Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Why are contrastry lenses good?
May 20, 2015 10:05:37 #
With PHOTOSHOP and all, these days, I think it probably doesn't matter all that much . . . but I would like to get a firmer handle on why CONTRASTY lenses are considered to be considered preferred these days.
I remember what was sought after in transparencies was LOW CONTRAST so we could have full, rich, midtones and not just a bunch of thin highlights with dense shadows.
But with digital, is it that we actually get a fuller histogram with a contrasty lens?
I pose this question as I seem to often want to adjust SHADOWS/HIGHLIGHTS or LEVELS in PHOTOSHOP in order to bring up the midtones of my digital images
I remember what was sought after in transparencies was LOW CONTRAST so we could have full, rich, midtones and not just a bunch of thin highlights with dense shadows.
But with digital, is it that we actually get a fuller histogram with a contrasty lens?
I pose this question as I seem to often want to adjust SHADOWS/HIGHLIGHTS or LEVELS in PHOTOSHOP in order to bring up the midtones of my digital images
May 20, 2015 10:19:08 #
ricardo7
Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile
It wasn't just a contrasty lens that was desirable, it was a lens with just the right contrast.
May 20, 2015 10:21:12 #
Better contrast makes an image appear sharper...Better that it be done optically than in post.
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
May 20, 2015 10:21:53 #
wolfiebear wrote:
With PHOTOSHOP and all, these days, I think it pr... (show quote)
Who said they are? And what are their qualifications? It doesn't really matter. It was a trend of modernist photography that has carried over to today's photography. There was a time that low contrast and softer focus lenses were preferred. They were important to the pictorialists. However, with the rise of straight photography higher constrast became the trend because they give a higher perceived sharpness
May 20, 2015 10:22:03 #
If you are shooting RAW, the adjustments you mention would be considered pretty much "normal" post processing. Contrast is kind of a personal preference thing. Some like more than others. As for the 'contrasty" lenses ...., I can't recall ever seeing "contrast" measured in a lens test. But, I've been wrong before.
May 20, 2015 10:41:46 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Who said they are? And what are their qualifications? It doesn't really matter. It was a trend of modernist photography that has carried over to today's photography. There was a time that low contrast and softer focus lenses were preferred. They were important to the pictorialists. However, with the rise of straight photography higher constrast became the trend because they give a higher perceived sharpness
Gotcha.
RE: "Who said they are?" Oh. . .just what I surmised from adds here and there. . .adds that were claiming their lens was nice and contrasty. So I just ASS-umed. .. .
THANKS, everyone! I got my answer :D
May 20, 2015 11:16:33 #
I know of no lens that can deliver more contrast than the scene. All lenses lose some contrast more or less. The one that loses the least is the better one.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
May 20, 2015 11:26:27 #
wolfiebear wrote:
THANKS, everyone! I got my answer :D
That will not stop this thread from going on for a few more pages. :-D
May 20, 2015 11:38:01 #
OddJobber wrote:
That will not stop this thread from going on for a few more pages. :-D
LOL :mrgreen:
So let 'er rip
May 20, 2015 12:24:33 #
wolfiebear wrote:
... but I would like to get a firmer handle on why CONTRASTY lenses are considered to be considered preferred these days....I pose this question as I seem to often want to adjust SHADOWS/HIGHLIGHTS or LEVELS in PHOTOSHOP in order to bring up the midtones of my digital images
Adding contrast in PP may increase visual impact but it degrades the image.
Better to start out with good contrast.
Don't feel bad, i also tend to reach for the midtone button in Fastone.
May 20, 2015 12:38:06 #
teesquare
Loc: USA
I want the highest contrast lens I can get - because it is easier for me in PP to subtract or tone down - than it is to add and the photo and maintain a natural appearance.
Having said that - I have not used a lens that I thought was 100% of the contrast, sharpness, and depth of color (and all of things we look at and see) that the real world gives us. Close perhaps - in some respects.
But that is the "chase" for some of us, and the reason that sometimes we wishy to take an image a different direction, because it cannot live up to the fullness of the real world.
As good as our cameras and lenses are - they cannot yet completely match what we see with our eyes.
Having said that - I have not used a lens that I thought was 100% of the contrast, sharpness, and depth of color (and all of things we look at and see) that the real world gives us. Close perhaps - in some respects.
But that is the "chase" for some of us, and the reason that sometimes we wishy to take an image a different direction, because it cannot live up to the fullness of the real world.
As good as our cameras and lenses are - they cannot yet completely match what we see with our eyes.
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
May 20, 2015 14:21:38 #
teesquare wrote:
I want the highest contrast lens I can get - because it is easier for me in PP to subtract or tone down - than it is to add and the photo and maintain a natural appearance.
. . . . .
. . . . .
Having lots of snow capped mountains in the distance here year round, I enjoy seeing their soft shading and definition in a potograph.
Interestingly, I tested out a CANON SX10 and it had really nice mid range tones for these white mountatins (and also the clouds above them), that I am not getting with my various NIKON lenses. Some of the gentle tones I was able to recapture in PP, but definitely, not all.
Perhaps the CANON point and shoot lens is pre-processed to be highly saturated with enhanced mid-tones. . .dunno. Saturation I can get with PP. . . but the lost highlight detail is a harder task.
So this make me wonder if (in my case) a contrasty lens is a good solution or not. Just a learner-bee here. . . and of course, I am open to suggestions. . . . thoughts . . .etc . . .
May 20, 2015 14:30:32 #
wolfiebear wrote:
...Interestingly, I tested out a CANON SX10 and it had really nice mid range tones ..., that I am not getting with my various NIKON lenses. ...Perhaps the CANON point and shoot lens is pre-processed to be highly saturated with enhanced mid-tones. . ....... .
Its more likely the raw to jpg conversion presets of your cameras than the lens.
May 20, 2015 18:29:22 #
oldtigger wrote:
Its more likely the raw to jpg conversion presets of your cameras than the lens.
Yes. . .that is what I was referring too.
So perhaps the RAW images from the NIKON lenses will show more subtle midtones . . . . I am momentarily not able to convert RAW, or I would go take a look-see.
May 20, 2015 18:44:33 #
wolfiebear wrote:
Having lots of snow capped mountains in the distan... (show quote)
Wolfie, as has been mentioned, contrast and resolution are mortally tied together. That was the basis of the old Zeiss/Leica lens wars.
Most companies would he's tricking a good balance between them.
A few years ago I read a very good article that was easily understood explains how to read MTF charts. Those charts give you the information you are asking, or at least put it into perspective. Only problem is, not all companies will publish MTF charts, I imagine just so you can't make a comparison.
For Canon, it's the first thing they publish!
Google, "MTF, luminous landscape", and I'm sure the article will come up! It will give you a very good understanding of what you ask!! Good luck. ;-)
SS
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.