Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
  

Archive 2012 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?

  
 
thedigitalbean
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


PetKal wrote:
Forumography topics such as this one often turn into acrimony.


I assert its only because of the relative seclusion that posting online offers. I bet if these same folk were all talking in person in front of some beers, they'd get along much nicer. So, the unsolicited advice I'd offer is pretend the person you are responding to is sitting in front of you, and just be nice. Oh and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. There are some respected FM members whom I do occasionally disagree with, many I've even met in person. Even on points of disagreement, a mutual respect seems to remain intact.



Aug 12, 2012 at 07:45 PM
SKumar25
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Monito wrote:
The topic is pretentious because it is much beloved of gearheads who debate excessively the nuances real or imagined between expensive lenses in preference to more important topics or other activities.

It bears debunking because, though it is an actual attribute (vague and subjective) of lenses, it is not important for most photographs. That is something newbies reading these kind of threads need to be made aware of, especially when they ask about it.

Lens rendering doesn't have to be paid attention to until you have a good grip on Lighting, Composition, Timing, and Emotional Connection to the Viewer. Even among skilled
...Show more

, thanks for that. You're carrying some unfounded biases.

"beloved of gearheads" - really, never noticed that. Are you referring to the guys in the alt forum?

"nuances real or imagined" - rendering can significantly impact the final output from the lens, technically and artistically.

"expensive lenses" - What!?! How are you assocating this with lens cost?

"in preference to more important topics or other activities" - This is a gear forum, and as such we should be able to discuss the aspects of gear without worrying about the baggage people are carrying. I'd expect to hear your arguments if this was being discussed in a presentation forum.



Aug 12, 2012 at 07:45 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Guys, if you escalate the topic to a 3D discussion now, I swear to god I will spam this thread with pictures from my Cartier-Bresson photography phase, and I promise you, that will get ugly quickly and you will not like it.

Edited on Aug 13, 2012 at 04:29 AM · View previous versions



Aug 12, 2012 at 07:49 PM
SKumar25
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Do you remember this post of yours:

"(Using "rendering" to describe lens performance is also quite often a dead give-away of a lens luster speaking. I know plenty of photographers and I can't actually recall any of them using that term to describe the performance of a lens. We speak about contrast sometimes or about resolution or about vignetting or any other number of objective and observable characteristics that have an effect on photographs, but "rendering" is one of those magical talk terms that means little or nothing.)"

What is the cannotation behind "len luster", and where is the respect for others that you talk of? You speak of pretentious, how does the part starting "We speak about..." sound?

You said ""rendering" is one of those magical talk terms that means little or nothing.)" - your position is clear on the topic, why not hear what the forum's interpretation is rather than posting your "intentionally ironic and satirical" swipes starting with the first post in the thread?

You want to constructively discuss this topic, let's do that. I don't believe your posts in the thread were in that spirit. When I get a chance I'll post something.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed. When challenged by an alternate point of view or otherwise in doubt, insult the person rather than engage the subject. That is an old and timeworn argumentative strategy that is too often employed by those who have little concrete to offer about the actual subject under discussion. Another approach is to say, essentially, just go away if you don't agree with our premise. (Thinking of chez's response here, too.)

These are the distractions and disruptions of rational discussion that send threads like this one spinning out of control. SKumar25, disagreeing with your point of view is a valid exercise
...Show more



Aug 12, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


RogerC11 wrote:
I often here how people say how a lens "renders an image" vs another lens. But what exactly does that mean?


I've always considered rendering as the entire way a lens presents an image .. often you will see the word "drawing" used in the same context.



Aug 12, 2012 at 08:33 PM
bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Its odd, you constantly hear how important the lens is in the creation of an image and yet when you start talking about the nuances of each lens all of a sudden these people come out of the wood works and say there are better things to discuss. I mean its the threads about RAW images from a 5DMKII with its lens cap on zoomed in by 300% to look at noise patterns that really make me shake my head. The topic of this thread deserves discussion.

Edited on Aug 12, 2012 at 08:50 PM · View previous versions



Aug 12, 2012 at 08:35 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


I'm a rendering-difference believer, and sometimes wonder whether people who deny rendering differences are close observers. Is there an objective measure? Sure. Set up your tripod. Set up reliable studio lighting. Get different lenses, same focal length, and make sure your framing matches. Then match your exposure parameters, shoot, and compare histograms. Will they match? Not damn likely. For some lens pairs the differences won't even be subtle. That's an objective measure of rendering difference. It doesn't tell you which image to like, however.

