Topic: Lens / Camera "Signatures"

[Late Developer]

I find it difficult to differentiate between modern cameras / lenses in terms of what the camera / lens "does" to the photograph compared with the effect of the photographer's signature style and the way in which the photograph is processed / printed.  For example, it would be very duifficult to tell the difference between the same photo taken using the same film with a Canon with a 35mm f2.8 lens and then a Nikon and its equivalent lens.

However, you might be able to guess who took the photo if it had a distinct creative style.

There are notable exceptions. Much has been written (rightly or wrongly) about the "Leica Glow" and some people claim to be able to identify the kit used due to some inherent "signature" that gives it away.

What's the consensus here? Does this phenomenon exist? Do we have examples which scream "I was taken with a ..................."?

[Aksel]

My belief is that  who took the picture and how it was developed and printed are the stuff that really makes the big difference. If you need greater resolution get a camera with larger film format. What does make a large difference is how the camera/lens combination feels in use, and how it lets you do your thing.
Yes, some of the Zeiss lenses has that great 3d depth and the warm rich look of the first gen. 35mm Lux are rather nice, it would be a pleasure to take out a Biotar 75mm to do some portraits,  but in the end it does not really Mather that much. In my opinion It`s mainly of importance on the Internet, talking about gear, when one really should be out shooting  This comes from someone with far more great gear then talent.

[Owlsflight]

"In my opinion It`s mainly of importance on the Internet, talking about gear, when one really should be out shooting"

That's how I feel about it. Well said.

I guess it could be figured out to an extent based on bokeh signature. I know I love me some swirly Tessar shots! 

[Francois]

I think this splits into two categories 20% identifiable/80% unidentifiable. So yes, there are a few cases where the lens and camera will be a dead giveaway, but most of the time, things are just so close that this is impossible to differentiate.

Film and development do give images a unique look. The good thing is that you can use development and emulsion choice to give pop to images taken with a so-so lens.

Here are some of the best examples:
Film:
Polypan F
Ilford SFX
Ektar
Velvia

Lens/camera
Speed Graphic on moving subjects
Kodak Aero Ektar
Leica M lenses (they use a different optical formula than SLR's)
Vivitar UW&S
Lomo LCA / Cossina CX-2
Pinholes
Petzval lenses

If you can't identify any of those just by looking, it can only mean that you've simply never seen what they produce!

[Alan]

I used to wonder about this a lot

I used to read about zeiss glass, enough to get an old redundant
Zeiss lens from the Contax 645 range and had it converted to Canon EF.

I also had an olympus OM 21mm f3.5 lens that would produce a beautiful
red halo flare at certain angles to a light source.

NOW . . . personally I couldnt care less which lens does what.

I would have to go pixel peeping to see what lens differs from another and
in the end of the day so many images are photoshopperised / modified in some way.

I just like what I see when I see it and never give a thought as to what hardware
was used to create it because that image could have been created with a simple triplet lens.

regarding the question though, a boring image taken with a top of the line Leica lens or a
holga lens is still a boring image to me. the image may be technically perfect but if it i dont
connect with it . . . meh

its all a matter of taste, interpretation, vision, understanding . . .





...sorry enough waffle ~

[02Pilot]

I don't have enough experience with a wide variety of lenses to be able to identify their rendering on sight, but I'm starting to notice subtle differences in the photos I've taken with various equipment. A few examples:

- I shot several rolls of film (two each of Tri-X and Portra 160VC) at an auto race earlier this year, one of each with a Leitz Elmar 90 f/4 and a Nikkor Q.C. 135 f/3.5. The bokeh and flare signature of the Elmar are quite distinctly different from those of the Nikkor.

- The color rendering of the uncoated Skopar on my Voigtländer Vito has a very unusual vintage look, at least with Kodak Gold 200.

- The Jupiter-8 (a Sonnar formula lens) creates a distinctive glow around light sources, especially on Tri-X.

Note that all of these are vintage lenses. I have a feeling that the newer the lens, the less distinctive it is likely to be, the imperfections being more likely to have been dialed out by increasingly precise computer-aided design and manufacturing.

It's nice to know that certain looks can be achieved with specific equipment, but as has already been noted, boring photos will be boring no matter what they're shot with.

