The Problem With Modern Optics

[Aswald]

Interesting read......

 

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/03/12/the-problem-with-modern-optics/#.VuOkc29f3AQ

[milandro]

yes, very nice.

 

Although I agree with the spirit of most of the article, I find that he is preaching to the converts, since the “ lens intention diagram” used to to explain and visualize the concepts, is yes, a very nice tool but one that wouldn’t convince the trend follower.

 

Mr. Khong says what many of us of the old generation think but don’t say because of the unpopularity of these common sense concepts. One is bound to be flamed for spousing these concept which go against the grain of the popular “ wisdom" of these times.

 

And we know that popular wisdom goes well together with tar and feathers. Nowhere more than on fora people keep a boiling caldron of tar and a sack of feathers always at hand. The lynching mob is only one click away.

 

The popular wisdom of the righteous is soaked with the milk and honey of hype.

 

Hypes have been around forever, in photography as much as in everything else. 

 

Common sense is a lot less common than popular wisdom which is certainly popular but is hardly wise.

[Fredkelder]

Unfortunatly, marketing discourse is stronger than the shared experience of old photographers.

A couple of weeks ago, as I wanted to sell my Nikon 35 f2 D lens, a potential buyer asked me: "Can you show me some pictures at f2?". He was very surprised as I answered "I never shoot at full aperture".

[milandro]

Exactly...

 

I have done this mainly as a “special  effect” also in the past and limiting it only to portraits.

 

I have to say that I have taken to doing this  much more now because, I too, have succumbed to the hype but I know all too well that total sharpness and detail were much appreciated in my photographic past.

 

The group f64 and its manifesto would be unthinkable nowadays!

 

“...The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group..."

 

 I suppose that soon someone would found the group f - (minus) 1 

[Max_Elmar]

As a someone who owns (and uses) a lot of old lenses, I see his points. I agree with the the author for certain types of photography, but sports/action, landscape, and architectural photographers have different priorities than what's presented here. Given the small, highly-compressed jpeg examples, I couldn't really see what he was talking about. There is some obvious cherry picking going on in selecting the examples - it's obvious the author isn't really moved to make or find a good photo with the modern lenses - they're just quick "example" snapshots.

 

Again - I think I agree with the author - but I don't find the article very convincing. "You simply cannot cheat the diagram." Ha. I guess that would be true if the diagram was based on numbers. But the diagrams are just impressive-looking stand-ins for actual data. The diagrams are a symptom of the inability to express the idea using words and photographs.

 

If the author reads this, please don't take my comments as disrespect. A good bit of work went into this and I respect that.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Max_Elmar

[milandro]

exactly my sentiments, the lens “ intention” diagram is a subjective instruments and only works as an explanation tool and has such preaches only to the converts. The non converts would be absolutely unmoved by it.

Edited March 14, 2016 by milandro

[Guest thiswayup]

The man is a profound idiot. The way you test the claims he made is by shooting with a modern and a classic lens in the same conditions, not by cherrypicking examples taken with different lighting. 

 

And this is what happens when you do that:

 

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/10-vs-1000-or-takumar-smc-55mm-f18-vs-sony-zeis_topic114188.html 

[EyesUnclouded]

The man is a profound idiot. The way you test the claims he made is by shooting with a modern and a classic lens in the same conditions, not by cherrypicking examples taken with different lighting. 

 

And this is what happens when you do that:

 

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/10-vs-1000-or-takumar-smc-55mm-f18-vs-sony-zeis_topic114188.html 

 

It's not my intention to defend this guy in any sense but:

 

1) He DID shoot two lenses side by side in the exact same conditions. In fact, he did two pairs of them:

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/3/7/sigma-art-vs-nikkor-afd-part-1

 

Whether you agree or not with his remarks and conclusions, is another matter. But your point is invalid, insofar as his whole "research" on the matter is concerned.

