Photographic terminology

troenaas · 10-02-2019, 05:26 AM - **1 Like**

I think it would be interesting to have a thread explaining and/or defining the meaning of different photographic terminology. Some of which are very subjective. I would like to start with one that I personally find very amusing: Lens rendering.

Is lens rendering referring to:

Lens bokeh?
Lens sharpness?
Lens contrast?
Lens colors?
All of the above?
None of the above?

Dartmoor Dave · 10-02-2019, 05:42 AM - **2 Likes**

Lens rendering mostly refers to contrast and colours. Particularly in terms of the more three-dimensional look created by good micro-contrast, and to colours in terms of subjective aesthetic beauty rather than just saturation. Basically, the sort of people who only care about sharpness aren't usually very interested in rendering, and the sort of people who care a lot about rendering aren't too worried about sharpness.

**Cerebum** · 10-02-2019, 05:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by troenaas

I think it would be interesting to have a thread explaining and/or defining the meaning of different photographic terminology. Some of which are very subjective. I would like to start with one that I personally find very amusing: Lens rendering.

Is lens rendering referring to:

Lens bokeh?
Lens sharpness?
Lens contrast?
Lens colors?
All of the above?
None of the above?

Rendering for me is colour and contrast combined

troenaas · 10-02-2019, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by Cerebum

Rendering for me is colour and contrast combined

Colours and contrast can be fixed in PS. So then, do you need it in the lens?

photoptimist · 10-02-2019, 06:06 AM - **1 Like**

I vote "all of the above" although Dave & Cerebum are right that color and contrast are the dominant elements. Sharpness affects microcontrast which affects rendering and the bokeh (smoothness, color aberrations, etc.) can either add to or subtract from the 3-D look and aesthetics.

Talking about "lens rendering" is like talking about "food flavoring." It's not a simple high-low objective measurement like sharpness. Instead it is a catchall term for talking about the visual quality of the photographic image relative to the original scene.

**Cerebum** · 10-02-2019, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by troenaas

Colours and contrast can be fixed in PS. So then, do you need it in the lens?

.............yeah

you can't beat a quick chimp followed by a contented sigh

Dartmoor Dave · 10-02-2019, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by troenaas

Colours and contrast can be fixed in PS. So then, do you need it in the lens?

If you only shoot with highly corrected modern autofocus lenses then you probably don't need to worry about rendering, because presumably you prefer the modern look with all the character designed out of it. If you find the look of modern lenses too sterile, and you prefer the more characterful look from legacy lenses, then you'll care about rendering a lot.

Saying that you can make the rendering style of one lens look like any other in PP is a lot like saying that you can make a digital shot look like film in PP. You really can't.

troenaas · 10-02-2019, 06:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

If you find the look of modern lenses too sterile, and you prefer the more characterful look from legacy lenses, then you'll care about rendering a lot.

My feelings exactly, I find modern lenses to be too clinical.

---------- Post added 10-02-2019 at 04:04 PM ----------

Originally posted by Cerebum

.............yeah you can't beat a quick chimp followed by a contented sigh

I believe some think that the "rendering" of a lens is a real quality distinct from the scientific measures such as MTF. Lenses with the most character in their "rendering" are always the ones that are technically the furthest from being perfect. That’s my belief.

So, if you use a “perfect” modern lens and add “rendering” qualities in PS, you might as well buy a vintage lens with inherent rendering.

Save money and time in PS.

tvdtvdtvd · 10-02-2019, 07:20 AM

Getting back to the subject of the thread, a glossary of terms, located under the Resources tab, would certainly be very useful, even for
a somewhat subjective term like 'rendering'.

**bwgv001** · 10-02-2019, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by troenaas

Lens bokeh?
Lens sharpness?
Lens contrast?
Lens colors?

all of the above

troenaas · 10-02-2019, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

a glossary of terms, located under the Resources tab, would certainly be very useful, even for
a somewhat subjective term like 'rendering'.

I agree.

**Cerebum** · 10-02-2019, 07:37 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by troenaas

My feelings exactly, I find modern lenses to be too clinical.

---------- Post added 10-02-2019 at 04:04 PM ----------

I believe some think that the "rendering" of a lens is a real quality distinct from the scientific measures such as MTF. Lenses with the most character in their "rendering" are always the ones that are technically the furthest from being perfect. That’s my belief.

So, if you use a “perfect” modern lens and add “rendering” qualities in PS, you might as well buy a vintage lens with inherent rendering.

Save money and time in PS.

My big box of takumars couldn't agree more

**Alex645** · 10-02-2019, 11:25 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by troenaas

Is lens rendering referring to:

Lens bokeh?
Lens sharpness?
Lens contrast?
Lens colors?
All of the above?
None of the above?

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

Lens rendering mostly refers to contrast and colours.