[KevinAllan]

There's a comparative test of 50mm lens in Amateur Photographer this week. I only skim-read it in Morrisons but the outcome seemed to be:

- almost everything was scored 4.5 out of 5
- the cheapest lens by far, the Canon EF f1.8, scored almost as well and in some respects better than lenses 5 times the price

So I'm mostly in the "it doesn't matter much" school although personally I stick with primes which seem to offer better quality than zooms.

Kevin

[Flippy]

I think it is mostly apparent on older lenses. The Zeiss Biotar for example gives a very distinctive look, the swirly rendering, glow, and low color contrast - it's relatively easy to spot pictures made with that lens.

For modern lenses, not so much. The differences are trivial and barely noticeable even if one knows what to look for.

[Sandeha Lynch]

There might be clear differences, but that doesn't always make the lens identifiable.  One thing that has, ( I suspect) always been evident is if a lens is low on resolution, it can be coated to whack up its contrast so that it looks crisper.  High contrast is said to be a mark of contemporary Nikon formulae, while in lpm tests another lens might prove 'sharper'. 

But anyway, what matters is finding a lens that satisfies what you want it to do.  In that sense, I consider lens choice akin to a painter's brush choice, though I fully realise that the film/dev combo must always share the credit for a given look.

These two shots are through a lens I treasure and consider to be my best portrait lens ... for the kind of portraits I sometimes want to take:





Works for me.  Meyer-Optik Orestor 100/2.8.  A telephoto design from the seventies, usually on a Pentax MZ5n, these both with Fuji Acros.  Meyer was an interesting company, and like Avis to Hertz or Pepsi to Coca Cola, they always had to try harder against the marketing clout of Zeiss.  Of the lenses for 35mm that I've compared, Meyer did sometimes make better glass in better bodies than Zeiss.

[Francois]

Lets not forget that Zeiss, at the time of the space age, were not known for making the best lenses. Most Hasselblads had Kodak lenses at that time.

Also, the difference between a 50mm lens on an SLR and a 50mm lens on a rangefinder has a lot to do with the camera on which its mounted. On the Leica, the flange to film distance is 29mm (from memory), so it can use a real 50mm lens. But on an SLR like a Nikon, the distance is 46.5mm, something that brings a simple problem: with a regular lens design you can't focus at infinity. So, to fix this problem, most lenses on SLR's use a reverse telephoto design. Aperture blades are not at the same place in the lens. Lens order is not the same either. So, when you look at the bokeh, it's different from one to the other.

[mickld]

I can tell the difference between by Holga lens and my Canon 50mm f1.4!    But that's about it.

[mickld]

Glad to be of help.

[Jack Johnson]

I think if a lens is stopped down it's extremely difficult to tell what kind or family it might be in, but I do think some of us recognize different characteristics in bokeh or specular highlights from specific lenses, brands, or formulas.

I can't spot brands, but on a good day I think I can spot a petzval, a Cooke triplet, a Tessar-style, a Sonnar-style, and a Planar-style. It would be fun to do a blind test. Poll, anyone?

Some of us can spot traits of certain films as well.

Likely, I'm probably exaggerating a bit, and it's *maybe* only with shining examples of each, which is why the test would be so much fun.

[Jack Johnson]

Likely, I'm probably exaggerating a bit, and it's *maybe* only with shining examples of each, which is why the test would be so much fun.

Not a shining example, but here's one example. For a while I was hunting down almost anything with a triplet, because (although focus is soft in this test shot) occasionally with the right DoF they do this weird thing where to my eye they achieve this 3D look:


Test shot 4 by knapjack, on Flickr

Most triplets, maybe as a function of being cheap (?), also tend to have swirly bokeh. I *think* when you push the lens up to the edge, right before the swirl kicks in, and at least to my eye, when you look at the objects in the foreground the out-of-focus areas either begin to mimic a more natural optical effect or begin to interfere with a more natural optical perception. Either way, I can feel it, it almost hurts my eyes, like wearing a bad pair of 3D glasses at the movies. And the end result is that you get this relatively unique separation between the subject and background. I'm not certain how much of a factor lens length is in the effect, as I have a TLR with a Graftar that almost never exhibits that behavior, but it could be a difference in shooting style as well.

Somewhere there's a fantastic picture of I believe an old World Series baseball game shot with a triplet, and it's an amazing example, and the one that gave me the fever. And, when I get that pain in my eyes, voila, Cooke triplet.

[Terry]

My 'walking around' camera is usually one of my Exas, which I originally got into because I could use them with Zeiss lenses.  After a few years and a lot of use, my favorite is a Schacht 50mm.  The shots I take with that really pop--I get the nice 'almost 3D' DoF effect Jack is referring to.

