Remember, these are just tools that allow your vision to be recorded. Regardless of how the lens signature looks. Many people are using these older lenses in a way they were not initially created to do. Like you said Thomas, the lenses like the old petzvals were made large and fast to cover a relatively small area in the sweet spot of the lens, for the processes of the day. Now, everyone and their monkeys uncle are using them for creative or pictorial effect. I'm guilty of it too.... However, i go back to my original statement about them just being tools to achieve a creative goal based on the vision of the photographer. I never thought i'd be where i am with wet plate was it not for the look of the images, taken with old glass. I used to think like many others that photos were meant to be sharp front to back. I still like and make images like that, but i also grew an appreciation for pictorialism, and the way they can take you to a more emotional state about a scene/portrait. It doesn't have to be perfect to make a superb image. The equipment that is available to us to realize these images, goes through many fads/phases. Sometimes we jump on the train, and have a blast creating something new and different to our normal comfortable way of image making. Currently, i am liking older glass as it is less clinical, less contasty, and more importantly, EASY to use. It does not get in the way of image making.... Certainly wet plate has a learning curve especially the chemistry and maintenance. But the equipment... cameras, lenses are as basic as you can get. It is the antithesis of being in control and opens the artist up to chance, serendipity and uniqueness of each image they create. As you know, i have also spent a lot of time making old lenses fit modern camera bodies, and made some images that became a theme for me, that i was able to complete, and show. During that time, it was the shake up i needed to finally cut loose and bring back the passion. I realize I am only one voice in the choir here, its a personal choice, but I do believe that older glass, and sometimes legendary examples of it can open up opportunities to an artist. It just depends on how your style and vision evolves. I'm not saying the images are better for it, as in some situations, the bokeh, signature can look over done, and cliched. Remember, EVERYTHING has been done before, its just a choice where it takes you and how your creativity exploits these lens features, or a choice not to exploit them. Doing it without it getting in the way of the creative process is the key for me.
I thought of my Holga immediately when I began reading your thread Thomas. Why do I use this camera? Because of the look it produces. And certain subjects just call for this look. And I think the Holga is a somewhat of a "surprise" camera in general. As I think other cameras are as well, rangefinders and pinhole cameras come to mind. Isn't that what is lacking from digital these days? The element of surprise? SLR shooters may not be familiar with surprise as much as Holga, pinhole, or RF shooters. I know the norm is to get the shot perfect in camera, but with a Holga it's alot of guesswork and that can be fun seeing the results once you develop the film!
I shoot all MF rangefinder for my work and the main reason I do so besides their portability is because of the sharpness of the lenses. They are they sharpest lenses in MF and I just drool over a print with sharpness, a little bit of grain, and tonality galore, and my MF RF lenses produce this for me. Could I do the same with a Hasselblad lens, probably, not quite as sharp. With a 35mm Leica? Probably at a smaller print size though.
So I shoot the camera and lenses that fit the results I enjoy. Plus a little surprise is fun!
Do you think that people obsess over lens signatures and bokeh mostly because their photography in general is lacking?
I will say something that might not sit well with everybody.
Do you think that people obsess over lens signatures and bokeh mostly because their photography in general is lacking? Basically substituting technique or lens artifacts for content.
For example, look at how a lot of over 100 year old portrait lenses are used with wet plate and large format. If you look at many old portraits, the sitter is always centered, and the background is out of focus so that the fall-off imperfections of the lens aren't apparent (or minimized) in the photograph. They tried to work around the shortcomings of the lens. But today all that funky stuff at the edge of the lens' image circle is embraced as 'cool' and 'interesting'... Why? Does it really make the photograph better?
I think about this a lot. Please note that I don't consider my own work superior to others in any way, it's just a question that I'm interested in. And I do realize it's mostly a free world, and people are free to do whatever they feel like, and the best part of photography is to have fun! So if it's fun to use these old lenses, or being fascinated with their qualities then I'm absolutely not calling it wrong or anything like that. It's all good to me. But when I look at photographs I really don't care much about those things. I have a couple of lenses that I know well, use often, and don't really wonder much what's on the other side of the fence.
I think it's just one more dimension of or opportunity for gearsnobbery and GAS. There are those who use the imperfect/unusual/expensive/whatever to improve their photography and do wonderful original things with the exotic equipment, and there are those who are inspired by that and think that buying the same gear will get them the same results. Some people see only the gimmick and hope it will make up for the composition.
It's no different in my view to those who buy 300/2.8 birding lenses, f/1.0 rangefinder lenses and the like.
Petzvals etc are just one more thing, one more silver bullet that isn't. In the right hands, they're a powerful tool to make unique art and in other hands they're a crutch for bad photography.
I will say something that might not sit well with everybody.
Do you think that people obsess over lens signatures and bokeh mostly because their photography in general is lacking? Basically substituting technique or lens artifacts for content.
[...]
Those lenses are an example of where a specific, special purpose tool serves the interests of the photographer's vision, because it increases the likelihood it will be brought to fruition.
Those lenses help good bird photographers succeed - they do not make mediocre bird photographers better.
The problem is that many people confuse the two situations.
Besides excellence in composition, he has mastery of the lens.
I think it's basically the same situation: masters using a specific tool to achieve a specific result, followed by a herd of unoriginal tryhards who see only the tool and not the other skills that go into successful art or craft.
...
As an example, I'll cite SergeiR from LFPF with this portrait. 8x10" and a Gundlach Radar, which leaves very distinct 'toolmarks' on the image with that glow; the glow is arguably an improvement to the feel of the image but really it succeeds because of composition, posing, lighting, makeup and a great model. I could take his lens and not produce that image in a blue fit.
Do you think that people obsess over lens signatures and bokeh mostly because their photography in general is lacking? Basically substituting technique or lens artifacts for content.
For example, look at how a lot of over 100 year old portrait lenses are used with wet plate and large format. If you look at many old portraits, the sitter is always centered, and the background is out of focus so that the fall-off imperfections of the lens aren't apparent (or minimized) in the photograph. They tried to work around the shortcomings of the lens. But today all that funky stuff at the edge of the lens' image circle is embraced as 'cool' and 'interesting'... Why? Does it really make the photograph better?
Why is it cool though, the lens effect thing? Is there a psychological explanation? I mean, we know why James Dean was cool (sexual undercurrents) and why the yo-yo was cool (spectacle = sexual undercurrents), but... why are analog lens effects cool? And why isn't the real thing? This needs to be tackled.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?