p.4 #3 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
Monito: 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....Show more →
If you are correct, then I am mistaken in my conclusion that for two images of the same scene, taken under identical light, the one with the wider, flatter, histogram is the one showing better contrast. Without any evidence at all, you might reason your way to that conclusion. And because I have observed that to be consistently in accord with my subjective judgment of contrast, and in accord with the enlargement potential of the images, I don't think I am mistaken.
We could do an experiment. Let me take two images of the same subject, one using the Canon 50mm f/1.4 at f/5.6 (its best aperture), and the other using the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 MP at f/5.6 (also its best aperture). After I capture the images, you can process the images without adjustments, and show me only the histograms. After seeing both, I will agree to tell which histogram is from the Zeiss, and bet money on getting it right. We can continue that until you go broke. Or you could save your money, and just do the experiment yourself.
p.4 #4 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
Overall contrast is measurable by histogram. Local contrast is not. Similarly, bokeh and the myriad of other attributes tied to mystical and romantic "rendering" is not.
p.4 #6 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
SKumar25 wrote:
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?
p.4 #7 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
jctriguy wrote:
My guess is that many of these could be from the same lens or any of a dozen different lenses.
You are exactly right.
Here's a fun batch. The EXIF data is still in the files. For those who believe in lens "magic," you are now challenged to make your decisions about what you see and share them here before you check the EXIF data. Only you will know if you cheat and look first, and if you do you will know how valid or not your arguments then are.
And, no fair distracting us from the objective question by taking the all-too-common detour of critiquing the photography instead of answering the question. That is a transparent and familiar trick. ;-)
A fun and honest approach would be to find one (there must be at least one, right?) that you think is worthy and to then see how your expectations compare to what you find when you check EXIF. Even more fun, share what you expected and what you found out with all of us.
p.4 #8 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
Having long ago hidden the more obnoxious members posting here (the 'it doesn't apply or interest me therefore the rest of the world it making it up crowd') it's actually an interesting read about an interesting subject.
p.4 #9 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
Beni wrote:
Having long ago hidden the more obnoxious members posting here (the 'it doesn't apply or interest me therefore the rest of the world it making it up crowd') it's actually an interesting read about an interesting subject.
+1 to the comments on the read and to the reminder about the hide function. Of course, depending upon who you have hidden, you might not see my reply! :-)
PetKal wrote:
Well, after all, HCB was French, right ? No that there is anything wrong with being French .... au contraire.
I've often wondered why the French are not included in the wonderful saying about hell - to paraphrase: "Hell is where the police are German, the politicians are Italian, and the cooks are British." ;-)
p.4 #11 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
outlawyer wrote:
The elusive Schneidcalandkor 1-221 F\.85 "Etch-a-Sketch" lens could put this debate to bed.
Perhaps. But the rare 1938 version - the one with the titanium knobs and hand-rubbed gogobu wood back-plane - is subtly and ephemerally better able to render three-dimensional effects under real-world drawing conditions. Like a fine wine, it is worth the search - despite its regrettable tendency to vignette a bit at f/.9 and larger apertures when working at the all-important point approximately .27 meters forward of the MFD.
p.4 #12 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps. But the rare 1938 version - the one with the titanium knobs and hand-rubbed gogobu wood back-plane - is subtly and ephemerally better able to render three-dimensional effects under real-world drawing conditions. Like a fine wine, it is worth the search - despite its regrettable tendency to vignette a bit at f/.9 and larger apertures when working at the all-important point approximately .27 meters forward of the MFD.
Dan
Dan, our friend Outlawyer and you do make a formidable tag team, I say
This is not about being able to uniquely identify a lens, rendering is about about the way a lens represents a scene under a particular situation, or it's style.
People sometimes use phrases like "look" or "how a lens draws" to mean the same thing.
It can be used to discuss a specific part of the picture, like "I like how the object has been rendered", or the style of the lens: "It renders like the 50 1.0 L". It can go further to the look of lines of lenses or brands - L glass look, Zeiss look, pre asph Leica look etc.
Just as bokeh is subjective but useful term, so too is rendering, especially in forums like the alt forum (with lenses of wide ranging rendering styles), where it is commonly used.
Canon describes the new 24-70 L II to have increased clarity and 3-dimensionality - they're describing the look, or rendering style. Seriously...
p.4 #14 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
I thought we'd gone past the 'intentionally ironic and satirical' backhanders stage?!?
It was said this was about nuances or was some magic talk, but when people took the effort to show how prominent it can be, and how it can technically and artistically impact the image then you post this.
Seeing a pattern of intolerance, hangups, narrow mindedness and disrespect.
Why is this so hard for you? This is just a term to help people describe things they're seeing. Like bokeh or any other term. There is no inference to emotion, cost, brand, type of person who uses the term etc that you have associated with it. You're attaching your personal baggage to this. The idea people who use the term are lens lusters, want to sound erudite, or that this is about esoteric gear etc are things you've associate with the meaning.
You highlighted your vast experience and that you hang out with a bunch of photo legends. So, what's the logic here, since you guys don't acknowledge the term, people at Fred Miranda shouldn't? Do you realise others may have different experience to yours?
Thanks for sharing the photos, they are beautiful, lovely rendering. The rendering is similar though, and I can perfectly understand why you would not want to discuss this topic though, I honestly can't see you going over to the guy with the 17-40 / 70-200, hey check out the rendering...
Do you realise you're fighting a battle you can't win. The term is beyond you and I. It is being used by the forum and many people understand what it means. Do a tally on the response to this thread itself. Regardless of our opinions this will continue. It is like any language, words come in and out of favour, a handful of individuals can't change that.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps. But the rare 1938 version - the one with the titanium knobs and hand-rubbed gogobu wood back-plane - is subtly and ephemerally better able to render three-dimensional effects under real-world drawing conditions. Like a fine wine, it is worth the search - despite its regrettable tendency to vignette a bit at f/.9 and larger apertures when working at the all-important point approximately .27 meters forward of the MFD.
p.4 #18 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
Speaking of words, ...
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.]
p.4 #19 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
SKumar25 wrote:
Canon describes the new 24-70 L II to have increased clarity and 3-dimensionality - they're describing the look, or rendering style. Seriously...
p.4 #20 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
SKumar25 wrote:
Canon describes the new 24-70 L II to have increased clarity and 3-dimensionality - they're describing the look, or rendering style. Seriously...
PetKal wrote:
No way, Kumar. You must be kidding.
He is kidding. That was written by Canon marketing and advertising people.
"New, improved, gets your togs whiter than white!"
You must be kidding.