 

(edit: there is also a like for like comparison involving the Otus somewhere in his blog, I don't care to try and discover it right now)

 

2) AFAIK, he never mentioned putting a crappy old lens next to a great quality modern one. On the contrary, if you read a couple of posts in his blog you'll see that he favors very specific "older" lenses (which is not exactly correct, since most of them are still in production, e.g. Nikkor 35mm f/2D).

Edited March 22, 2016 by EyesUnclouded

[quincy]

Just one question: Do you guys see "3D noses" and "flat noses"? Because I'm a bit puzzled when looking at the images and reading the accompanying text. Perhaps my brain is too imaginative and fills out the missing depth information in ALL the images... I don't know.

[Aswald]

Yes, I can see the 3D noses although with the flat nose pic, the subject was relatively close to the camera. DOF issue?

 

What I take from this article is that central detail and characteristics may have made way for more contemporary need for the edge to edge sharpness in modern optics. I don't think there is a right or wrong but more of what you shoot and prefer. What's good to note is that with these knowledge in mind, we may be able to shoot accordingly with whichever lenses we have.

 

I'm beginning to notice similar characteristics in some of my legacy lenses.

[Guest thiswayup]

It's not my intention to defend this guy in any sense but:

 

1) He DID shoot two lenses side by side in the exact same conditions. In fact, he did two pairs of them:

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/3/7/sigma-art-vs-nikkor-afd-part-1

 

Whether you agree or not with his remarks and conclusions, is another matter. But your point is invalid, insofar as his whole "research" on the matter is concerned.

 

 

This seems like a dishonest response on your part: my comment was on the article linked which does not include that test. (Which is incompetently conducted, but that's another matter.) The point, as this seems to have eluded you, was that he presented images taken in high contrast lighting and compared them to those with low contrast lighting and pretended that the difference was due to the lens. Well, no!

[Guest thiswayup]

Yes, I can see the 3D noses although with the flat nose pic, the subject was relatively close to the camera. DOF issue?

 

What I take from this article is that central detail and characteristics may have made way for more contemporary need for the edge to edge sharpness in modern optics. I don't think there is a right or wrong but more of what you shoot and prefer. What's good to note is that with these knowledge in mind, we may be able to shoot accordingly with whichever lenses we have.

 

I'm beginning to notice similar characteristics in some of my legacy lenses.

 

You'll objct to what am I about to say, but what I take away from your post is that you don't know the basics of how light works in photography. You'd do better to understand that than worry about lenses. The "flat" images were taken with soft light and the "3D" ones with harder light. Start by finding out what these terms mean and then by understanding how a competent photographer would look at those images and know these things instantly and therefore that he was being lied to. This is not a matter of opinion or of taste, but of basic, utterly objective knowledge that you have failed to master and without which you can't competently form an opinion on those images. 

 

This is a picture taken with soft light; it will necessarily look flat:

 

 

How do I know it was taken with soft light? There are no real bloody shadows! (That vague and gentle shading on her neck is the nearest thing and its penumbra with no umbra at all - another sign of soft light.) Really, this isn't hard. Soft light comes from a wide range of angles and fills shadows, that's how it is defined. For the same reason it makes subjects look flat! This is photography 101.

 

Otoh this is a picture that supposedly shows a Magic 3D Lens Of Antiquity:

 

 

What do we instantly see? A nose shadow, shadow on the right of her face, a shadow cast by her head on herneck, her shadow on the ground behind her, shadow in her right eye socket and under the lid of her left eye. This is hard light. Hard light casts shadows and therefore makes subjects look 3D. Again, this is photography 101. If the woman in the first phto had been shot with this light then she'd have a hard shadow from her nose running to her mouth and deep black shadow onher neck. And she would have looked 3D as smaller shadow cues appeared on her lower eyelids and lips and under her nose.

 

What's really depressing is that - aside from this being one of the most basic things any photographer should know - is that it is explained a dozen times over in the comments for that article. Plus, to be honest, common sense should have told you something when all the Magic 3D pictures had shadows and one of the flat ones did. Not to mention high school physics class - remember learning about umbra and penumbra when you were 12 or 13?

