Here's one for the buy more stuff materialists ...

[droj]

Can the visual rendering of a lens be described in terms of musical equivalence? It's a serious question, but also mischievous & meant to stimulate, being something that it's just crossed my mind to consider ...

 

[Nod]

Given that some examples of the same lens can show different results and that 2 instruments will almost certainly have slight tonal differences despite being built from the same trees a matter of minutes apart, yes! Pretty sure I couldn't find the right words to do it but I'm sure someone will.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Didn't someone once say that "a difference that makes no difference ain't a difference"?

 

[Graham W]

Didn't someone once say that "a difference that makes no difference ain't a difference"?

Well. I suspect that when you thought of the question, no...no one said it...but then you said it, so yes...someone has said it!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Can the visual rendering of a lens be described in terms of musical equivalence?

Probably as people love making such subjective comparisons.

More interesting is to ask if people think the way a lens 'renders' subjects matters to their picture making. I certainly don't.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Probably as people love making such subjective comparisons.

More interesting is to ask if people think the way a lens 'renders' subjects matters to their picture making. I certainly don't.

I was tempted to answer, but the more I considered it, the more likely it seemed we would end up in a circular argument. I also declined to answer because the title has already set up the situation and despite protestations of innocence in the post, I don't entirely believe them.

For your second line, it matters to me and I will photograph differently according to which lens I have on the camera, even if different lenses cover the same focal lengths.

 

[StephenM]

Insofar as both sound and light are wave motions, and I think of lens characteristics in terms of MTF graphs - curves, if not sine waves - then I can see the similarities.

On practical differences between different lens with the same focal length, coatings make some lenses have higher contrast than others; enough of a difference to affect the print, or even reduce contrast enough to make a scene reproducible without blank whites and solid blacks.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I was tempted to answer, but the more I considered it, the more likely it seemed we would end up in a circular argument. I also declined to answer because the title has already set up the situation and despite protestations of innocence in the post, I don't entirely believe them.

I am now wishing I'd resisted replying.

For your second line, it matters to me and I will photograph differently according to which lens I have on the camera, even if different lenses cover the same focal lengths.

I've never understood this. But I don't get it when people bang on about the different qualities of prints. All I see, in both instances, are what's in the picture and how it works as an arrangement of shapes/tones/colours.

 

[droj]

The question came to me when I was viewing an image that had some smooth bokeh in its background, whilst I happened to be listening to the singing of an a cappella octet.

All I see, in both instances, are what's in the picture and how it works as an arrangement of shapes/tones/colours.

I'm astounded by this, Dave! That sounds very reductive. Are you choosing to ignore texture altogether, as if it has no visual import?

 

[ancient_mariner]

The question came to me when I was viewing an image that had some smooth bokeh in its background, whilst I happened to be listening to the singing of an a cappella octet.

My apologies then, for misinterpreting your intent.

I am now wishing I'd resisted replying.

I saw the thread before anyone had replied and began considering a reply in my head, but wasn't sure about motivation and didn't want to get into an 'art vs gear' discussion. However as an observation, I've bought just 2 lenses in the last 3+ years (both used) and they've pretty much killed my interest in gear acquisition. Both are f1.2 primes.

 

[sirch]

I wonder if there is an "oxygen free" glass equivalent to copper speaker wire, which as we know makes all the difference

 

[Nod]

Isn't that what the grey paint does?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Isn't that what the grey paint does?

Nah, you need a red dot.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I wonder if there is an "oxygen free" glass equivalent to copper speaker wire, which as we know makes all the difference

I read once someone recommending a special power lead that did something special to the electrons as they passed from mains to rectifier. In fairness, it's really hard not to hear with your eyes sometimes, and when I'd been doing some slightly 'out there' things with guitar amps I got my wife to swap components for a true blind test. The amp building forums would also do blind listening tests for things like capacitors, with voting for which tone people prefered (it's amazing how much difference a particular capacitor can make, and some of the expensive Sozo caps sounded horrible until they had 24 hours burn-in time, though it's hard to imagine what would burn in).

Building guitar amps is cheaper than photography, but takes up much more space.