[Photo_Utopia]

I can tell some lens renderings by sight, Francois mentioned the Petzval I'd like to add the Leica Thambar and Summar to the list.

Pop any of those names into google images and you'll see why they are so easy to spot...

[Flippy]

Most triplets, maybe as a function of being cheap (?), also tend to have swirly bokeh. I *think* when you push the lens up to the edge, right before the swirl kicks in, and at least to my eye, when you look at the objects in the foreground the out-of-focus areas either begin to mimic a more natural optical effect or begin to interfere with a more natural optical perception. Either way, I can feel it, it almost hurts my eyes, like wearing a bad pair of 3D glasses at the movies.

I've noticed this too, and I think the cause is chromatic aberration which becomes apparent in the out of focus areas at larger apertures.


path by berangberang, on Flickr

It almost gives a "smeared" appearance to the background - which is basically caused by a slight double image formed by chromatic aberration.


rocks by berangberang, on Flickr

I think the Argus Cintar is especially bad in this regard.



And a closer look at the "effect":



You can definitely see on the branches near the bottom that the left side has a purple "fringe" and the right side almost has an orange "fringe" - this is what I think gives the headache inducing "bad 3d" effect.

My 100mm Isconar does not give this sort of look though, perhaps because only the very center of the image circle is being used?


Untitled by berangberang, on Flickr 

I don't really see this effect with anything other than triplets, or some really cheap toy lenses. But unlike other lenses I've seen with chromatic aberration this effect only shows up in the OOF areas with triplets.

[Ed Wenn]

I'm way more interested in the different 'clicks' that cameras make when you pres the go button....also the way they feel too. After going through 70+ cameras over the last 13 years of serious camera geekery my favourite 'click' comes from  Kodak Brownie Reflex 20. It's a 620 camera and I haven't shot with it in years, but I still grab it every now and then for a calming click session.




Image courtesy of http://www.brownie-camera.com/33.shtml

[Andrea.]

Now I think you are onto something there Mr Ed. The sound is by far the most important aspect of the whole analogue picture taking experience. I am somewhat surprised that FW doesn't have a special audio thread where one can lodge the 'click' or 'thump' sounds for everyone to listen to 

My fav sound is the wafting of my hat in front of the shutterless FKD, follwed closely by the 'whack' of the Kiev60.

[nachtiris]

I'm way more interested in the different 'clicks' that cameras make when you pres the go button....also the way they feel too. After going through 70+ cameras over the last 13 years of serious camera geekery my favourite 'click' comes from  Kodak Brownie Reflex 20. It's a 620 camera and I haven't shot with it in years, but I still grab it every now and then for a calming click session.

  Pretty cool, reason enough to look out for such a Brownie.

For myself, I prefer the clack of my Minolta SRT303 much mor than the CLACKCLACK of my modern Nikon-DSLR.

Concerning Signatures: It is hard to put into words, but I know the look my 50mm f1.7 Rokkor produces. Maybe there is just little curios in this lens. But while I am using it, I do know and can imagine the look the subsequently produced photo will have.

Cheers,
Christian

[Rafael Morales]

Neat Ed! I love the sounds of the Pentax SP500. They are sweet.

[Francois]

I must admit that the Kodak Brownies do have a very satisfying "clok" to them. It's not exactly a click... it's more like comparing guitar to bass.
I also like a lot the sound of an SX-70. A nice deaf plop-plop-whirr that's hard to beat.

[Flippy]

I think the Kodak Instamatic X-15 had the most satisfying noises (and feel) of any camera I've ever used. The rachety sound of the advance lever and the clack of the shutter are second to none.

[LT]

The most important thing for me is how the strap attaches to the body. This has a huge effect on the resulting picture and can make or break a shot for me.

[Francois]

There's also how sophisticated the latch is... but it doesn't get me as worked-up as a nice shutter clunk.

[Ed Wenn]

Leon: It is indeed a serious issue and one we've discussed many times. We even tried a podcast about it, but it was just too emotional and we had to abandon it after 20 minutes. For the record I HATE the way the straps attach to the camera on the Yashica 35 Electro series cameras.

Andrea: The Kiev 60 has a very "present and in the moment" CLACK to it and one which I, too, enjoy very much. However, I think that my Bronny S2A is every bit as loud, which I was delighted about seeing as how I swapped the Kiev and some lenses for the Bronny. I was happy not to lose the noisy release (missus!) and find my creative process remained as it was.

