p.7 #3 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
well not to throw a monkey wrench into the fray but,isnt lens rendering a moot issue unless the image is SOOC with no Post done..just sayin,you could make any image look a certain way with Post processing so?
p.7 #4 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
digitalbug30d wrote:
well not to throw a monkey wrench into the fray but,isnt lens rendering a moot issue unless the image is SOOC with no Post done..just sayin,you could make any image look a certain way with Post processing so?
Nope. Not moot. You can't unrender bokeh. Once the scene info is mushed and smeared by bokeh much information is lost and it can't be recovered.
You can approximate some renderings in post-processing, but you cannot "make any image look a certain way."
p.7 #6 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
To expand on Monito's reply...
digitalbug30d wrote:
well not to throw a monkey wrench into the fray but,isnt lens rendering a moot issue unless the image is SOOC with no Post done..just sayin,you could make any image look a certain way with Post processing so?
Given any two lenses and the same scene, certain aspects of the rendering might be able to be duplicated in post, some with more work than others (color separation for example). Some aspects, not really. If the lenses have different enough optical formulas then things like bokeh, field curvature, and amount of detail resolved will remain as captured. In general, the properties reflected by the MTF curves can't be changed by any amount of post work.
p.7 #8 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
PetKal wrote:
Thank you, Kumar......my photoshop copy has good rendering.
Oh, you rascal, you... ;-)
About work in post, what we can reasonably say, I think, is that the effect of the things we typically do in post has a far greater effect on the look of the photograph than do subtle and debatable differences among fine lenses. Which is not to deny completely those who say that lenses matter - as I do - nor those who say that it is quite possible to succumb to a notion that they matter more than they really do. I say that too, ;-)
p.7 #9 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
gdanmitchell, unfortunately, nothing you do in post can create detail that wasn't captured, as I am sure you know. Two key lens rendering properties, resolution and contrast, govern the limit of detail that the image can show. Optimum post processing will reach that limit, whatever it is. Inferior post processing will fall short. Nothing done in post processing will increase the limit.
Most modern lenses have adequate resolution and contrast capability for normal-sized prints, and even for middling-large prints. Because of that, the ability of a superior lens to capture extra detail, either by resolving it, or by distinguishing it with subtle contrast, tends to go unnoticed until the photographer attempts to make unusually large prints. When doing that, the rendering advantages of superior lenses can become quite evident. Perhaps the fact that rendering advantages are not obvious in the day-to-day work of most photographers—which does not involve unusually large prints—accounts for why so many think of lens rendering as so much hocus pocus.
p.7 #10 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
gdan's point @ subtle differences among fine lenses makes the issue seem moot in practical terms.
But, when you get into the realm of WA & UWA, the vignette, distortion, corner sharpness and contrast of renderings becomes much more noticeable regarding what the lens produces. One very fine lens may have superior contrast and rapid transitions, but at the expense of heavy vignetting and the utilization of mustache distortion ... whereas another very fine lens may have lower contrast and smoother transitions, but also correspondingly lower vignetting and less distortion. Such are the compromises inherent to optical design.
For one person, the contrast trumps the vignetting & distortion and the rendering of that lens wins the day for them. For another person, the vignetting and distortion trump the contrast. Both are correctable to varying degree's in PP ... and can be brought closer together in the final output. Choose your poison accordingly, but they do still have different renderings.
p.7 #11 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
gdanmitchell wrote:
About work in post, what we can reasonably say, I think, is that the effect of the things we typically do in post has a far greater effect on the look of the photograph than do subtle and debatable differences among fine lenses.
I would respectfully disagree. Saying differences between lenses are subtle and debatable is about as vague as stating that a lens renders better than another, which it seems is sort of what started the debate. Given a context I might agree with you.
For example, the Leica Summicron 40mm (or M Rokkor 40, same thing) vs. the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm. For me, these lenses have similar enough rendering that, if I owned one (and I do), I wouldn't feel the need to try the other. The Nokton has a little "better" (subjective of course) OOF, but in other ways they're pretty close despite being different lens designs.
Now take either of them and compare it with the Contax G 45mm and the differences are not subtle and no amount of post would make them look similar. If someone disagrees with that, then we would have to agree to disagree.
I feel like the debate sort of immediately turned into an argument of symantics. Someone said earlier that they talk about properties like sharpness and contrast but never hear anyone use the term 'rendering', it's no different. The rendering is simply the cumulative result of all those other properties. I often don't want to get into a very analytical discussion so I might just say that I like the way X renders and be done with it. If someone asked about contrast or color, fine, but otherwise I don't want to have to break down every aspect of the lens performance for a discussion. This would be akin to saying a sportscar handles good. Fine for most casual discussions unless we need to talk about specifics like body roll, understeer, etc...
I know this is not a new concept to anyone, so I don't see where the need arises to deride anyone from the alt forum or call out people as being gearheads for using the term 'rendering'.
p.7 #12 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
If you capture an image with proper tone density in all areas and ...
... if you have no noise in any area and ...
... if you have huge depth of field so that all parts of the image are perfectly sharp and ...
... if you can perfectly remove lens design distortion (pincushion / barrel / moustache) and ...
... if you can perfectly correct any achromatic lens aberrations and ...
... if you can perfectly eliminate any birefringent purpled edges and ...
... if you did not add extra filter surfaces to rob colour contrast from the optical path and ...
... if you used a lenshood and have no flare or loss of contrast in any area and ...
... if you shot at a high shutterspeed or stopped all shake and motion with an electronic flash and ...
... if you can perfectly restore colour profiles by using colorchecker charts ...
... then you can render the image the way any lens will render it. That's a huge set of ifs.
p.7 #13 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean?
SKumar25 wrote:
Masterful effort there Peter!!
Cartier-Bresson was a small format shooter I believe.
Formats can also impact the look, not sure how it fits in with the forum's definition of rendering style. Here are some large format shots from yesteryear before Henri's time (US civil war), shot in 8"x10" I believe (Makes the the term full frame sound silly. ).
Absolutely love the look. I know some guys try and reproduce this with stitching.
).