Edited March 23, 2016 by thiswayup

[Guest thiswayup]

http://www.shortcourses.com/tabletop/lighting2-8.html 

[Fredkelder]

The 3D effect is a consequence of:
-the depth of field and therefore its variables
-different planes in the depth direction
-the characters specific to the optical design of the lens.

That said, I do not see the interest to seek 3d in a photo, since it is the absence of this third dimension that makes it artistic. And there are 3d or plenoptic systems for those who need.

[EyesUnclouded]

This seems like a dishonest response on your part: my comment was on the article linked which does not include that test. (Which is incompetently conducted, but that's another matter.) The point, as this seems to have eluded you, was that he presented images taken in high contrast lighting and compared them to those with low contrast lighting and pretended that the difference was due to the lens. Well, no!

 

Please refrain from using expressions such as "dishonest" when reffering to me in the future.

 

Instead, try to do your own homework; this way you would be possibly able to make a more comprehensive evaluation of any given argument.

Edited March 23, 2016 by EyesUnclouded

[Aswald]

You'll objct to what am I about to say, but what I take away from your post is that you don't know the basics of how light works in photography. You'd do better to understand that than worry about lenses. The "flat" images were taken with soft light and the "3D" ones with harder light. Start by finding out what these terms mean and then by understanding how a competent photographer would look at those images and know these things instantly and therefore that he was being lied to. This is not a matter of opinion or of taste, but of basic, utterly objective knowledge that you have failed to master and without which you can't competently form an opinion on those images. 

 

This is a picture taken with soft light; it will necessarily look flat:

 

 

How do I know it was taken with soft light? There are no real bloody shadows! (That vague and gentle shading on her neck is the nearest thing and its penumbra with no umbra at all - another sign of soft light.) Really, this isn't hard. Soft light comes from a wide range of angles and fills shadows, that's how it is defined. For the same reason it makes subjects look flat! This is photography 101.

 

Otoh this is a picture that supposedly shows a Magic 3D Lens Of Antiquity:

 

 

What do we instantly see? A nose shadow, shadow on the right of her face, a shadow cast by her head on herneck, her shadow on the ground behind her, shadow in her right eye socket and under the lid of her left eye. This is hard light. Hard light casts shadows and therefore makes subjects look 3D. Again, this is photography 101. If the woman in the first phto had been shot with this light then she'd have a hard shadow from her nose running to her mouth and deep black shadow onher neck. And she would have looked 3D as smaller shadow cues appeared on her lower eyelids and lips and under her nose.

 

What's really depressing is that - aside from this being one of the most basic things any photographer should know - is that it is explained a dozen times over in the comments for that article. Plus, to be honest, common sense should have told you something when all the Magic 3D pictures had shadows and one of the flat ones did. Not to mention high school physics class - remember learning about umbra and penumbra when you were 12 or 13?

Pretty strong language....

 

I'm not going into what I know or you think I know coz we don't know each other.

 

While I know exactly what you are saying, I will assert that a more correct term to use is diffused lighting rather than "soft" lighting as how you've described.

 

I. e. Would you say that these two examples were hard lighting? I certainly don't think so.

 

Your argument still does not waive the notion that legacy lenses has best optics for central render while modern optics are getting better edge to edge sharpness. This article considers the possibility that perhaps, something is giving way to achieve that.

 

Do I worry about that on any of my lenses? Probably not.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest thiswayup]

Please refrain from using expressions such as "dishonest" when reffering to me in the future.

 

 

Certainly - if you refrain from being dishonest. Once again: I explained why the linked article was manipulative. Referring to arguments made outside the article as if they are relevant is either dishonest or intellectually incompetent.

 

>> Instead, try to do your own homework; this way you would be possibly able to make a more comprehensive evaluation of any given argument.

 

You've failed to read my reply at a reasonable level of comprehension: what I said was that his article was shameful and manipulative, because it uses unfair examples. He can't correct that moral fault by posting other arguments elsewhere. A lie is a lie, a manipulation is a manipulation. (And that would be the case even if the tests you refer to were competent and convincing, which they are not.)