 

[droj]

Glass for lenses:

Lens Glass and Design

Technical details on the subject of Lens Glass by Steve Cushing Photography. Creative photography using vintage and new lenses.

u42.co

OPTICAL GLASS FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC LENSES

gmpphoto.blogspot.com

 

[sirch]

A bit more on topic, a relative was a well regarded piano technician (in fact he owned a Steinway from every decade) and I asked him once what he thought of Yamaha pianos? His response was interesting, he said that Yamaha made good pianos and they were much more consistent than Steinway, he admitted that Steinway made some poor instruments however he felt that the consistency of Yamahas meant that they would never make a great piano.

I suspect we are in a similar place with modern cameras and lenses, for the major brands the quality is consistently good and there is probably little to choose between them.

 

[droj]

I wonder if there is an "oxygen free" glass equivalent to copper speaker wire, which as we know makes all the difference

Yes, I got the joke. There are snake oil salesmen in every realm - that's not new. There are also fetishists on the consumer side of the fence who make ideal partners for them. It may be easier to believe a lie than challenge it, often. Always check your beer for chemtrails before taking a swig ...

When I got a Naim hi-fi amp some years ago I did get Naim speaker cable, because they spoke about its inductance, capacitance, etc being balanced to the amp. What would I know? - but I trusted them. I'd always used mains twin cable before ...

Lenses: there are qualities in design that affect performance & rendering, and there are quality control issues in manufacture (assembly perhaps in particular?) that affect variability. So like the pianos, yes.

Bokeh is a key area for me, but I'm not a bean counter (and yes - some bokeh looks like beans - or marbles, or chop suey for that matter!) - meaning that in real life I don't endlessly analyse, but just get on with the job.

And there are many ways to skin a rat, but I'm an admirer of the late Walter Mandler ... who it seemed pioneered on the cusp between analogue & digital design processes, but somehow seemed to design with heart. I wonder what music he liked? Not that his taste in that direction would have to tally with mine ...

Walter Mandler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[woof woof]

Some people have synesthesia.

I've spent a lot of time comparing the different look lenses give but what we like is a personal thing. I'd guess that most people like smooth bokeh like Rodrigo's guitar concerto but beyond that some like a lens to display at least some personality otherwise it can be criticised for being too clinical, Data from Star Trek playing the violin faultlessly, but I think I'd rather call it transparency which can be a good thing.

One of the most interesting lenses I've ever had is the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 in Sony mount. It gives a funky bokeh at its widest apertures maybe like a drunken jazz saxophonist trying to outdo a warbling Whitney Huston but when stopping down things change to a gentle lullaby sung by an angel. Maybe. And for that I like it. For some subjects I think a lens with adequate sharpness in the central area but with a falloff away from that area is very nice indeed. Sort of like a saxophonist running out of breath and petering out.

 

[ancient_mariner]

A bit more on topic, a relative was a well regarded piano technician (in fact he owned a Steinway from every decade) and I asked him once what he thought of Yamaha pianos? His response was interesting, he said that Yamaha made good pianos and they were much more consistent than Steinway, he admitted that Steinway made some poor instruments however he felt that the consistency of Yamahas meant that they would never make a great piano.

I suspect we are in a similar place with modern cameras and lenses, for the major brands the quality is consistently good and there is probably little to choose between them.

I've found this to be true for Gibson guitars too, that sometimes they make an incredibly great instrument, but often they're just OK with some distinctly sub-par examples. I've played a number and owned one that felt like a £100 Chinese-made budget guitar. Fender are much more like our camera makers, having intended their instruments to be mass-produced from the outset and designed quality in.

