Bonderer
I came across this online the other day. A photography compendium from the Alpine republic. There’s an article in there that really speaks to me. It says there’s no such thing as a bad lens – it’s a must-read. So instead of buying the expensive Leitz or the slightly cheaper Zeiss lenses, I went for a 1.4 35mm and a 2.0 28mm Voigtländer to go with my bargain-bought Zeiss ZM. I tried out the 35mm before buying it and bought the 28mm on spec. I’d rather spend the difference on film and paper and have a bit of fun. Life’s too short to waste it on testing gear. A colleague, though from the digital camp, once told me he now has a good 20 lenses, that he’s tested them all, and then bombards me with technical jargon about things I don’t understand because I’m not interested. He hardly takes any photos at all because he’s so busy testing. We can do better than that. Let’s not turn something as wonderful as photography into a science; let’s just have fun. How many wonderful, expressive photos have never been taken because something wasn’t quite right? Like what? Let’s make the most of the opportunities and have fun. For me, it has always been and will remain about fun and the joy of good results. And I’ve always found people who approach their films and photos with magnifying glasses and microscopes to be suspicious and killjoys. They’ll probably be rummaging through their soft, warm, brown droppings to see if they’ve digested properly. How pathetic to turn something as wonderful as photography into that.
Renate
Some tests are simply necessary; otherwise, the results end up looking like the brown mess mentioned above. It is possible to work hard and still have fun doing it.
?
?
Best regards
?
Renate
Morte
I agree with much of what Analoger has said. Without dismissing tests out of hand. It’s just that the order has to be right.
If I notice things in my photos that bother me – that is, things that prevent or impair the result I’m aiming for – then I set about finding the cause. I realise that what I perceive as a mistake may not necessarily be a mistake for another photographer. After all, they have different (I’m not saying ‘wrong’ or ‘worse’!) ideas.
And then I read specialist literature, in forums and on the internet, or carry out tests.
That’s how it makes sense and helps my work.
People who have to test things first before they even dare to use cameras, lenses, paper etc. aren’t doing themselves any favours, in my view.
I originally come from a musical background, and there’s a common saying: when you see an instrument, you sit down and play a few notes. Every instrument has its own character and soul; you could also call them technical strengths and weaknesses. Figuring that out and coaxing as much as possible out of its limits is a challenge for every musician and, each time, a bit like winning over a woman... no musician would start by attaching test equipment to measure vibration characteristics or the thickness of the varnish layer. After all, in that time he could already be making music. No, he finds out how well the instrument suits him – and he the instrument. And if you get stuck with one instrument, you pick up another – or set about troubleshooting (new strings, having cracks repaired, replacing parts... etc.)
In that sense, therefore, there are no such things as bad lenses for a photographic artist. There are only those that do not further his work, and these can certainly include high-priced items from famous companies without a single technical flaw. Sometimes, however, perfection is simply a source of inspiration...
zackIG
Do you happen to have a link to the article?
I’ve searched online but couldn’t find it, unfortunately.
Bonderer
The link isn't working, or maybe I just can't get it to work – I wouldn't rule that out – but if you type "there are no bad lenses" into Google, you should find something.
klausdoblmann
My opinion:
To get the most out of your equipment, you need to experiment and test it to a certain extent in order to understand its limits and limitations, but also its strengths. However, it is possible to overdo things, or underdo them. Those who overdo it are perhaps the notorious pixel-peepers and equally notorious ‘film-under-a-microscope’ analysts; those who underdo it are those who would prefer to do nothing at all, but then whinge on the forums because nothing works. The golden mean lies somewhere in between.
Photux
Link to the article:
http://www.kittel.co.at/bassena/node/76
€
I would like to echo Morte’s comparison. A similar trend can be observed in music – productions are becoming increasingly ‘perfect’, but as a result also increasingly characterless. Many a legendary album from the 70s, viewed from today’s perspective, exhibits various imperfections, yet has become legendary in spite of – or perhaps even because of – these very flaws. In this context, I am always very much in favour of a certain spontaneity.
It’s much the same with instruments – some are legendary precisely because of their supposed weaknesses and possess their very own, inspiring charm. I’m thinking of the famous TB-303, or the C64 sound, which is still in demand today.
€
Hyper-sharp digital images with dozens of megapixels are great, and certainly ideal for some purposes. But it’s not uncommon for me to leave my Olympus Pen at home and go ‘hunting’ with a Pouva Start or a €2.50 plastic camera. I manage to take some pretty decent pictures with them, even if they’re technically complete rubbish. But what the heck, I just want to have fun with it.
€
There is one point, however, on which I’d like to disagree with the article; I consider image stabilisation systems to be a thoroughly useful invention, not just for those with poor hand-eye coordination. Short shutter speeds or the use of higher speeds aren’t always desirable, but a tripod isn’t always permitted or practical either (personally, I find it restrictive and have a soft spot for available light with fast prime lenses). Especially with cheaper kit (not everyone can afford high-quality cameras and lenses), this technology has saved quite a few of my shots.
zackIG
Great, thanks so much for the link and the interesting article!
Urnes
The problem with music today is that there are technicians sitting behind the mixing desks rather than musicians. Taken to the extreme, this means that whilst some tracks sound good on headphones on the underground, they sound awful when played on vinyl throughout the room.
€
Overall, however, our viewing habits are changing – or rather, have already changed. Many great analogue icons now seem somehow mundane and out of focus (subjectively, the images are still icons and will remain so, but objectively speaking, I’m right). The same applies to HD televisions. In HD, remastered films somehow look much more mundane. Just like cheap B-movies. HD and high resolution do take away a little of the magic from the image.
€
Regards, Sven.
zackIG
Well, I’ve actually made up my mind to buy a TV next month.
My dad’s got a new one and I’m absolutely blown away by the picture quality. It really is a lovely thing, and it’s amazing what films are out there and how they suddenly come to life.
Unfortunately, I can’t make head nor tail of the sheer number of options available right now… yet another of the great things about the modern age.
Back in the day, we had nothing and life was hard, but today we have everything and still can’t cope with it.
