Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]While I greatly appreciate and respect Erwin's view towards "Mike's Gauntlet" (sounds like it could be the name of a new column in "Photo Techniques"), I nonetheless find a high degree of validity in Mike's approach. Because if differences between lens lines become apparent only under tightly controlled test conditions, those differences are meaningless to me. If those are the only situations where differences between lens lines are obvious, I might as well buy the cheapest lens every time, because I'll never photograph a tightly controlled test. Differences discernable in everyday use are the only ones which matter to me. And I very much believe those differences exist. On the wall behind my office desk are nine photos of my dog, eight taken with an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor and one taken with the 90 mm Zeiss lens for the Contax G system. The photo taken with the Zeiss lens is different. The shots with the Nikkor have a harder edge to them. The one taken with the 90 mm G lens displays a greater subtlty of tonal gradations, a smoother transition from one color to the next. Every photo is eyelash-rendering sharp. But the Contax-taken photo also has an appealing subltle dimensionality and smoothness the Nikkor does not capture. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for what I see in these photos. But it is not the science of these photos but an artistic aesthetic which sets them apart in my eyes, and tells me they were taken with different lens systems. My job is production manager of a large ad agency. Reguarly, I review slides and transperancies to evaluate their potential for enlargement and reproduction. On a recent camapign we produced, I suspect the photos were taken with a Nikon SLR. All of the slides (all 35 mm) have harsh shadows lacking detail, no smoothness of color gradation, an almost oversharpness to out-of-focus backgrounds, all characterisitcs (in my experience) most often typical of Nikon lens designs. This is not a criticism of the photos; the art director was after a hard-edged journalistic look, and these photos succeed in capturing that vision. But I don't believe they would have looked as they do were they shot with a Leica or Contax camera. (By the way, while I am less familiar with Canon lenses, my impression is they generally do not have the contrast or "edge" of Nikkors. Again, this is not criticism, but rather an evaluation of the characteristic look these lenses most often deliver. And there are exceptions within lens lines. My 85 f/1.4D and 180 f/2.8D Nikkors deliver very Zeiss-like photos. Still not quite the smoothness of photos taken with the Contax G lenses, but close enough that the differences become difficult for me to discern.) There may well be scientific explanations for what I see in photos taken with these lenses. But I'm not overly interested in what that those explanations are. What interests me most is my aestheic reaction to the photos -- the art of the photography. If there are out-of-focus areas, the characteristic of those is every bit as important to me as the detail captured in the focused portions of the photo, because all work together to make up the photographed image, and all contribute to the overall success or failure of that image to my eyes. There is nothing scientific to that reaction. But in the end, that aesthetic reaction is what matters to me. And, I suspect, to the vast majority of people who review photographs. Larry >>>>>>>>>> Mike's gauntlet states as rules among others: "All films and developers identified, all made with the same paper, paper developer, enlarger, and enlarging lens. Camera lens apertures used will be identified. " Well I admire Mike's stamina in trying to prove that there are at least a thousand angles that can stand on the head of a pin (see also Leica built quality), but his gauntlet test is so flawed as to be useless. First of all hie entry criteria: "All good negatives, all sharp, all big enlargements, all showing fine technique", are all beyond objective validation and comparison., so whatever negative passes his test will be a personal judgement, which might be acceptable, but without any measurable and identifiable criteria we are left with a very shaky base, on which to draw any conclusion would be unreliable if not outright wrong. More importantly as nor the lighting conditions, nor the subject matter nor the distance at which to take photographs, nor the film and development variables are fixed or at the least comparable, we are left drawing conclusions from evidence that is so diverse in all of its important parameters that any conclusion may be drawn and we may be certain that any conclusion is irrelevant. (as seven of Nine would note correctly). <<<<<<<<<<