Want a good subjective measure of rendering quality? See if one lens consistently lets you make larger prints of matched images than another. If not, the lenses may render differently, but the differences may be irrelevant for you. But I have some lenses that absolutely please me more at large print sizes than do matched competitors. And the biggest sizes are where the differences are most evident.

Contrast is a particular factor for me. People sometimes confuse two lens virtues, sharpness and contrast, because they do similar jobs. Sharpness is about separating the smallest details, even when those details are the same color and density. Contrast is about separating details based on the least perceptible differences in color and density. Increasing either virtue increases apparent detail, and thus maximum usable print size, but they work differently. So there is an explanation for one important rendering difference that lenses might have. A lens with slightly less sharpness and notably better contrast may indeed produce more usable enlargement than its sharper competitor.

That's a rendering difference—the most important one for me. But color, out-of-focus performance, and hyperfocal performance are other axes on which rendering differences can be compared. There are others as well. Each lens is a package of virtues and faults, and they don't produce identical pictures.

For what it's worth, those rendering differences are important in some kinds of photography, and unimportant in others. They tend to matter more in fine art, and maybe fashion photography, and less in almost everything else. When I am trying to make fine art, I put rendering very high on my list for lens evaluation. When I was a photojournalist, it would have been last on my list. If you are not going to make big prints, you may not need to worry about rendering at all.



Aug 12, 2012 at 08:45 PM
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Didn't mean to open pandora's box...


Aug 12, 2012 at 08:47 PM
mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


RogerC11 wrote:
Didn't mean to open pandora's box...


You are doing just fine... and i enjoy Stephen's text



Aug 12, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


splathrop wrote:
hyperfocal performance


What do you mean by "hyperfocal performance"?

[The hyperfocal distance is computable by using things like focal length, aperture, and distance, without reference to one particular lens model versus another.]



Aug 12, 2012 at 09:15 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


SKumar25 wrote:
Do you remember this post of yours:

"(Using "rendering" to describe lens performance is also quite often a dead give-away of a lens luster speaking. I know plenty of photographers and I can't actually recall any of them using that term to describe the performance of a lens. We speak about contrast sometimes or about resolution or about vignetting or any other number of objective and observable characteristics that have an effect on photographs, but "rendering" is one of those magical talk terms that means little or nothing.)"


Yup. I remember it. In it I'm describing about actual conversations with actual photographers with whom I shoot, a good number of who are fairly well-regarded and successful and several of whom have authored books that some of you may have read. You could well have taken some of their workshops as well, or perhaps seen their work in galleries. I'm not playing the name dropping game nor am I dragging their names into this sort of thread out of respect and friendship.

I stand completely behind what I wrote here. If you read it for what it actually says rather than for what you would like to twist it into, I don't see what is wrong or insulting about it. My friends and I are concerned about the performance of lenses (and cameras and printers and papers and much else) and we talk about these things. Sometimes we disagree and sometimes we change our minds, but in the end we are interested in understanding all of the things that go into making effective photographs.

Just as a later poster in this thread was, we are interested in issues such as resolution, contrast, performance across the image circle, how the lens performs at various apertures, focal lengths, and focus distances. We take this stuff seriously, to the extent that it has an effect on the quality of our photographs, and we go to great lengths to understand these things and their role in the production of photographs. Among these people, I cannot think of an occasion when the term "rendering" was used - I've only seen it in photography forums, where terms such as "3D effect" and "drawing" and all the rest seem to reside. Now I can accept that "rendering" has some very general and subjective meaning - which is pretty much what I wrote near the start of this thread - but it does not have an independent, concrete, and objective meaning, which is what I tried to briefly convey to the OP in my initial message. Saying "rendering" is roughly like saying "colorful" or "lovely" or "appealing" or "pop" or "three dimensional" rather than speaking of the things that might feed into or cause us to refer to these subjective qualities.

Two things in the present discussion tend to support my point of view, and I can locate these things in the posts of rendering believers and non-believers. First, all attempts to define what "rendering" is (in the photography context) have ended up describing a lot of other things rather than substantively defining something called "rendering." It might have something to do with contrast, or it might be color, or it might be resolution, or it might be something else, or perhaps some combination of some or all of these. Regardless, it is not one thing. Second, even if we accept that these things somehow might comprise the notion of "rendering" in the mind of one person, another person has a different idea of what the balance among the components that constitutes "rendering" might be.

As a definitive reference to anything concrete, "rendering" has a lot of problems. It may be something, but it certainly is hard to make the case that it is a definable, meaningful, single thing. Now /that does leave room for the notion that it is a subjective term that describes something personal and general/ like "how much I like the quality of the image the lens can produce."

