The real thing, or substitute?

[eclarke]

I have been dabbling in some soft focus stuff because I'm a little tired of sharp, sharp photographs. I think everything has it's time and place. I'm a tool oriented person and a fair multi tasker and comfortable with a large amount of equipment....I'm always happy to have brought an odd lens or camera with me when it just fits the subject..EC


P.S. I always carry an 11x14 camera with me and it might not come out of the car for a month, some days I use all my film with it!!

 

[LarryP]

Thomas, Indeed there are many who seem more concerned with lens signature, bokeh and even the seriel number. I have flirted with this myself, but now approach it with does the body fit my hand and eye well and is the bokeh distracting? If it's a good fit and the out of focus isn't distracting then it should do what I want. I can say I'm happy with the 1.7 50 and 3.5 135 for my pentax km (cheap and good) I love the 75 for my pentax 645 and will get a 150 for it sometime because it's a better fit for me than the 120 or 200. That will be the last gear I see myself buying for a long time.

 

[MDR]

I am with Mark. Sharpness or perfection can be a gimmick in itself. AA produced perfect prints but from a purely emotional point of view his work is lacking.
Old lenses and swirly Bokeh are tools like any photographic tool they can be overused or used in the wrong way.
Some subjects cry out for swirly bokeh or the holga look and some subjects require a perfect print and neutral optics.

Dominik

 

[Andrew Moxom]

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.

 

[Robert Hall]

As Andrew said... Tools to be used, and mastered, if chosen to do so.

 

[brian steinberger]

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!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for your informative reply. We've discussed this before, and I am glad you chimed in.

I don't think of you as someone that is grasping for straws in order to make good photographs. Regardless of the equipment you use I enjoy your photographs.

It's 100% agreed that our cameras and lenses are just tools, and we have to choose something that works for us. I can understand why someone would be interested in paying a lot of attention to what lenses they use, and in your case Andy, shooting wet plate you need a faster lens to make it work well. My own interest in portraiture dictates my lens choice by aperture as well. I like a 25mm aperture. Period. The depth of field is perfect for most portraits at that amount of lens opening, so I use lenses that are capable of a 25mm aperture (50mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8, 150mm f/5.6, 80mm f/2.8). Lenses with with smaller max apertures would not be as useful for me, from a purely practical standpoint. Then, of course, I photograph other things, and then the maximum aperture is not so critical, but I don't like having one camera for each application, so I use the same stuff for everything I shoot. Maybe that's not so different from choosing a lens based on other parameters, like out of focus areas, but I usually don't notice swirly corners and so on until someone else points it out; I just look at the content, the composition, the gesture, and so on and based on that I decide whether it appeals to me or not.

That's how my brain works, and it's so interesting to hear from others how they make decisions or view things, and if you don't ask they usually don't tell it.

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.

 

[matti]

Thomas I think you are right. And you also describe my work. I do obsess over how lens signatures draws out the most interesting part of the image, the smoothness of the gradations of the large format film, the tones or graininess of lith prints and I confess; I have been surfing the Scully/Osterman webpage since watching the Sally Mann exhibition last weekend. It is like I let the gear take me for a ride to see what will happen. I am aware that it is not the best way to work to make good photographs, but I like working with this gear and like you say, the best part of photography is to have fun! At the same time I really like what comes out of my process and I am relieved that I have decided that I don't try to be original and don't really care what other people, like my friends, say about my images.

Another finding for me, when I started working with large format, to be able to print bigger with smooth gradients, was that the details all got in the way of the image when I used my Nikkor lens. I was disappointed with all my LF-work until I bought some old lenses and used them with open apertures. For me the lens artifacts is the content! For some reason, when I use my Rolleiflex I want sharpness and tend to work with different subjects.

/matti

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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!

The lack of control, and slight element of chance and surprise, are the reasons I like something like a Holga too. Plus it's fun to make conversation around it; imagine talking to somebody you haven't met before, and they ask what your interests are. I bring up photography obviously, and when they find out I sometimes use a Holga, or a pinhole camera, they are surprised at first, but many of them understand the nice feeling of letting go of control, of just enjoying the moment, taking a picture that might turn into something cool, and be happy with that. That's a great aspect of the Holga, Diana, much of the Lomo equipment, pinhole cameras, etc. There's a fun factor and a relaxed way of taking pictures that is in such stark contrast to almost everything in life these days. Great point, Brian.

