 90macro and a 100 macro, the OP is probably trying to find out if there's a difference in results.

Given that my 70 macro 2.8 is very good for portraits, But I also have the DA*55 1.4, and a lot of other 2.8 glass, I might want to know which gives me the best results for portraits.

I don't see this question as "do I have to have gear?" , I see it as "which of what I own is the best for the tasks and circumstances in which my style and preference dictate I'll be shooting."

For me I don't care which macro I'm shooting with, but I prefer the DFA 100 macro, it's longer, lighter, it's WR. But you're not going to know that looking at the images are you? Which piece of gear I select makes no difference. Which ever one I have with me will be good and will produce acceptable results. You can produce great images with cheap gear, and bad images with really expensive gear.

The guy who won the Flickr "Image of the year" shot it with a K-x and a kit lens. He won it with his composition... practically everyone on the planet, myself included, and those shooting Liecas and Zeiss or any of the expensive Nikon or Canon or Sony offering in the end lost out to guy with a 10 year old camera and a kit lens.

So how important was the gear used?
And what did the guys with the expensive gear get for their money, beyond an honourable mention, if they even got that?

I've got 20 times invested in my camera gear than what this guy has. He won, I didn't even get mentioned.

I'd even go so far as to say (and have many times in my advice), if you aren't already getting good compositions, don't waste your money on better gear. Also the better the gear the more situational it is. You can buy the best macro lens out there, but if you don't have the skill and patience to produce good macro images, you may as well be using a Sigma 70-300 with it's macro function. You can buy the best portrait lens out there, if you don't know how to set, up, light and frame good portraits, even my relatively cheap Sigma 70 macro will be overkill. You won't get as much out of it what an experienced portrait photographer would.

You can't buy great gear in an attempt to make up for a lack of compositional expertise. You would just produce really sharp bad pictures with great bokeh. And there are people posting on this site with more expensive gear than I own who've never taken an image I've even liked.