Edited March 24, 2016 by thiswayup

[Guest thiswayup]

Pretty strong language....

 

I'm not going into what I know or you think I know coz we don't know each other.

 

While I know exactly what you are saying, I will assert that a more correct term to use is diffused lighting rather than "soft" lighting as how you've described.

 

>>> Ok: you don't know basic photographic vocabulary. You haven't read even the most basic article on lighting.

 

I. e. Would you say that these two examples were hard lighting? I certainly don't think so.

 

>>> What you think doesn't matter; what does is the evidence. As was pointed out in the article's comments, at least one image had obviously been manipulated (without much skill - look at the impossibly blue t-shirt and bizarre streaks of dirt on faces) and the other combines hard and soft light from multiple sources. (Look at the shadows on the finger holding the glass.) In fact, the crowd image is hard light - look at the shadows in the central figure;'s eyes sockets and on the corner left figure's neck! You seem to be looking at the central figure and thinking that because you can't see LARGE shadows on her face that the light is soft. This completely, utterly wrong - look at her neck! The shadow is there and it is deep, it's just hidden by her chin.

 

Your argument still does not waive the notion that legacy lenses has best optics for central render while modern optics are getting better edge to edge sharpness. This article considers the possibility that perhaps, something is giving way to achieve that.

 

>>> Yes, the article considers the possibility. The point is it does not do so intelligently or honestly. As for my argument not "waiving" - you probably mean countering - the article's claim - well, you don't know how logic works. It's for the maker of a claim to show evidence. If you believe Obama is a Martian, it's for you to prove it, not for me to disprove.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by thiswayup

[Guest thiswayup]

Now, I may seem like I have been harsh, but 

 

1. We are talking about an issue where if people are fed false information they can waste an awful lot of money (not all legacy lens are cheap!) 

 

2. Feeding people false information can block their progress as photographers: if you don't understand how light works and instead think you need to buy magic lenses, then you will forever be ineffective as a photographer

 

3. This is basic, basic stuff. That was explained - repeatedly! - in the comments to that article

 

If you're going to post arguments about stuff where people will spend money differently if they believe you, and you've obviously never even read an introductory article on the topic, then really, you need to reconsider your behaviour. Find stuff out, then post. Not the other way around.

[Aswald]

So much presumptions.

 

I did not make any assumptions on whether fellow photographers here truly understand the "basics" of lighting and neither did I urge anyone in any particular direction on how to spend their monies.

 

I'm in the illumination consultancy business. "Soft" is a layman term for diffused lighting and yes, that is what they taught us in school. When was it....elementary? Every object is lit by three types of lighting. Specular, diffused and ambient lighting. These are what our camera sensor see and detect. Depending on the proportion of each, it will dictate the outcome of the picture, "hard" or "soft".

 

"Expensive" legacy lenses is not an adjunct to good photography but neither do I abhor the idea. The article was posted for general reading in the general discussion section. Everyone is free to form their own opinion and voice them out perhaps even share their points of view or experiences. Together, we may come to a collective conclusion on whether the article holds any basis.

 

It is an interesting read. I maintain that my original suspicion that it may be more an issue of DOF rather than optic design. Unfortunately, inconsistent test scenarios negates any plausible conclusion.

[MSW]

I have a hard time buying into Khong's premise.  Using a narrow depth of field as a compositional tool to isolate a subject has nothing to do with low light.  If you want to see how this works watch some movies with the sound turned off and follow what is in focus and what isn't.   Use of narrow/restricted DoF is not limited to portraiture; it can be used in nature subjects and even sometimes in landscapes.  