OK, since we've now arrived at that point: instruments and amplifiers. I have about a dozen electric guitars. Some I don't play because they're kept for sentimental reasons, but I have a range of instruments that I gig regularly, all conventional electric 6 string guitars in standard tuning. When I play with the ceilidh band we do pretty much the same numbers each time, but what I play if I take a Les Paul (heavy guitar, 2 highish output humbuckers, fat '59 style neck, slightly twangy despite the classic style body) is different to when taking the JJ goldtop (Gibson scale, fat neck, double mini-humbuckers, sounds tighter and more focussed) the Japanese strat (fattish neck, softer voiced pickups, very resonant and responsive body) the Mexican strat (skinny neck, bright, cutting pickups, lightweight and less resonant) the Godin xtSA (90's rock-machine style, tall frets for big vibrato, acoustic guitar and synth control pickups built in, slightly dead neutral feel). I don't take the Washburn A20V (V shaped neck, Z shaped body, metal tones and heavy weight) because a metal guitar at a Ceilidh would be daft, just like you wouldn't use a Holga lens for sports unless you were after some kind of arty schtick and not serious about the pictures themselves.

This is like having 5 different 50mm lenses that I can choose from at any one time, and we're not going near to effects pedals (like post-processing) or amplifiers (like printing). Now some guitarists are notable for always sounding the same whatever instrument they play, and that's partly personal character, but also because they have a product to make and they need to make it. Examples: Billy Gibbons, SRV, Hendrix. Others select a guitar because they know it will render their scene in the way the want it. Examples: Knopfler, Page, Schenker. You can also dial-out guitar character - overdrive and distortion are like stopping down a lens, and the more you do it, the more of the lenses character becomes hidden - all lenses are 'good enough' at f8. Many guitarists just choose a single guitar style to gig with despite recording a variety because they can get close enough to the records that only someone like me will notice the difference, just like I can sometimes spot the difference between photos of the same scene taken on full frame and M43, even websize on TP.

I could go on.

For some, sound character and feeling/photographic rendering don't matter, and small differences can be fixed in post anyway. For others, rendering shapes the way an image is captured, and is a key and integral part of realising an image. I am a feel player - I play almost entirely by ear and by feeling, and I photograph something because I suddenly 'see' it. Others work technically, whether playing Eruption note-for-note or taking a tripod out and carefully composing their picture over the course of several minutes. I can learn solos note-for-note (played in a covers band for a while, didn't enjoy it) just like I can take my tripod to the beach and make 30sec exposures of the waves. The ability to work by feel is probably enhanced very much with mirrorless cameras, that show the photographer what the camer is going to capture before it happens, in contrast to DSLRs and film cameras, where buttons had to be pressed or levers pushed to stop the lens down so that we'd all squint at the dark, gritty image on a ground glass screen and wonder whether that fence 15 feet in front of us was going to be in focus as well as the trees on the horizon.

Hope that's a useful addition to the conversation.

 

[droj]

The ability to work by feel is probably enhanced very much with mirrorless cameras, that show the photographer what the camer is going to capture before it happens, in contrast to DSLRs and film cameras, where buttons had to be pressed or levers pushed to stop the lens down so that we'd all squint at the dark, gritty image on a ground glass screen and wonder whether that fence 15 feet in front of us was going to be in focus as well as the trees on the horizon.

With mirrorless, I don't feel that I have any more grasp of the vision, aesthetic quality or emotional meaning of the shot than before, let alone what's in focus. What I do get is a preview of exposure (no blown highlights without having to guess it - but that's usually ok anyway if you take protective measures) - plus the opportunity to adapt almost any damned lens you like to produce a high-res, immediate digital result.

I feel no more able to preview dof on a mirrorless than I was with a SLR or still am with a rangefinder. You wing it by experience. None of them have the size or resolution of a 10x8 focussing screen. We gallop by guesswork, which is part of the fun. Art welcomes accident. Not that all accidents are good. As ever, one self-edits the results ...

 

[LCPete]

As it happens I’ve been checking out a couple of my older lenses, testing for sharpness and was surprised at the slight colour differences between them
Taking shots of the same subject using the same body
One of my older lenses a 70-200 F4 wasn’t actually as sharp as I thought it was but have taken some of my favourite shots with it, the way the background comes out is nice, similar to my 100mm macro

 

[Raymond Lin]

A bit more on topic, a relative was a well regarded piano technician (in fact he owned a Steinway from every decade) and I asked him once what he thought of Yamaha pianos? His response was interesting, he said that Yamaha made good pianos and they were much more consistent than Steinway, he admitted that Steinway made some poor instruments however he felt that the consistency of Yamahas meant that they would never make a great piano.