In addition to being a photographer, I am, by academic training and profession, a person with background in music, a subject that I have taught at the college level for several decades. We have terms like this in music, too. For example, I can say that your instrument produces a "rich tone quality." That term may have some meaning, but it is extraordinarily subjective and contextual and cannot be attributed do a single characteristic. In fact, we disagree about what constitutes a "rich tone quality." In one context, a wonderful tone quality might be just right, but in another that "tone quality" might be regarded as entirely inappropriate.

Lens "quality" is a similar thing. Some want a lens that approaches some imagined ideal of specification "perfection" in some ways - high resolution, ability to resist halation even across small dimensions, uniform light transmission into the corners, absence of various sorts of optical distortion, etc. However, for others the very "distortions" that are seen as negatives in the first case are seen to produce "character," and one might like the "rendering" of a "flawed" lens. I can say that I think a lens produces a wonderful quality, but another photographer might well regard that quality as not so swell.

And, frankly, it is not a wild and crazy or offensive idea to note the photography is one of those endeavors in which the appeal of fancy gear can become overpowering. Now I most certainly do not hold that gear is unimportant, nor do I hold that getting the good and/or the right gear is a poor idea. If I thought that I would shoot with crap gear - and I don't. But I think that gear is only important in the context of how it enables me to produce these things called photographs. (If you are interested in gear for its own sake, fine. But be honest about that and understand the difference between a fixation on what you might regard as the gear with the best specifications and gear that is measured by its ability to produce photographs.)

I'll end by mentioning one of my photographer friends - one of the folks I was alluding to above. This person is highly regarded for his work in a particular and quite famous US location, associated with a very well known gallery in that location (and other galleries as well), has published books that I'm certain some readers of this forum have read, teaches individual and group workshops that I'm certain some at FM have attended, and is, all in all, a highly regarded and very successful photographer. (Heck, he's also a nice guy!) He uses two lenses, a Canon 17-40mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/4.

Now, if you disagree with me, fine. And if you want to debate this, fine, too. But please try to do so on the basis of the actual issues rather than trying to find ways to portray me as some sort of horrible person, OK?

Take care,

Dan



Aug 12, 2012 at 11:34 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


This is not at all inconsistent with what I wrote near the start of this thread:

""Rendering" is a vague and subjective term, sometimes used by people who want to sound erudite, that has no specific, objective meaning at all. It perhaps can be used to mean that a person thinks they like a lens for a whole range of possible reasons."

splathrop wrote:
I'm a rendering-difference believer, and sometimes wonder whether people who deny rendering differences are close observers. Is there an objective measure? ...
(Shortened for reply, but see original post above on this page.)



Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Somewhere some lens engineer CCed this thread to his colleagues and a bunch of them are going to have a big laugh.


Aug 12, 2012 at 11:51 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


n0b0 wrote:
Somewhere some lens engineer CCed this thread to his colleagues and a bunch of them are going to have a big laugh.


Yes, I'm sure it will render them speechless. ;-)



Aug 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


thedigitalbean wrote:
I assert its only because of the relative seclusion that posting online offers. I bet if these same folk were all talking in person in front of some beers, they'd get along much nicer. So, the unsolicited advice I'd offer is pretend the person you are responding to is sitting in front of you, and just be nice. Oh and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. There are some respected FM members whom I do occasionally disagree with, many I've even met in person. Even on points of disagreement, a mutual respect seems to remain intact.


Ha-ha! You haven't been in any bar fights, I take it? No one is going to the hospital or jail here.

Peter -- Cartier-Bresson was into old-man-bike-ass, huh? Who knew?



Aug 12, 2012 at 11:59 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Yes, I'm sure it will render them speechless. ;-)


I see what you did there... lol



Aug 13, 2012 at 01:18 AM
SKumar25
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Yup. I remember it. In it I'm describing about actual conversations with actual photographers with whom I shoot, a good number of who are fairly well-regarded and successful and several of whom have authored books that some of you may have read. You could well have taken some of their workshops as well, or perhaps seen their work in galleries. I'm not playing the name dropping game nor am I dragging their names into this sort of thread out of respect and friendship.

I stand completely behind what I wrote here. If you read it for what it actually says rather
...Show more


Insightful post!

Here are a bunch of photographs taken with a variety of lenses. Only the last couple were taken by me, the rest are from FM, I am posting only for the sake of discussion.

At least 4 from the set are from Canon lenses.

Each lens clearly has a character, that is repeatable under similar conditions for that lens. This character consists of elements (to paraphrase Jman) including: "bokeh, color accuracy, sharpness, macro and micro contrast, smoothness of transition from in-focus areas to out of focus areas. Smoothness and color of skin tones, etc.".
For some of these lenses the character is so strong it can uniquely identify the lens, almost forming a visual signature from the lens.