When I first started using the Holga, I was amazed by what I could achieve with it. My first foray was in 2006 when I went to the Minnesota State Fairground for the 'Back to the 50s' car show. 15,000 restored vintage vehicles, and five rolls of film = choose wisely what to photograph! I brought Holga and Tri-X, processed in Pyrocat, and printed 9x9" prints from the negatives, and they blew me away. The next year I brought the Rolleiflex, using Tri-X also processed in Pyrocat, and printed 9x9" prints on the same paper, and guess what - I did not miss the Holga qualities one bit, because the pictures felt just as meaningful and important regardless of camera. That's how I made up my mind that the Holga is fun, but I don't feel like I need the funky lens qualities. So, to each their own, and when we choose our equipment it had better be something we like, enjoy, and have fun with.

 

[removed account4]

hi thomas

i have said this before, not sure what threads i said it in
but gear is a distraction ... that said ....
obsessing about lenses or oof area signatures,
alt process or primitive photography techniques
or a certain kind of "whatever" really has a lot to do
with the images made, and the fun making them.

in the end for most people here and elsewhere
photography is a hobby, and plenty of people obsess over the little things
because it makes them feel good, and because they can.

this is true with every hobby under the sun think collectable chrome on a harley,
or a air intake on a classic muscle car, safari windows on a classic vw bus,
or chasing " the red cent " or a 1913 mound buffalo nickel, or steel pennies,
or specialized rock climbing gear, or a certain kind of tube amp ...

i don't think much matters unless you want it to matter ... and then it matters a lot ...

 

[eddie]

Thomas,
Interesting thread, with some excellent responses.

Do you think that people obsess over lens signatures and bokeh mostly because their photography in general is lacking?

I actually think it's the opposite. I think often their photography is lacking because they obsess over the items you mention. Their search for the "perfect" lens, or "silver bullet" film/developer combo can keep them from image making. I often wonder how anyone who obsesses, in the fashion you describe, ever makes an image they find satisfying.

 

[polyglot]

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.

 

[summicron1]

pretty much -- when ur starting out you want the best, after you get good you realize that it is you, not the equipment.

Bill Maulden, the WWII cartoonist, wrote that when he started he had to have the best paper, the best pencils and so on, but later in life he'd grab any old writing instrument and slam out a Pulitzer prize winner.

great photography is 5 percent equipment and 95 percent you.

which is not to say I'm trading away my Leicas any time soon

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

Actually, I think the 300/2.8 birding lenses actually do make some sense, for those who really love photographs of birds, and are dedicated to that part of the photographic world.

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.

I do think however that it is more than fine to appreciate the qualities of the equipment and materials we use even if the results we obtain from them aren't always great works of art .

I enjoy the qualities of the equipment and materials I have and use because it is pleasurable and satisfying to use them. That pleasure and satisfaction comes from both using them and obtaining results from them.

I'm also willing to look for new things to use, in the hope that I'll find new sources of similar pleasure and satisfaction - not because I think that what I currently have somehow leaves me incomplete or unable to accomplish good things.

I guess what I am saying is that as long as one uses the gear one has, it is a real thing, with its own value.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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.
[...]

Yes. Most definitely. I am not in the least interested in bokeh, lens signatures, aberrations (other than those I judge to be visibly unacceptable or colours of the engravings... just photographs built on skill and experience.

 

[polyglot]

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.

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. There are excellent wildlife shooters using 300/2.8s as well as a bunch of cheaper lenses, you get incompetents seeing that some of the best shots are made on $6000 lenses, so that's what they buy.

By the same token, you get some masterful portraits being made on interesting lenses and they just wouldn't look the same without those lenses - the portraits are masterful largely because of technique and the addition of a Petzval or Verito or whatever adds a crowning touch of something special. Take the same photographer and a modern lens, you'll get a different yet excellent portrait. Give the fancy lens to someone who doesn't know how to compose and light a great portrait, and of course the result is a flat, static portrait with blurry bits in it; the blurry bits no longer add anything.