NOW, here's the big question....do you hold your breath when you press the shutter, or do you breathe through it?

[Francois]

It all depends. I hold my breath either when the meter shows under 1/15th of a second or if I'm hand holding a massively long lens. But since I pretty much gave up on using a 500mm + 2x teleconverter, I feel I can breathe much more easily.

[jojonas~]

am I the only one that got this song stuck in the head after this discussion?
The Mijonju Show - Shutter Project - Shutter Beats, Colleboration with Cameron Lew

[nachtiris]

haha, pretty cool 

[Alan]

Yes pretty cool is right )

Sent from my HUAWEI U8815 using Tapatalk 2

[Jack Johnson]

The most important thing for me is how the strap attaches to the body. This has a huge effect on the resulting picture and can make or break a shot for me.

OK, OK. Before I begin my self-"mute"ilation on the subject, I have to stand up for the gearheads.

Yep, it's not the camera, it's the photographer. But, the masters used to spend years studying paint. The paint doesn't define the painting, but it affects the outcome. I like to think glass (or lack thereof, Becky ) is to photography like paint is to painting. It may not be the interesting bit, or by far the most important bit, but I think there's equal opportunity to cajole certain feelings out of a scene by glass selection as there is by film selection or print technique. And it's the aspect that messes with my head the most, so I like it.

And, for those of us who do get cranky about the strap while we're trying to eat breakfast on the morning photo walk, I have a love-hate relationship with OP/TECH. Ugly, comfortable, too pricey if you do it the way they expect you to.

Instead I use a set of these on each camera for $7:

http://optechusa.com/utility-loop.html

I own a single set of these for my comfy strap for $10:

http://optechusa.com/system-connectors/swivel-hook.html

Done. No more floppy Fastex connector dongles everywhere, cluttering up the shelf or taking up space in the bag. When I go for a hike, I hook my comfy strap on the camera bag instead of the camera. A $7 tax on each new camera. One strap to rule them all. And when my kidlet wants me to go old school, I hook a hippie strap into the utility loop, no more metal-on-metal action.

More coffee, more pictures, more love. 

[calbisu]

As for ¨clicks¨I dare to say nothing beats the ¨CLOCK-CLOCK!!¨ of the Pentax 67

[Francois]

Now strap wise, there's badly placed strap lugs... and there non standard strap lugs!
These are the worse. You get a very good camera but you're stuck using a never ready case simply because you can't get a strap for the darn thing.

The worse is the Lomo Sprocket Rocket. No never ready case and no strap lugs!
I'll have to build something better than the tripod screw mounted strap I've got right now.

But on the other hand, it is one of the best sounding toy cameras out there. It's got a nice satisfying deep "clok" to it

[limr]

"Thunk" is the only word to describe the sound that comes from my Zorki 6. I quite love it. Not as good as my K1000, but maybe that's just because it's the shutter I've heard the most and it's become my yardstick for shutter clicks.

[rolo]

There's also how sophisticated the latch is... but it doesn't get me as worked-up as a nice shutter clunk.

The latch is indeed crucial. One of the reasons I like to shoot with Diana cameras is because the closure on the bottom of the camera back is marked AUF-ZU. One would normally have to spend a lot more to possess that feature. :-)

[mcduff]

As for ¨clicks¨I dare to say nothing beats the ¨CLOCK-CLOCK!!¨ of the Pentax 67

Haha calbisu, I was just going to say that. I love the sound of a 67 going off! I feel like when it fires it sounds like an old anti-aircraft cannon reloading its breech ;-) It always surprises me that I find this a camera I am comfy shooting hand held at reasonably low shutter speeds for it makes a beautiful racket.

[Late Developer]

As for ¨clicks¨I dare to say nothing beats the ¨CLOCK-CLOCK!!¨ of the Pentax 67

Haha calbisu, I was just going to say that. I love the sound of a 67 going off! I feel like when it fires it sounds like an old anti-aircraft cannon reloading its breech ;-) It always surprises me that I find this a camera I am comfy shooting hand held at reasonably low shutter speeds for it makes a beautiful racket.

The strangest noise made by any of my cameras is the virtually inaudible "tick" that my Mamiya 7 makes. It's even quieter than my old M6TTL and M4-P ever were.  My favourite shutter noise is, almost certainly, my F3HP attached to the motor drive. It's about as "classic" a motor wind noise you can get.