This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.28 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
I can't tell. My only CCD memory is D70. Which had a little more flat rendering compare to D700 / D800. Anyway, #2 and #3 seems to be from same family, #1 is separate. #4 also seems different but I can't tell it belongs to #1 or not, just more pronounced vignetting and interesting bokeh of chain. Ah, and #5 seems different too.
May be #1 is beloging to a different sensor, and #2,3,4 are from same family, and I like that more.
Luka I must give you the award for the guess on the 135 Sonnar, officially
3 and 4 in that last set were shot with the CCD of the M9. To my eye, in those cases it's obvious, but that's not always so. CCD is can give a very clean look.
One more from the incredible 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor from 1948:
DSC09624 by unoh7, on Flickr
all things considered, I think this was the greatest Nikkor masterpiece. They took the great Zeiss 85/2 and improved it dramatically. Thanks to our silly thread here, I took it out and really gave it a work out. Now I really see why DDD was taken aback by it's performance
I can't tell. My only CCD memory is D70. Which had a little more flat rendering compare to D700 / D800. Anyway, #2 and #3 seems to be from same family, #1 is separate. #4 also seems different but I can't tell it belongs to #1 or not, just more pronounced vignetting and interesting bokeh of chain. Ah, and #5 seems different too.
May be #1 is beloging to a different sensor, and #2,3,4 are from same family, and I like that more.Luka I must give you the award for the guess on the 135 Sonnar, officially
3 and 4 in that last set were shot with the CCD of the M9. To my eye, in those cases it's obvious, but that's not always so. CCD is can give a very clean look.
One more from the incredible 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor from 1948:
DSC09624 by unoh7, on Flickr
all things considered, I think this was the greatest Nikkor masterpiece.
They took the great Zeiss 85/2 and improved it dramatically. Thanks to our silly thread here, I took it out and really gave it a work out. Now I really see why DDD was taken aback by it's performance Mar 12, 2016 at 05:15 PM
p.28 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Since "3D" came up here, some of you might enjoy this video...
http://youtu.be/uiPUq968tJQ
http://youtu.be/uiPUq968tJQ
Mar 12, 2016 at 11:03 PM
p.28 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Moving forward, don't forget to set your clocks back
9,455 to go.
Edited on Mar 13, 2016 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
9,455 to go.
Edited on Mar 13, 2016 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
Mar 13, 2016 at 12:30 AM
p.28 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Once there it is really hard to go back to lenses with high plastic ratio. The character, whatever you consider it to be, adds to the pleasure. Time for lensporn.
DSC02366 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
DSC02366 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on FlickrMar 13, 2016 at 05:57 AM
p.28 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
We use a range of cues to construct a three dimensional mental map of our world. Binary vision is certainly part of it, but we are also sensitive to a huge range of other visual cues including relative size, differences in light, effects of haze including color changes, perspective cues including converging lines, how the scene changes as we move our heads, prior knowledge of the subject, and more.
The cues are not limited to the visual, either. The nature of sound in a three dimensional space tells us a lot about its size and more, for example.
The overall complexity...Show more →
I think the only way is to set up a camera on a tripod with a staged scene (maybe playground with kids, dock with people, etc.) with a Zeiss (or even Voigtlander), snap the pics at various f stops (put camera in auto iso mode use same shutter speed for each f/stop so the recorded actual iso can tell a story) and then install an identical "modern lens" with the super high element count and repeat the exercise. Segregate the pictures by f stop (make of lens secret) and let people do a pepsi/coke challenge. Under this sort of testing the pictures with pop would be easy to separate from the flat ones. Have the individuals say why they picked one over the other.
The end result will shock you. You will find there are people specifically seeking out pictures that are both flat and sharp with the remainder favoring good colors and pop. I think that is really what is going on with these newer lens and the number of people liking flat/sharp pictures is growing every day.
robgo2 wrote
Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.The cues are not limited to the visual, either. The nature of sound in a three dimensional space tells us a lot about its size and more, for example.
The overall complexity...Show more →
I think the only way is to set up a camera on a tripod with a staged scene (maybe playground with kids, dock with people, etc.) with a Zeiss (or even Voigtlander), snap the pics at various f stops (put camera in auto iso mode use same shutter speed for each f/stop so the recorded actual iso can tell a story) and then install an identical "modern lens" with the super high element count and repeat the exercise. Segregate the pictures by f stop (make of lens secret) and let people do a pepsi/coke challenge. Under this sort of testing the pictures with pop would be easy to separate from the flat ones. Have the individuals say why they picked one over the other.