I suspect we are in a similar place with modern cameras and lenses, for the major brands the quality is consistently good and there is probably little to choose between them.

It seems that the same minds are in guitars too. If you ask SOME people who loves Gibson (or Fender) about PRS, their answer are usually "PRS has no soul". Especially when some people rave about the great quality of 50's Gibson....somehow they think humans have lost the ability to make guitars and now none of them are as good.

What they mean is that they are consistently good, so everyone of them is perfect, there is no wrong neck angle, there is no manufactured defects. What it translate to is that there isn't that thrill of finding a good one.

The whole point of manufacturing is to have consistency, have it consistently good and while wood is an organic material, you do everything you can to make it so that at least the assembly and tactile are perfect and whatever imperfections are down to the organic nature of the wood. These organic nature can't really be replaced.

It has been shown that in many blind tests that people cannot tell the difference of a song played on between Gibson to a PRS, or a Stradivarius vs a Yamaha. I will give them that they might be able to tell by hand but personally I think at that point, a lot of it is placebo because they know what they are touching or holding.

With lenses, bokeh can be replicated if they are in the same line of lenses so I am not sure I can draw the same comparison.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It has been shown that in many blind tests that people cannot tell the difference of a song played on between Gibson to a PRS, or a Stradivarius vs a Yamaha. I will give them that they might be able to tell by hand but personally I think at that point, a lot of it is placebo because they know what they are touching or holding

I've never owned a PRS. When they were first launched I read about how good they were and eventually managed to try one. The difference between a PRS and some of the guitars I own is like the difference between a completely empty studio space with white walls and a studio with lights, furniture, and an exciting atmosphere. The PRS seems to say "I can be anything you want, but you must make it happen" compared to a Les Paul that says "hold on to your hat, because we're going to ROCK". When they launched the 245 I heard Rob Chapman demo one and it sounded absolutely incredible, but it was Chappers and not the guitar I was hearing.

The PRS is like the Zeiss 55 f1.8: very very neutral, a little bit more than most 50s but without anything exciting in itself. My Godin is very PRS-like, offering a neutral platform that's good if I want something that lets me play a sax solo or a flute solo, horn parts etc, even bass using the synth. It can sound like an acoustic and also a great electric. In a fire I wouldn't save it because it's not special and I could just buy another one.

So I tried a PRS. You know what it's like to pick up a guitar and just bond with it? That's never happened with any that I've tried so far. Always good, never inspiring.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I've never owned a PRS. When they were first launched I read about how good they were and eventually managed to try one. The difference between a PRS and some of the guitars I own is like the difference between a completely empty studio space with white walls and a studio with lights, furniture, and an exciting atmosphere. The PRS seems to say "I can be anything you want, but you must make it happen" compared to a Les Paul that says "hold on to your hat, because we're going to ROCK". When they launched the 245 I heard Rob Chapman demo one and it sounded absolutely incredible, but it was Chappers and not the guitar I was hearing.

The PRS is like the Zeiss 55 f1.8: very very neutral, a little bit more than most 50s but without anything exciting in itself. My Godin is very PRS-like, offering a neutral platform that's good if I want something that lets me play a sax solo or a flute solo, horn parts etc, even bass using the synth. It can sound like an acoustic and also a great electric. In a fire I wouldn't save it because it's not special and I could just buy another one.

So I tried a PRS. You know what it's like to pick up a guitar and just bond with it? That's never happened with any that I've tried so far. Always good, never inspiring.

Your last sentence is what some people call "no soul".

It's exactly what I mean....it's just a tool. The "character" in guitars, or any musical instrument or even lenses are often can be called flaws.

I think had PRS made his guitar at the same time as Gibson made their's, we would think completely different to it. Also, I think the reason people look back on the 50's stuff so fondly is purely because the stuff in the late 60's, 70's and even early 80's are seen as utter crap (with only a couple of gems). So when people in the 70's80's looking to get a guitar, they found the 50'\s stuff like 10-15 years ago to be better, it started this myth that 50's guitars were the best. At the time they probably were but that option has stuck, even to today. The same can be said for Fender too, as they went through a similar phrase when they sold it to an investment group in the late 60's.