 

The emphasis on smooth bokeh is (i think) relatively recent and is secondary. But it has validity relative to my comments above.  Smooth featureless bokeh improves the goal of separating subject from background.  This is illustrated in reverse by some of the modern interest in older somewhat funky Soviet era lenses that sometimes have peculiar artifacts in the out of focus areas.  (Example: look at the out of focus circles that are common in the season 1 of the series "Jessica Jones"  -- the artifacts are sometimes so distinctive that I suspect  a F/1.8 50mm Meyer-Optik-Goerlitz adapted to video.  They look just like the artifacts mine produces on an X-E2.  I find it annoying, but it has obviously become artsy and hip.

 

Going back to low light - narrow DoF is sometimes just a trade off vs ISO-related noise.  You cant have everything!

 

Khong's concept of "The Line of Realism" is (in my opinion) a red herring, a strawman.  "Realism" is very slippery notion.  As I get older, I start to understand better A. Adams' comment that "what is before the lens is always the illusion of reality" (from Ansel Adams, An Autobiography).

[Sella174]

Typical ... when I said the same many years ago, I was branded an idiot; but now when The Phoblographer says the same, he's a genius! Mind you, he added some fancy triangles, whereas I only used words and photographs ... so maybe that's it.

[Aswald]

Typical ... when I said the same many years ago, I was branded an idiot; but now when The Phoblographer says the same, he's a genius! Mind you, he added some fancy triangles, whereas I only used words and photographs ... so maybe that's it.

 

I do think that there are two camps. Phoblographer has a theory about things, that's all. There are many very accomplished photographers who know lenses well and somehow able to use them effectively, regardless if it is legacy or modern optics.

[milandro]

Frankly speaking and despite liking and using classic lenses myself, there is nothing in this article or in the “ lens intention triangle” that explains anything.

 

It is just a way to say that something is better but it is like to say “ look, the bread I eat is the best in the world and here is a diagram to show you why”.

 

We like things (or dislike them) like these, more often than not for imponderable and indescribable reasons. Is there a rational way to explain why you like your partner more than another person?

 

Any attempt to rationalize things which belong to the realm of matters of taste has to be foolish unless you can bring it down to numbers. If not ( which is in most case what happens for matters of taste) than the only thing that might give you an indication is averaging results.

 

In a track race it is easy to say who wins, you could , in principle have one judge only ( although they use more in reality) because the person who crosses the line first is the winner ( although you may need a photo-finish  to establish that) but in a gymnastics competition you need a number of judges because , unless obvious faults, telling who wins from another will for sure, at some point, come down to a matter of taste.

 

That’s what we have here.

 

We can certainly measure lenses but this measurements won’t tell us which lens we would like more. In the end we all have to do with personal judgement. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

Years ago a number of “ photoclubs”required my paid and professional services  ( being a teacher and a professional photographer)  to be a judge in their yearly “ competition”, they had 3 judges for this.

 

Some of these people took very good pictures but all spent endless evenings discussing which ( you name it, lenses too) would be the best.

 

Now those endless discussions have transferred themselves to the great photo-club in the sky, internet.

 

Anyone can start a blog or anyone can open a tread and say this is the best and that’s that, because I say so.

 

The reality is that no lens or camera or software make great pictures, people do, sometimes in spite of what they use for it.

 

Take pictures and be happy and don’t bother about triangles, quadrangles, pentangles which explain the “ intentions' of a lens, use the lens and forget about its intentions.

[Aswald]

I agree with you.

 

I think that some people can see a "pattern", feel compelled to translate it to a theorem and if able, quantify it with mathematical calculations of which in this case, isn't done. After all, isn't that what Isaac Newton did when he saw the apple fall?

 

Personally, I believe that everything in the universe has a pattern.

 

What Phoblographer was trying to illustrate is a trend. Successful marketing is achieve either by creating a demand or keeping abreast with contemporary trend. Obviously, the triangles are used to illustrate a shift in contemporary demands. As with any demands, there are opportunities for big business. I think Phoblograper was trying question perhaps contemporary photographers are just driving an unnecessary demand, getting what they want but losing some magic in lenses along the way.....paying silly truck loads of money in the process.

 

I thought it was a good point to ponder on even though the method of how he postulated the triangles remains a debate. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Aswald