The end result will shock you. You will find there are people specifically seeking out pictures that are both flat and sharp with the remainder favoring good colors and pop. I think that is really what is going on with these newer lens and the number of people liking flat/sharp pictures is growing every day.
Mar 13, 2016 at 06:15 AM
p.28 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
morrismike wrote:
The end result will shock you. You will find there are people specifically seeking out pictures that are both flat and sharp with the remainder favoring good colors and pop. I think that is really what is going on with these newer lens and the number of people liking flat/sharp pictures is growing every day.
1. I won't be shocked. I'm certain that people (including photographers) have an interest in a many different "looks" in photographs. A quick look at photographic history shows that we can vacillated back and forth between the sharp and the pictorialism approach regularly in the nearly 180 years (arguably) since the invention of photography. And that's fine with me — I think that there are many ways to make beautiful photographs.
2. To the extent that the flat/sharp (different meaning to this musician!) and color/pop differences are important — and the underlying factors that such words refer to are important — there is a lot to think about. Let's say that someone likes the (very) old style lenses (seen on some early 35mm classic photographs, for example) in which focus is soft all over, very soft in corners, and vignetting is very apparent. Let's say we like that look and that it was produced using Lens Brand X. Run the time machine forward to the present and look at what Lens Brand X now produces — probably something that is very sharp in the center, excellent across the frame, and with minimal vignetting! In that case a preference for Brand X based on the old style lens won't translate very well to the modern versions.
It is complex...
Dan
The end result will shock you. You will find there are people specifically seeking out pictures that are both flat and sharp with the remainder favoring good colors and pop. I think that is really what is going on with these newer lens and the number of people liking flat/sharp pictures is growing every day.
1. I won't be shocked. I'm certain that people (including photographers) have an interest in a many different "looks" in photographs. A quick look at photographic history shows that we can vacillated back and forth between the sharp and the pictorialism approach regularly in the nearly 180 years (arguably) since the invention of photography. And that's fine with me — I think that there are many ways to make beautiful photographs.
2. To the extent that the flat/sharp (different meaning to this musician!) and color/pop differences are important — and the underlying factors that such words refer to are important — there is a lot to think about. Let's say that someone likes the (very) old style lenses (seen on some early 35mm classic photographs, for example) in which focus is soft all over, very soft in corners, and vignetting is very apparent. Let's say we like that look and that it was produced using Lens Brand X. Run the time machine forward to the present and look at what Lens Brand X now produces — probably something that is very sharp in the center, excellent across the frame, and with minimal vignetting! In that case a preference for Brand X based on the old style lens won't translate very well to the modern versions.
It is complex...
Dan
Mar 13, 2016 at 07:51 AM
p.28 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
wfrank wrote:
Once there it is really hard to go back to lenses with high plastic ratio. The character, whatever you consider it to be, adds to the pleasure. Time for lensporn.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7262/8170553449_c6b1a5c843_o.jpgDSC02366 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
Sweet pic!
Once there it is really hard to go back to lenses with high plastic ratio. The character, whatever you consider it to be, adds to the pleasure. Time for lensporn.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7262/8170553449_c6b1a5c843_o.jpgDSC02366 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
Sweet pic!
Mar 13, 2016 at 08:02 AM
p.28 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
Are we losing the mystery?
was there ever really a mystery or just another tired excuse?
Are we losing the mystery?
was there ever really a mystery or just another tired excuse?
Mar 13, 2016 at 08:04 AM
p.28 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
Mar 13, 2016 at 08:23 AM
p.28 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
It's slightly over-exposed do mostly to poor PP.
Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.
It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
It's slightly over-exposed do mostly to poor PP.
Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
Mar 13, 2016 at 08:31 AM
p.28 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
That would be an excellent subject to compare lens against at varying f/stop and shutter speed combos. Putting a random picture up without a shot from the other lens isn't much of a comparison. I'm betting a lot of lens show that A frame to the right and behind would appear to be immediately to the right of the front of that forward protruding wall. Whoever took that should do it with a 85mm art and a 85mm planar and they'll look different. Ditto for Nikkor 24-70 lens of different vintages compared against each other. It doesn't mean one is better than the other but certainly they'll each have fans. It's not like it is possible to have 5 people outside on a sunny day agree that the sky is blue.
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
That would be an excellent subject to compare lens against at varying f/stop and shutter speed combos. Putting a random picture up without a shot from the other lens isn't much of a comparison. I'm betting a lot of lens show that A frame to the right and behind would appear to be immediately to the right of the front of that forward protruding wall. Whoever took that should do it with a 85mm art and a 85mm planar and they'll look different. Ditto for Nikkor 24-70 lens of different vintages compared against each other. It doesn't mean one is better than the other but certainly they'll each have fans. It's not like it is possible to have 5 people outside on a sunny day agree that the sky is blue.