This is obviously subjective, but it goes beyond the idea of "colourful" or "appealing".

How do you and your knowledgeable friends discuss this concept holistically?

Thanks.

http://tswen.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Norwegian-Countryside/i-NT97RXF/0/XL/IMG4991-XL.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7280/7450543304_0e8a5e4596_h.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7276/7653146352_0d7e3c84d1_b.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/larsjohnsson/image/134908241/original.jpg

http://www.addictedtobeauty.ca/images/20110519-cherry_blossom_dreams.jpg

http://www.robert-chisholm.com/fred_miranda/IMG_2643_50_10.jpg

http://refers.florianbuetow.de/fm/canonef50mm10l/_MG_4400.jpg

http://www.lotuscreativeworks.com/photos/1007454638_meS9Z-L.jpg

http://www.lotuscreativeworks.com/photos/832173619_evGUG-L.jpg



Aug 13, 2012 at 02:02 AM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


My personal take about rendering is, that modern lenses most time are near perfect - and therefore have a very similar rendering / signature. I do not write the same!
And because iof this, most people don´t care about rendering. They may not see differences in their images, and other images made with newer lenses.

I love the different rendering of some of my lenses. For example very striking is the soap bubble bokeh of the Meyer Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 wideopen:

http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Natur/slides/Soap-Bubble-Bokeh.jpg


http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Natur/slides/Leucanthemum%20vulgare.jpg


As far as I know no modern lens can do this. Probably the very interessting Nikon DC lenses.

On the opposite is the Minolta / Sony STF 135mm lens, as was showed before.
I have tinkered an apodization lens to get this bokeh rendering too (Helios 44 with apodisation filter):

http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Natur/slides/Löwenzahn.jpg


On my Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 I love the "glow":

http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Norwegen/slides/Hardanger-Fjord-Hereiane.jpg


The 3D discussion is very tricky. I am NOT sure wheter I can see the special 3D in all images, so I can understand that many people see no special 3D effect.
With only small DOF one will not find the concept of the sometimes called "Zeiss 3D". Here one of my images with some special 3D, made at ~f/5.6 with a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4:

http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Natur/slides/Kalenderbild-13.jpg


The 3D (if it is real) is most likely affected by microcontrast of a lens. There some lenses are better, and some are worse.
I love one of my macro lenses for its high microcontrast, but it has no iris. [on website you could open full resolution images]

http://www.4photos.de/galerie/Natur/Makro/slides/Pflanze-Abstrakt.jpg


Lenses with special rendering don´t need to be expensive. I bought the Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 for under 20 Euro, nowadays it is about 170 Euro.



Aug 13, 2012 at 06:08 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


That Rokkor f/1.2 "glow" is merely severe vignetting. The center is over-exposed and the corners are dark.

Yes, lenses do have different bokeh, as the examples posted illustrate. Bokeh is much more definable, analyzable, and categorizable.

Rendering is not. Rendering differences exist, but they are vague and unquantifiable. A few lens characteristics play into it, such as bokeh, "micro-contrast" and chromatic aberrations, that are quantifiable, but the overall package of "rendering" is a disorganized jumble of peeves and raves that enable gearheads to natter on endlessly about not much at all.

When gearheads discuss lenses and their rendering, it is for many a chance to show off, to one-up, to compete for who has shot with the most lenses or the most expensive lenses or the most obscure lenses or the most odd-ball lenses. (That does not apply to the people posting pictures in this meta-discussion -- thanks for interesting examples.) Yes, knowledgeable experienced skilled photographers can say meaningful things about the characteristics of lenses they are familiar with. Yes their contributions can be interesting at times. Much of such discussions are not.

splathrop said that a histogram is an objective quantification of "rendering". It is not. It is objective and a quantization, but not of rendering. Just because a histogram is a measure doesn't mean that it measures "rendering". Just because histograms will be different doesn't mean that those differences can be analyzed to learn about "rendering". You can't look at a histogram and say anything non-fictional about how the lens will render. You can't compare two histograms and say which lens will render better or render one way compared to the other. You can't take three nearly identical pictures except for the lens used and match up three histograms with the pictures.



Aug 13, 2012 at 07:07 AM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?


Monito wrote:
That Rokkor f/1.2 "glow" is merely severe vignetting. The center is over-exposed and the corners are dark...


I use a hand made tulip hood on my Rokkor - to get vignetting :-) I didn´t grind it down to get no vignetting, because I love the vignetting. I see subtle glow in the tree.
Probably I did not take the best "glow" example image :-/



Aug 13, 2012 at 07:45 AM
1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.