Lenses/equipment that produce a 'clinical' look

[apconan]

I'm looking for lenses of any format, though preferably medium or large format, that will provide me with a clinical look. What this means is open to your interpretation but I'm sure you get the gist.
I'm fine with any system whether it's an slr or rf or otherwise.
Also any film recommendations would be great.
Thanks a lot!

 

[Ian Grant]

Clinical look is totally down to your choice of techniques, lighting and composition, the choice of equipment and lenses is totally
irrelevant.

In addition a clinical look is almost devoid of artistic expression. But then the Bechers turned that into art

Ian

 

[Mike1234]

By "clinical look" do you mean as accurate a depiction as is practicable with nothing in the mix adding it's own "character"? It'll never happen but you can minimize the "character (or distortions)" introduced by each component. I'm not the one to help you with that though.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

I think that advances in modern lenses may have something to do with that in part due to modern design, and modern coatings. It's true that an older uncoated lens has a certain creamy 'look; often sought after. An example would be Hasselblad C and CFi lenses. Similar design, coatings were very different. The older 'C' lenses are sharp, but how they handle contrast is different to the highly corrected CFi lenses. 'C' glass has a certain look and it's eveident. Most modern lenses are designed with minimal abberations and distortion often inherrent in most older glass, that eliminates the lens character giving it a sometimes harsh and contrasty often referred to as a 'clinical' look. Again, to Ian's point, lighting, film type, development, and printing all have an accumulative effect on how 'clinical' an image looks, and that will be different depending on the glass used. It's a choice the photographer makes and how their personal vision is interpreted, and one of the reasons some older lenses are considered 'legendary' for a certain trait they exhibit that often cannot be replicated in modern glass. YMMV, my .02 c

 

[rwboyer]

How about digital "film" smallish DX sensor. Absolutely neutral color balance ;-)

RB

 

[dpurdy]

I am interested in identifying this clinical look too, though because I don't like it. I have come to a conclusion that it could be defined as image quality without atmosphere. To me the Rollei and Leica and Hasselblad lenses all have atmosphere. The work I see done by my close friend with his Mamiya 7 always strikes me as just clean and clear, contrasty and sharp and without atmosphere or any sort of breathing image. Especially in color it seems this way to me. I know full well that many many people will not agree with me but that is my thought.
Dennis

 

[narsuitus]

When I was doing scientific/medical shooting, I used Kodachrome film and electronic flash to get the most accurate color rendition. Kodachrome film was better than all the others because it had the most realistic color (as opposed to muted color or vivid color). Electronic flash was better than available light because available light tended to produce color casts that could alter the red in erythema or yellow in icterus.

 

[Denis R]

first thing that came to my mind

Medical Nikkor Lens 120mm f/4.0 IF

or any other medical nikkor will do

the film used will depend on what is being documented
such as IR for varicose veins

 

[df cardwell]

Clinical look is totally down to your choice of techniques, lighting and composition, the choice of equipment and lenses is totally irrelevant...


Ian

Exactly what Ian said. Real photography is all about HOW.

An uncoated lens can image like a multicoated wonder by changing the lighting. No format, no lens, no film. It is all up to you.

 

[Chazzy]

A recent lens, a ring light, and Tmax.

 

[keithwms]

I recall some work by a photographer who I will not name, that seemed very clinical to me. Turns out he used a well stopped-down macro lens and a bank of fluorescents. The fluorescent light is flat and lifeless to me, and when there is brutal sharpness in a portrait, it usually strikes me as clinical.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Very flat lighting, a ring light as Chazzy suggested is good, very small f-stop, and a subject with some horrid skin disease.

 

[Chuck_P]

Perhaps clinical = literal, without any artistic expression at the printing stage.

 

[Q.G.]

I have a question about lenses too, and i'm sure you know what it is. So let's hear some answers!

Perhaps it's time the OP stops this "perhaps"-thing by telling us what "clinical" means to him?

 

[JDP]

In my experience len's do influence the 'clinical ' look. I suggest Japeneze len's are more clinical than German ones - even the modern ones. The cameras I have to support this view are my Pentax 645 (clinical), Bronica RF645 (half-way-house!), Mamiya press (100mm f2.8 Fantastic sharpness!, Halfway house),Hasselblad (80mm C, atmospheric), Fotoman 6x9 with modern Rodenstock len's (very atmospheric and sharp - my favourite). Sorry about the subjective language, but I don't think there is a solution to that...

 

[benjiboy]

No, it's not "open to our interpretation" it's up to the O.P to define his terms and specify what he as an individual considers to be clinical, so that we can suggest how one might achieve the effect, otherwise it's just a waste of time, he might as well ask how to take pictures that are beautiful.

 

[Chuck_P]

Clinical look is totally down to your choice of techniques, lighting and composition, the choice of equipment and lenses is totally irrelevant.

I believe this must be the case. All the lens has to do is deliver the image to the film, either sharply or not as dictated by the photographer. If the photographer wants a certain "look" for the end resut, it's gotta come from the photographer.