It wasn't really until PRS came along in the mid and late 80's with his Custom 24 where both Gibson and Fender starter to also make another tier above their regular guitars (as you know no doubt), so PRS helped the industry to up their standard.

Here is my 2001 Gibson Custom Shop....

 

[ancient_mariner]

Here is my 2001 Gibson Custom Shop....

Looks lovely.

As for PRS making guitars in the 50s and then being perceived to have soul, I don't think so. Some instruments just connect and some don't. I've owned 2 flying Vs, but the baby Dean was the one that felt and sounded great and the Gibson was the one I sold quickly. The connection thing may be partly imagined, but when I bought my Strat in 1989 I played probably 30 instruments and that was the one I kept going back to.

Almost all my favourite guitars were made in Japan, FWIW, so quality is generally high and PRS-consistent too.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

The lens on my Kodak superzoom is meant to mimic any song that Shane Magowen from the Pogues sang on as the image looks like the camera is totally Pished !

 

[Raymond Lin]

Looks lovely.

As for PRS making guitars in the 50s and then being perceived to have soul, I don't think so. Some instruments just connect and some don't. I've owned 2 flying Vs, but the baby Dean was the one that felt and sounded great and the Gibson was the one I sold quickly. The connection thing may be partly imagined, but when I bought my Strat in 1989 I played probably 30 instruments and that was the one I kept going back to.

Almost all my favourite guitars were made in Japan, FWIW, so quality is generally high and PRS-consistent too.

I am just commenting on what a lot of people on forums like TGP would say about 50's Gibsons.

Personally, I treat each one by its own merit. Some are better than others and we also play / buy / eat with our eyes.

 

[ancient_mariner]

With mirrorless, I don't feel that I have any more grasp of the vision, aesthetic quality or emotional meaning of the shot than before, let alone what's in focus.

Sorry to miss answering this. The screen on the Sony A7III good enough that I can get a sense of depth of field and to a very small degree focus. I spot-meter and move the spot around to choose the exposure I get before taking the picture. It gives me a sense of the aesthetic quality to a small degree, though not very much.

I feel like vision and emotional meaning are in the head of the photographer, and the camera can only preview what is in front of the lens, rather than behind it, and may be difficult to imagine with such a small screen. Some of this may tie into the quote about a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept, where you have to invent them for yourself, because a picture is just a picture.

-

It's interesting seeing my responses in this thread. I love my guitars and playing music, but photography is just a hobby that lets me express myself in other ways. Both drain the same energy within me, and they can be a bit exclusive in that if I do a lot of one then it tends to shut down the other. About 15 years ago I went through a difficult patch with music where I was unable to play for several years, and that was when I restarted photography. But since then I've done both alongside each other.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I am just commenting on what a lot of people on forums like TGP would say about 50's Gibsons.

Personally, I treat each one by its own merit. Some are better than others and we also play / buy / eat with our eyes.

Of course. I've been lucky enough to have had an adult lifetime of buying guitars, and this is only my experience. I've recently gone back to regularly participating on Harmony Central, and some of the guys are still buying several guitars per year, still looking for something. There's a few I would still like to own (a good Tele, a junior with P90s) but it's probably not going to happen.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Of course. I've been lucky enough to have had an adult lifetime of buying guitars, and this is only my experience. I've recently gone back to regularly participating on Harmony Central, and some of the guys are still buying several guitars per year, still looking for something. There's a few I would still like to own (a good Tele, a junior with P90s) but it's probably not going to happen.

I've found my tele, and a P90 guitar, and also a Fender Strat in Olympic White...lol I got all 3 after that photo was taken.

I have since sold the red Taylor, 8 guitars is enough....

 

[Ed Sutton]

a picture is just a picture.

 

[droj]

a picture is just a picture

That sounds so dull (groan) ... :-(

I do tend to take the view that what I consider to be a good photograph is informed with something communicable.

And I will hold that the same applies with music.

And literature.

Without that it's all going to be like shouting alone in a locked cellar. What would be the point?