Originally posted by Cerebum

Rendering for me is colour and contrast combined

Originally posted by photoptimist

I vote "all of the above" although Dave & Cerebum are right that color and contrast are the dominant elements.

a) In it's most narrow definition I'd agree it's the contrast and color.
b) But in a more general sense, the bokeh, resolution from center to corners, chromatic aberration, distortion, and vignetting or overall transmission of light all affect how the image is 'rendered'.
c) The Gestalt: an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. Even sample variation is great enough to change the lens rendering.

**StiffLegged** · 10-02-2019, 01:26 PM - **1 Like**

Um. Render unto the photographer the things that are the photographer's....?

edri · 10-02-2019, 11:23 PM

Wikipedia: A rendered image can be understood in terms of a number of visible features. Rendering research and development has been largely motivated by finding ways to simulate these efficiently. Some relate directly to particular algorithms and techniques, while others are produced together.

Shading – how the color and brightness of a surface varies with lighting
Texture-mapping – a method of applying detail to surfaces
Bump-mapping – a method of simulating small-scale bumpiness on surfaces
Fogging/participating medium – how light dims when passing through non-clear atmosphere or air
Shadows – the effect of obstructing light
Soft shadows – varying darkness caused by partially obscured light sources
Reflection – mirror-like or highly glossy reflection
Transparency (optics), transparency (graphic) or opacity – sharp transmission of light through solid objects
Translucency – highly scattered transmission of light through solid objects
Refraction – bending of light associated with transparency
Diffraction – bending, spreading, and interference of light passing by an object or aperture that disrupts the ray
Indirect illumination – surfaces illuminated by light reflected off other surfaces, rather than directly from a light source (also known as global illumination)
Caustics (a form of indirect illumination) – reflection of light off a shiny object, or focusing of light through a transparent object, to produce bright highlights on another object
Depth of field – objects appear blurry or out of focus when too far in front of or behind the object in focus
Motion blur – objects appear blurry due to high-speed motion, or the motion of the camera
Non-photorealistic rendering – rendering of scenes in an artistic style, intended to look like a painting or drawing

I think we refer more to the character of the lens, which again is not clearly defined. In fact photography is an art, so it is normal for some terms to be interpretable.

10-02-2019, 05:26 AM - 1 Like	#1
troenaas Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 668	Photographic terminology I think it would be interesting to have a thread explaining and/or defining the meaning of different photographic terminology. Some of which are very subjective. I would like to start with one that I personally find very amusing: Lens rendering. Is lens rendering referring to: Lens bokeh? Lens sharpness? Lens contrast? Lens colors? All of the above? None of the above?

10-02-2019, 05:42 AM - 1 Like	#3
Cerebum Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Lancaster Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,828	Originally posted by troenaas I think it would be interesting to have a thread explaining and/or defining the meaning of different photographic terminology. Some of which are very subjective. I would like to start with one that I personally find very amusing: Lens rendering. Is lens rendering referring to: Lens bokeh? Lens sharpness? Lens contrast? Lens colors? All of the above? None of the above? Rendering for me is colour and contrast combined

10-02-2019, 11:25 AM - 1 Like	#13
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by troenaas Is lens rendering referring to: Lens bokeh? Lens sharpness? Lens contrast? Lens colors? All of the above? None of the above? Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave Lens rendering mostly refers to contrast and colours. Originally posted by Cerebum Rendering for me is colour and contrast combined Originally posted by photoptimist I vote "all of the above" although Dave & Cerebum are right that color and contrast are the dominant elements. a) In it's most narrow definition I'd agree it's the contrast and color. b) But in a more general sense, the bokeh, resolution from center to corners, chromatic aberration, distortion, and vignetting or overall transmission of light all affect how the image is 'rendered'. c) The Gestalt: an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. Even sample variation is great enough to change the lens rendering.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is the proper terminology?	Tonytee	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	02-24-2019 08:21 PM
Flash terminology	jbriginshawphotograp	General Photography	8	09-24-2015 03:43 PM
ISO Terminology	music_lover	Photographic Technique	17	09-22-2010 09:10 AM
Terminology Question	DisneydaveCT	Photographic Technique	4	09-27-2008 02:12 AM
terminology question	NaClH2O	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-01-2007 01:02 PM

10-02-2019, 05:42 AM - 2 Likes	#2
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,882	Lens rendering mostly refers to contrast and colours. Particularly in terms of the more three-dimensional look created by good micro-contrast, and to colours in terms of subjective aesthetic beauty rather than just saturation. Basically, the sort of people who only care about sharpness aren't usually very interested in rendering, and the sort of people who care a lot about rendering aren't too worried about sharpness.

10-02-2019, 06:05 AM	#4
troenaas Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 668 Original Poster	Originally posted by Cerebum Rendering for me is colour and contrast combined Colours and contrast can be fixed in PS. So then, do you need it in the lens?