I think the whole attitude of "that's easy, I (or "my five-year-old" for bonus insult-points) could do that" is responsible for some of this effect. People can recognize a beautiful result without knowing anything about how it was achieved other than the presence of certain tools and the signature tool-marks they leave, then they get stumped when the special tool doesn't give the same performance in their hands.

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.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There are a number of strikingly — no, breathtakingly beautiful portraits in Sergei's collection. Game of Chess is one such, the other being the blandly-named scan0124www.
Besides excellence in composition, he has mastery of the lens.

 

[markbarendt]

Besides excellence in composition, he has mastery of the lens.

Mastery of not just the lens and composition, but the whole system.

I don't know Sergei but whether it was Adams, or HCB, or Karsh, or Erwitt, or Hurrel, or ...; all our saints seem to have mastered the tools and techniques needed for getting the specific look they wanted.

Once they found their style (business model including the manufacturing process) they were loathe to change any part of it.

That is not a critisism, it is a compliment.

Defining a recognizable individual style within photography is tough, the medium lends itself to copy cats.

Style is important for pros because it is a quality that galleries, clients, and agents look for and expect, it makes an artist's work salable in practical terms.

 

[AndreasT]

Having the equipment, finding it , getting it, and affording it is great. Whatever one may photograph. However as stated before, usually those overly concerned what they use, if it be new lenses and stuff or old stuff make inferior photographs. At least in my oppinion.
People who make great photos and have their own style usually went a long road to get there. Too often people buy equipment, developer films etc. to that "special look". Often not knowing why they want that look.
I used to work in a professional darkroom where we had many people coming and going doing an internship.
The guys where always overly intressted in equipment and had little emotion for their photos and the girls did not have a clue about their equipment but in my opinion had the better ideas. There technique was lacking though. I always said the guys should worry less about stuff and girls a bit more , and both would make better photos.
Too often the equipment is the motiv.

 

[AndreasT]

...oh Thomas I do fancy your photos.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

This unoriginal tryhard has pulled his Gundlach Radar out of the closet to try the same thing. I don't think it will be easy, though. Sergei's portraits are stunning indeed.

 

[Bill Burk]

If I have a choice between a lens reputed to "have" it over one reputedly ugly. I'll choose the supposedly better one.

The only time I will find out for sure is when I'm spotting the print.

By that time it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[batwister]

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.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

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?

Imagine this: your photosensitive material is really not that sensitive at all. These days we would rate it as ISO 1 or lower. Besides that, you have about 1-1/2 stops, maybe even two stops at most, of dynamic range. Artificial light consists of a kerosene lantern or a candle. So what do you do?

You build a studio which has a skylight and a north-light window. Lots of glass so lots of light can get in. Basically, open shade to stay within the dynamic range. Then you have a sitter's chair with a head brace in the back, so the subject can keep still for a minute or two of exposure. You need a monster lens, like f/4, and you have to shoot it nearly wide open just to get enough light for the exposure, yet stopped down enough so the sitter is completely in focus.

So of course the background is going to be out of focus. So of course the sitter is going to be still and not have much of an expression. This isn't artistic intent, it's just the limits of the available material and equipment. A decade or two later, the materials are still "slow." Tri-X came out in 1940, what, how many decades after the Daguerreotype and how long after wet plate collodion process?

As for the intent of the modern photographer, maybe the photographer wants it to look that way, and that's all there is to it. Pictorialism started in the late 1800s, and it's still going strong. Instagram is half-based on Pictorialism. Why shoudn't someone want to still do the same thing with opto-chemical photography? There's only so many ways to make a scene dreamy. Adox is introducing its "colour implosion" film. So now we have a run of 35mm film which is marketed specifically at the Pictorialist photographer market.

I don't think that Pictorialism is a desire to cover up poor talent, any more than Cajun cooking is a desire to cover up bad food.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Sharpness is a lens effect as much as softness and swirl. Each is "real".

Each effect is cool because funky lenses, sharp lenses, lens modifications, & Vaseline, can all help me get the effects I want on the negative.

Each effect is real, which means printing is easier.

The effect I choose for a given shot is emotional/psychological. It is driven by mood, inspiration, whim, or money.

My reasons need not be fixed.