Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 17:49 09.04.1998 +0200, Erwin wrote:
>Now it is a matter of debate if lenses with certain optical characteristics
>may add or distract from the clarity of the visual statement a photographer
>is trying to make. This I presume is what Alf is referring to when he
>speaks of certain lenses as being better suited for his way of photography.
Yes, Erwin, partly. Although I'd almost take a bet, that also you look at
the rendition of a lens before you decide to put her on a benchmark test,
our approaches are probably pretty different.
While you describe a lens by optical parameters, which agrees to an
abstract-rational approach, I come from the rendition side in my
descriptions, which agrees to a simultanious view/ consideration. Maybe,
the total (melody) is more, than the sum of it's parts (tones) in optics
also ?
Besides, I'd say, that people usually remember an abstract or reduced
image of a lens' rendition, and (based on that) select a certain lens
if they have (the chance) to decide: If you are not determined by temporal
conditions (i.e. news photographers are determined by temporal conditons),
then the expected picture (rendition) determines the type lens (among equal
focal lengths).
Since we know, that pattern recognition is non-linear in humans, I guess,
that you ("you" in general) still do not know, which combination of single
independent factors (l/mm, etc) produces which lens-decision in humans
with sufficient probability. Unfortunately, that's a field, where physics
is rather slow in evolution, still relying on the general linear model :)
Alf
- --------------------------------------------------
Alfred Breull
http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/mfformat/c-mf.htm