10-02-2019, 06:06 AM - 1 Like	#5
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,126	I vote "all of the above" although Dave & Cerebum are right that color and contrast are the dominant elements. Sharpness affects microcontrast which affects rendering and the bokeh (smoothness, color aberrations, etc.) can either add to or subtract from the 3-D look and aesthetics. Talking about "lens rendering" is like talking about "food flavoring." It's not a simple high-low objective measurement like sharpness. Instead it is a catchall term for talking about the visual quality of the photographic image relative to the original scene.

10-02-2019, 06:15 AM	#6
Cerebum Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Lancaster Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,828	Originally posted by troenaas Colours and contrast can be fixed in PS. So then, do you need it in the lens? .............yeah you can't beat a quick chimp followed by a contented sigh

10-02-2019, 06:25 AM	#7
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,882	Originally posted by troenaas Colours and contrast can be fixed in PS. So then, do you need it in the lens? If you only shoot with highly corrected modern autofocus lenses then you probably don't need to worry about rendering, because presumably you prefer the modern look with all the character designed out of it. If you find the look of modern lenses too sterile, and you prefer the more characterful look from legacy lenses, then you'll care about rendering a lot. Saying that you can make the rendering style of one lens look like any other in PP is a lot like saying that you can make a digital shot look like film in PP. You really can't.

10-02-2019, 06:49 AM - 1 Like	#8
troenaas Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 668 Original Poster	Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave If you find the look of modern lenses too sterile, and you prefer the more characterful look from legacy lenses, then you'll care about rendering a lot. My feelings exactly, I find modern lenses to be too clinical. ---------- Post added 10-02-2019 at 04:04 PM ---------- Originally posted by Cerebum .............yeah you can't beat a quick chimp followed by a contented sigh I believe some think that the "rendering" of a lens is a real quality distinct from the scientific measures such as MTF. Lenses with the most character in their "rendering" are always the ones that are technically the furthest from being perfect. That’s my belief. So, if you use a “perfect” modern lens and add “rendering” qualities in PS, you might as well buy a vintage lens with inherent rendering. Save money and time in PS.

10-02-2019, 07:20 AM	#9
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Getting back to the subject of the thread, a glossary of terms, located under the Resources tab, would certainly be very useful, even for a somewhat subjective term like 'rendering'.

10-02-2019, 07:33 AM	#10
bwgv001 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 697	Originally posted by troenaas Lens bokeh? Lens sharpness? Lens contrast? Lens colors? all of the above

10-02-2019, 07:35 AM	#11
troenaas Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 668 Original Poster	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd a glossary of terms, located under the Resources tab, would certainly be very useful, even for a somewhat subjective term like 'rendering'. I agree.

10-02-2019, 07:37 AM - 1 Like	#12
Cerebum Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Lancaster Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,828	Originally posted by troenaas My feelings exactly, I find modern lenses to be too clinical. ---------- Post added 10-02-2019 at 04:04 PM ---------- I believe some think that the "rendering" of a lens is a real quality distinct from the scientific measures such as MTF. Lenses with the most character in their "rendering" are always the ones that are technically the furthest from being perfect. That’s my belief. So, if you use a “perfect” modern lens and add “rendering” qualities in PS, you might as well buy a vintage lens with inherent rendering. Save money and time in PS. My big box of takumars couldn't agree more

10-02-2019, 01:26 PM - 1 Like	#14
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,620	Um. Render unto the photographer the things that are the photographer's....?

10-02-2019, 11:23 PM	#15
edri Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: walking in the air Posts: 1,315	Wikipedia: A rendered image can be understood in terms of a number of visible features. Rendering research and development has been largely motivated by finding ways to simulate these efficiently. Some relate directly to particular algorithms and techniques, while others are produced together. Shading – how the color and brightness of a surface varies with lighting Texture-mapping – a method of applying detail to surfaces Bump-mapping – a method of simulating small-scale bumpiness on surfaces Fogging/participating medium – how light dims when passing through non-clear atmosphere or air Shadows – the effect of obstructing light Soft shadows – varying darkness caused by partially obscured light sources Reflection – mirror-like or highly glossy reflection Transparency (optics), transparency (graphic) or opacity – sharp transmission of light through solid objects Translucency – highly scattered transmission of light through solid objects Refraction – bending of light associated with transparency Diffraction – bending, spreading, and interference of light passing by an object or aperture that disrupts the ray Indirect illumination – surfaces illuminated by light reflected off other surfaces, rather than directly from a light source (also known as global illumination) Caustics (a form of indirect illumination) – reflection of light off a shiny object, or focusing of light through a transparent object, to produce bright highlights on another object Depth of field – objects appear blurry or out of focus when too far in front of or behind the object in focus Motion blur – objects appear blurry due to high-speed motion, or the motion of the camera Non-photorealistic rendering – rendering of scenes in an artistic style, intended to look like a painting or drawing I think we refer more to the character of the lens, which again is not clearly defined. In fact photography is an art, so it is normal for some terms to be interpretable.