Garmadon wrote:
Those are very nice ,I always like to see your work but no pop to my eyes.
I'm quite sure it is almost 100% subjective.
What flash did you used and did you diffused it somehow?
+1
While lighting is always a contributing factor along with the optic, the use of flash has a such a significantly different falloff rate, that it really (imo) takes the ability to evaluate the lens for its optical transition rates into territory that we can't tell as much about the lens optical contribution.
When key lighting is of a higher / lower contrast ratio, the total contrast ratio capability is effected. We of course incur this in the natural ambient world ranging from diffuse / specular depending on the myriad of factors we engage. This uncontrolled variance makes part of the comparative aspects challenging, as we've often noted.
For me, the ability of a lens to perform under "added light" conditions, may give a false impression of the lens optical properties. Sure, we can recognize that light falloff is part of the puzzle pieces (it is) to human physiological response, and then THAT discussion is inclusive. BUT, in the context of the OPTICS, adding in specular (note shadow edge) lighting to the equation makes the OPTICS assessment different in the ability to discern the optical influence.
Nothing wrong with using flash, per se ... just that when doing so, it introduces an additional variable. That said, it reminds me of how different lighting companies (ProFoto / Broncolor come to mind) have different rates of flash duration / cutoff, inducing a "look" that is different from flash with longer / slower rates. I understand that for many folks, they will readily jump into the "prove it" vs. "it doesn't matter" thing. However, while the differences among mfr's run the paradigm of range, flash duration / falloff (I forget the tech term, atm) does influence the "crispness" of the image. (A totally different discussion / thread ... also debated significantly).
For me, the salient point remains ... rates of transition (lighting contrast, focus, field curvature, aberration correction, tonality, et al) ... influence the human physiological response. So, when we do add in the flash to the equation ... it can afford certain abilities, but, it also adds a variable to the discussion about the optic itself. Two different topics (the image vs. the optic) ... are influenced by the introduction of the flash. Neither are bad / wrong ... just recognize that it impacts each discussion differently.