Mar 13, 2016 at 08:58 AM
p.28 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
1. I won't be shocked. I'm certain that people (including photographers) have an interest in a many different "looks" in photographs. A quick look at photographic history shows that we can vacillated back and forth between the sharp and the pictorialism approach regularly in the nearly 180 years (arguably) since the invention of photography. And that's fine with me — I think that there are many ways to make beautiful photographs.
2. To the extent that the flat/sharp (different meaning to this musician!) and color/pop differences are important — and the underlying factors that such words refer to are important — there...Show more →
Flat/Sharp are matters of opinion as is color/pop. There are of course poor old lens just as there are junk new lens AND there are good old style (some still in production) lens and great new lens. Everything you change with a lens comes with a side effect but I'm certainly not ruling out the desired changes they make have good side effects.
morrismike wrote
The end result will shock you. You will find there are people specifically seeking out pictures that are both flat and sharp with the remainder favoring good colors and pop. I think that is really what is going on with these newer lens and the number of people liking flat/sharp pictures is growing every day.2. To the extent that the flat/sharp (different meaning to this musician!) and color/pop differences are important — and the underlying factors that such words refer to are important — there...Show more →
Flat/Sharp are matters of opinion as is color/pop. There are of course poor old lens just as there are junk new lens AND there are good old style (some still in production) lens and great new lens. Everything you change with a lens comes with a side effect but I'm certainly not ruling out the desired changes they make have good side effects.
Mar 13, 2016 at 09:09 AM
p.28 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
morrismike wrote:
Flat/Sharp are matters of opinion as is color/pop. There are of course poor old lens just as there are junk new lens AND there are good old style (some still in production) lens and great new lens. Everything you change with a lens comes with a side effect but I'm certainly not ruling out the desired changes they make have good side effects.
As I remind myself and others periodically, not all differences define things as being better or worse than one another. Sometimes things that are different are simply different.
Dan
Flat/Sharp are matters of opinion as is color/pop. There are of course poor old lens just as there are junk new lens AND there are good old style (some still in production) lens and great new lens. Everything you change with a lens comes with a side effect but I'm certainly not ruling out the desired changes they make have good side effects.
As I remind myself and others periodically, not all differences define things as being better or worse than one another. Sometimes things that are different are simply different.
Dan
Mar 13, 2016 at 09:13 AM
p.28 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
morrismike wrote:
Flat/Sharp are matters of opinion as is color/pop. There are of course poor old lens just as there are junk new lens AND there are good old style (some still in production) lens and great new lens. Everything you change with a lens comes with a side effect but I'm certainly not ruling out the desired changes they make have good side effects.
As I remind myself and others periodically, not all differences define things as being better or worse than one another. Sometimes things that are different are simply different.
Dan
Flat/Sharp are matters of opinion as is color/pop. There are of course poor old lens just as there are junk new lens AND there are good old style (some still in production) lens and great new lens. Everything you change with a lens comes with a side effect but I'm certainly not ruling out the desired changes they make have good side effects.
As I remind myself and others periodically, not all differences define things as being better or worse than one another. Sometimes things that are different are simply different.
Dan
Mar 13, 2016 at 09:13 AM
p.28 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gunzorro wrote:
It's slightly over-exposed do mostly to poor PP. Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.
It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
I consider the sun. I could if I wanted, drop it a little. its far from being over exposed. the only reason its soft is due to the the fact it is a reduction of a reduction of a reduction. can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet
sjms wrote
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image? Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
I consider the sun. I could if I wanted, drop it a little. its far from being over exposed. the only reason its soft is due to the the fact it is a reduction of a reduction of a reduction. can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet
Mar 13, 2016 at 09:14 AM
p.28 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
It's kind of dilapidated, but I don't think that's a Zeiss characteristic.
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?
It's kind of dilapidated, but I don't think that's a Zeiss characteristic.
Mar 13, 2016 at 10:18 AM
p.28 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
... can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet
Man, if we had to get general approval from FM members before selling photos, we'd never sell any photos.
Mar 13, 2016 at 10:20 AM
p.28 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
My Zeiss and Leica glass are superior to my Canikon lenses. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or 28 pages of this dumb thread to know that.
Mar 13, 2016 at 11:02 AM
p.28 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
It's kind of dilapidated, but I don't think that's a Zeiss characteristic.
yeah, it was that first atomic bomb thing 1800 ft up and to the left of where i shot it.
sjms wrote
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image?yeah, it was that first atomic bomb thing 1800 ft up and to the left of where i shot it.
Mar 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM