My World: Show me the beef!

[fahim mohammed]

In the end, it comes down to how one captures an image, how the cam/lens combo outputs it, how one post processes it and presents it. And most important, for me, what is it that one captures and the joy of the process.

But once in a while one needs to test the cam/lens combo. Talk and academic discussions are fine; as far as they go.

Show me the beef!

Some images. No sharpening. Straight .jpg from camera. Crop and a slight curve. One aspect of a cam/lens combo..sharpness.

Remember this is just one characteristic that can be used when needed..I was just testing for sharpness.

Another one..remember no post sharpening, just a crop, slight curve and .jpg ooc.

Lets do a vast landscape..again testing for sharpness, crop, slight curve, .jpg ( btw, see the resolution here ).

And, honestly, I rarely shoot beyond f4. Rarely. And my wife has forbidden me to use these cam/lens combos when I take her photos.

Show me your tests. This is a photo forum. Show me the beef.

 

[Tom dinning]

I only have lamb to offer.

_D3S2440 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

No technical parameters were considered in the making of this photo, nor were any lambs injured or dignity lost.

 

[fahim mohammed]

What is ' bokeh ', I asked.

There followed a treatise on the different dialects of Japanese. The vocal, and nasal sounds. I was referred to serious studies by eminent scholars of the Japanese Language.

All because I asked what ' bokeh ' meant!

Then I went to my friend Mandler. Simple he said. By all means learn Japanese..it is a wonderful Language. And then he showed me some photographs..' I know you understand better when you see it ', he said. ' Reading ' does challenge you, he added half jokingly..

' It is Oktoberfest ' around here, added my dear friend Mandler..He ordered his drink and kindly ordered one for me. His came in a huge mug.

It really is all very simple, he said. Wunderbar, I said.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Show me your tests. This is a photo forum. Show me the beef.

Sorry, but I don't believe that you or anyone else is actually interested in finding out what lenses can do.

Why? Because I have been testing my lenses for years and published the pictures on my flickr account. The test is deceptively simple, I take a picture of the horizon with the camera slanted so that I have some subject in the corners and shoot at various apertures. It is simple, but there are very few things that can go wrong (while there are plenty of things that can and do go wrong with test charts) and there are easy to spot when they do (which is another difference with test charts). It is useful for people interested in shooting landscapes.

When I do these lens tests, I do it primarily for myself, to see whether my lenses work correctly and to see which one to choose for a particular use. I published the pictures on my flickr account primarily for me as well, because it is a convenient place to access them. Eventually, some people found about the pictures in forums and people started complaining:
-that my test procedure was wrong
-that the comparison was hard to do
-that I should publish curves and figures instead
-that I should have tested a different lens, the one that they were interested in, etc...

Most importantly, I found out that the overwhelming majority of photographers is not really interested in finding out what lenses can do. All what they are looking for is some kind of reassurance that their lenses of choices are the best choice, but this is a very different matter. Sites with lens tests are immensely popular as long as they provide that comfortable reassurance. This is the reason for curves and figures: they don't allow anyone to imagine what the lens will do in a given situation, but they allow direct comparisons as in "my lens go 17.8 stars out of 25 while you only got 15.3" and "but mine has a corner resolution of 3762 at f/9.8 while yours tops at 3647".

In truth, determining the real capabilities of a lens is really difficult and sharpness is only a small part of the story.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Jerome, nothing to be sorry about at all.

I should have been more precise and said ' instead of giving me the theories about various photographic parameters such as dof, sharpness, bokeh etc., show me how to get those and show me how sharp ( e.g ) is this lens as compared to that at such and such an aperture at such and such distance etc. Etc.

Some people are definitely interested in performances of lenses, at least in some of the forums, I visit...but you are right not many. And much less are interested in endless words.

In any case, I am least interested in academic theories of photography, lens design, camera performance. I need somebody to show me the results. I need visual examples ..not theoretical verbiage.

I need to see the beef. Not the words. And that is what this post is about. Not about testing of lenses in figures; but lenses used for photography and the resulting images. If you say a lens is sharp, show me the sharpness in pictures..not in figures. I have of course mentioned that sharpness is just one parameter.

Why don't you show me some other parameters..good or bad... By way of pictures.

 

[Jerome Marot]

If I remember correctly, you also have a Nikon camera so the results you may be interested to look at are to be found here.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Jerome, some of the sites that publish tests are hugely popular. Say what you might like about their quality. Some are very good.

One thing they all have in common is presentation on a level which is found useful by an average user, like me. Photographs in the real world..taken as I or some other average Joe would take them. Not brick walls, thesis, or contrived photographs to prove or disprove something.

Then there is the writing style, the subject matter being photographed..e.g. I am a photographer for who the corner performance of lenses generally is not of importance.

I mostly shoot lenses at f/1.4 or f/2. Thus I shall be interested in photos and tests of subjects I would photography using these apertures..f/8 to me is useless..but not to others. Diffraction..I could care less about it.

Low light performance..I am interested in. Once again in real life situations..not contrived. I am interested in how my oof areas are rendered..at different apertures ( not exceeding f/2.8 ).

One of the reasons, your tests proved not interesting could be your own deficiencies in presenting your findings tailored to the audience that would be viewing them.

I do not print bill board size. 12 MP is enough for A3/A2 for me..big MP. Even 10 MP is enough for me..so 36 MP is a meh for me.

Gear your writing to the audience. In a photographic forum I expect more photographs and less endless talk about scientific theories. That is just me. You and others could be appreciative of academic writings.

Show me the beef.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Why would I produce the test that the audience wants if there is nothing back for me?

There is a fundamental difference with the "lens tests sites". These sites make money with advertisement. They directly benefit when lots of people watch their tests. I don't.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Many fine photographs have been taken by people with no interest in or knowledge of anything that might be called "photographic theory".

They just set the camera to P mode, point at the scene, and shoot.

Well, maybe they might first decide what ISO setting to use. Why? Well, perhaps to get a proper exposure, given the lighing conditions, without too slow a shutter speed, without undue noise in the image.

Why does shutter speed matter? Well, it may affect camera motion blur, or subject motion blur.

Or maybe they might set a certain aperture? Why? Perhaps to get sufficient depth of field for the subject arrangement at hand, or to encourage background blur for artistic reasons.

But think about photographic theory? Ugh!

During an era of much interest in very high-performance audio equipment, when aficionados pored over the specifications of new amplifiers and speakers, Radio Shack announced that this was all nonsense, and that they would publish almost no specifications for their line of audio gear. "After all, what really matters is how it sounds."

Surely you had a great-sounding Radio Shack audio system in your home.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

Surely you had a great-sounding Radio Shack audio system in your home.

I don't think that Radio Shack / Tandy ever sold audio systems where I lived.

 

[Asher Kelman]

In the end, it comes down to how one captures an image, how the cam/lens combo outputs it, how one post processes it and presents it. And most important, for me, what is it that one captures and the joy of the process.

But once in a while one needs to test the cam/lens combo. Talk and academic discussions are fine; as far as they go.

Show me the beef!

Fahim,

I used to love beef - those juicy, piled high hamburgers, from our back garden grill or delicious "Hebrew National Hot Dogs" anointed with "Grey Poupon Mustard"!

Not now!

Pork and beef contain an amino acid, which, in meat eaters, is converted by the gut bacteria to a heart poison. I never ate pork and now I have no more interest in beef!

Similarly in photography, I had an appetite for technical information on cameras and lenses. Now, much less.

My interest now is totally based on getting something I adore into the camera and making it to an image that says what I want! It's the gestalt, the totality of the camera, lens and my own imagination and capabilities that are tested, not just a lens.

Although, I'm very interested in your window to photography as I often am improved by the views and work of others.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Fahim,

I often think of testing lenses, but I don't. Rather I use them, or they lie in my drawer!

I only have lamb to offer.

No technical parameters were considered in the making of this photo, nor were any lambs injured or dignity lost.

_D3S2440 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​

This attracts me and holds my interest. I'd treasure such a shot, (albeit accepting sheep cut off at the border). I really like this picture, but I never wondered, "What equipment did he use?" as it's something I could have easilly taken with my cameras, (given that Tom Dinning flew me to Australia/New Zealand, got the sheep painted, and told me what he needs in the frame, from where and at what time of the day, and from what angle. But all that's unnecessary, as I can enjoy his picture right now without any effort on my part!

However, with Michael Nagel's visitors to the table, the amazing and spontaneous work was totally outside my well-honed skill-sets, so the lens used became important to me to. So I asked, as I want to learn from the achievements of others I admire.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Why would I produce the test that the audience wants if there is nothing back for me?
......

Don't. But asking for viewers to leave a comment ( as you have done ) where you have posted your tests
would imply that you need to be appreciated. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does. After all you did spend your time over them.

But don't get upset if nobody does or finds faults with the tests or asks for more.

As for me, my horizons ( literally and figuratively ) are not that tilted..

Best.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Asher, I am not testing lenses. And my beef intake has been severely curtailed. Let me try and explain what I want to say in this thread..again

Someone says this or that combination produces flares while photographing. Why flares happen is not my concern. Show me an example of an image that demonstrates a lens flare and how to avoid it.

Not get into the esoterica of glass perfections/imperfections.

I have often read people talk of diffraction ' setting in '. Show the viewer how that ' sets in ', ' when ' and what is the result. As compared to when diffraction does not ' set in '.

You, Asher, have talked about how wonderful you Canon f/1.2 L lens is. Maybe. Show me, in pictures taken by it at f/1.2 why you say it is so wonderful. Just don't talk about it. Show it rendering its results.

Show me the beef. Amino acids not withstanding. ( What is life but amino acids, eh? ).

p.s..if I am correct lambs produce mutton; not beef. So that is OT.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Don't. But asking for viewers to leave a comment ( as you have done ) where you have posted your tests would imply that you need to be appreciated. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does. After all you did spend your time over them.

But don't get upset if nobody does or finds faults with the tests or asks for more.

I did not ask the viewers to leave a comment on the test pictures, but to leave a comment on my other pictures: "If you appreciate the efforts I put into this test, please take some time to look at and comment my other pictures. Thank you." I am basically asking for a critique in exchange of the service.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Pork and beef contain an amino acid, which, in meat eaters, is converted by the gut bacteria to a heart poison.

I found this affirmation so surprising that I had to quickly search what the story was about. You are probably referring to this concern about carnitine. I dot not believe that there is a scientific basis on why one should consider moderate consumption of meat as a health risk.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

I have often read people talk of diffraction ' setting in '. Show the viewer how that ' sets in ', ' when ' and what is the result. As compared to when diffraction does not ' set in '.

There will always be those who use imprecise or inappropriate language for a concept.

As you know, here we do our best to avoid that.

I think what the hypothetical speaker is attempting to articulate is a situation in which the impact of diffraction on image sharpness is manifest to the viewer (which of course must be cast in terms of some presumed viewing situation).

What has "set in" for me is infra-trochanteric iliotibial band syndrome, which in the language of my former land of residence, Texas, would be described as "putting a hitch in my git-along".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[fahim mohammed]

Why would I produce the test that the audience wants if there is nothing back for me?

There is a fundamental difference with the "lens tests sites". These sites make money with advertisement. They directly benefit when lots of people watch their tests. I don't.

I did not ask the viewers to leave a comment on the test pictures, but to leave a comment on my other pictures: "If you appreciate the efforts I put into this test, please take some time to look at and comment my other pictures. Thank you." I am basically asking for a critique in exchange of the service.

You wanted to benefit ' in exchange of the service '. Nothing inappropriate with that. Just as others might want to ' make money with advertisement '...'In exchange of the service' you might say. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi, Fahim,



There will always be those who use imprecise or inappropriate language for a concept.

As you know, here we do our best to avoid that.

I think what the hypothetical speaker is attempting to articulate is a situation in which the impact of diffraction on image sharpness is manifest to the viewer (which of course must be cast in terms of some presumed viewing situation).

What has "set in" for me is infra-trochanteric iliotibial band syndrome, which in the language of my former land of residence, Texas, would be described as "putting a hitch in my git-along".

Best regards,

Doug

I understand ( no I don't ) all that. Why can't one show pictures rather than talk?

 

[fahim mohammed]

Sharp but not harsh. Smooth to the touch, but firm. Good to look at, pleasant to hold and gives excellent service. She was embarrassed. We are a camera shop sir, she said. You might be better served if you visit the area around the main railway station or around the banks of the Isar...

No, no..a thousand apologies, I said shyly. I was looking for a lens with those characteristics.

Here you are sir, she said. Putting the pair in my hand. Yes, Yes..you do read my mind I said. Wow, and what a pair they were.

Now that is real beef, I said. Ain't that the truth, she whispered.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Sharp but not harsh. Smooth to the touch, but firm. Good to look at, pleasant to hold and gives excellent service. She was embarrassed. We are a camera shop sir, she said. You might be better served if you visit the area around the main railway station or around the banks of the Isar...

They certainly never said that. On you next visit, ask what the word "Sperrbezirk" means.

Why can't one show pictures rather than talk?

That is a very good question. What do you think?

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jerome,

That is a very good question. What do you think?

Well, we never knew you were a psychiatrist!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

I understand ( no I don't ) all that. Why can't one show pictures rather than talk?

A good point. Sorry.

Here:

In my case, the inflammation is not where shown as "area of pain" but rather more-or-less in the area labeled "iliotibial band", that is, below the greater trochanter (the protrusion to the outside of the top of the femur that we see the band passing).

Of course you were speaking of illustrations of the effects of diffraction, weren't you.

Well, I can do some of those. But they wouldn't relate to the setup being discussed (whatever that is).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

Diffraction.

These used my usual text pattern, the brickwork on the house across the street.

They were both taken with my Canon EOS 40D body (43.3 mm format size) with a Canon EF 24-105 F/4L USM lens at 105 mm, ISO 200 (SOS), metered exposure (aperture priority). The shots were at nominal apertures of f/5.6 and f/22. They are presented at full camera resolution. There was no processing to the delivered image other than cropping for presentation here. We have both had anti-influenza vaccinations in the present season.

Douglas A. Kerr: 3103 Thunder Road at f/5.6, 1/1000 sec

Douglas A. Kerr: 3103 Thunder Road at f/22, 1/90 sec​

In the shot at f/22, we can see the severe degradation of sharpness owing to the greater blurring from diffraction compared to the degree of diffraction in the shot at f/5.6.

Diffraction does not "come on" at some particular aperture. It is always present, but its degree increases steadily with a decrease in aperture. It does not suddenly "become perceptible" at some magic degree.

Next: shower, get dressed, go to the purified water kiosk. The water here has a lot of dissolved minerals. We remove them with an ion-exchange system,. but it leaves a lot of sodium ions. We have a small reverse-osmosis system to remove that, but its output flow rate (even though it has an accumulation reservoir) is very low, so we use purchased bottled purified water in a dispenser (like an office "water cooler") that offers it at room temperature, cooled, or heated (to make tea and so forth).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[fahim mohammed]

Thanks Doug for your effort.

I find the first ' illustration ' very well rendered. Hope the pain is being treated. Good write up ...for a forum catering to discussions of aches and pains, anatomy and such like. In a photography forum?, well
I have read stranger topics being discussed. A discussion, in words, of treating water to make it potable.

Re: Diffraction..this photo would explain more than pages of text. That is the only purpose it would serve. But is of no interest to me due to reasons mentioned in a previous post. The effect of diffraction and its consequences, in say a landscape photograph, would be of much more interest where I presume
such apertures would be used.

 

[Tom dinning]

As a pure amateur, the only things I consider when buying a lens is cost, focal length and aperture in that order, in that order. When I go shooting my thoughts go to focal length and as a minor consideration, aperture. When looking at someone else's picture one thing I don't think about is the lens, camera or sensor size. That's like thinking about what sort of tripod was used and was the camera red.
If all this has been said in the posts above, I apologies. I have just got out of bed and my brain hasn't got into gear yet, and may not for some hours.

 

[fahim mohammed]

This thread has gone a way that was not intended. That is my fault..for not being specific and articulate enough to begin with.

I believe, there is a high probability I could be wrong, that in a forum geared to photography, photographs should be the prime medium of communication. That does not preclude textual content.

But solely textual content, in and of itself, has no place in a forum of this nature. Explanation, however valid and painstakingly researched, is better reserved for journals.

We perceive more through visual assimilation than all the text that would seek to explain a photographic
Theory. Be it of lenses, cameras, and the various terms associated with photography.

Particular brand of cameras or lenses or flash systems etc. Is not the intention of this thread.

If someone talks about, for example chromatic aberrations, I would like to see an example of such in a photograph taken in a normal real life situation. That would be beneficial to me.

If ' size matters ' I would like to see a comparison in photographs of how it matters; this would be beneficial for me ( and others I hope ) to visually see the impact of ' size ' in their photographic work.

One can indeed spend volumes describing a sunset..but nothing has more impact than seeing a photograph of such.

One can talk endlessly about shutter speed. But show the effects of different shutter speeds, and how to use them creatively, adds much more value to those interested in improving their skills.

If edge to edge sharpness is of concern, than such a person would derive more benefit from seeing the effects of unsharp corners in photographs. And if it relates to a lens, sensor, camera and combination thereof, this study would benefit a prospective buyer of that particular system.

I find within OPF, a lack of real life photographs accompanying valuable textual advice and information.
This is more a case of something being incomplete as opposed to being wrong.

Talking about low noise at high iso is all very good. But better to give examples of it via. Photographs taken using those set/s of parameters. And no good taking photos with iso set to 2500 in broad daylight with a nd filter. Does not prove anything substantial about low noise, IMHO.

So if one says a lens is good..show me through your work how good it is. Similarly why one should not waste their money on another similar product.

Talk about using light creatively..then do so with examples of how you approached the subject. Does not matter if the results are not universally accepted as great..who cares, so long as you found them to be acceptable. We all can learn from this.

Telling me all the theories of some optical theory or the psychology of visual perception in words alone does nothing to improve my photography. I might marvel at the technical prowess of the writer, but that is as far as it goes.

So you use a f/1.2 lens. Lucky you. Show us, in photographs, what is so special about it.

I hope that clarifies, somewhat, my intentions to start this thread. If not, then please move along.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Fahim,

...I believe, there is a high probability I could be wrong, that in a forum geared to photography, photographs should be the prime medium of communication. That does not preclude textual content.
...

I find within OPF, a lack of real life photographs accompanying valuable textual advice and information.
....

I cannot say I agree with all your points but I definitely agree with the above. Furthermore, I think that we have nowadays less photos shared in OPF than in the past and we tend to talk more (imo). I think that we are getting a bit too relaxed in our leather sofas in the library with the fireplace, philosophizing away.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Fahim,

Your intent is fine! I see it as a practical help. What's more, as a side benefit, folk will know some more anatomy, without getting into trouble with NSFW, material!

My apologies for not posting examples as you requested. It's my intent, but I I've been so busy! I have another big shoot tomorrow and then I'll get examples.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Dear Asher,

My apologies for not posting examples as you requested. It's my intent, but I I've been so busy! I have another big shoot tomorrow and then I'll get examples. .

Oh, you have been a bad, bad boy!

Best regards,

Doug