Left is a dust stained Ricoh Gr.
Right is a spot removed Lightroom export.

>>4306112
Raws are only as good as the processor and every one is different

Its like different developers for film

right looks better thoughhowever

>>4306112
Lightroom is just Adobe presets for babies who don't know anything about photography.
That's why all the YouTubers sell preset packs.

Stop using Adobe software.
It's actually not good. Just wait till you learn you can't opt-out of lens correction profiles or that your "unedited" image has 38 different Adobe pre-processing things baked in, without you asking for it. You're just coasting on Adobe presets and think sliders are something real.

>>4306176
What is good?

>>4306202
My very niche and underground hipster product that only successful and cool photographers use. You can't even get a download for it on the internet. You have to visit the guy in his shed in Portland and do the secret hand gesture, afterwards he hands you a sealed envolope with the coordianates to a shared floppy disc. You wouldn't get it bro.

well it applies a profile, be it its adobe "default" or a camera specific one, cant do much about that

>>4306112
You are deeply retarded. How do you think windows displays raw photos? It interprets them in a specific way Microsoft engineers programmed so your retarded eyes can witness this """""raw image""""" which is in fact just an interpretation of the raw file. Why do you expect the way windows displays raw photos to be the same than lightroom computes a jpeg? What does your question even mean? Since you can't bother to do a single google search, why don't you ask this in the stupid question threads where it belongs?

>>4306202
capture one is pretty nice tbhfam.

>>4306202
Capture one

File: Z62_2162.jpg (2.04 MB, 3000x1996)

2.04 MB JPG

>>4306202
Capture one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	1996
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	4200
Image Height	2794
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4306289
why do female dogs have such narrow stupid heads. they look so goofy

>>4306316
>why do females look female
Big brain hours

>>4306202
captureone or phocus

File: filmlens.jpg (1.71 MB, 3000x2000)

1.71 MB JPG

>>4306316
Superior aerodynamics

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	4500
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4306202
Your camera's jpg engine of course.

>>4306329
If you're just snapshitting to get what you see in the viewfinder, yes, but camera "DRO" and "HDR" always sucks more than what you can do yourself. Also see: phones, worst HDR ever.

>>4306112
They did you a favour

>>4306113
OP here, it's actually the opposite and this board is the worst board on 4chan, with the worst people.
>>4306244
They are two JPEGS you stupid motherfucker. Also I remember you from last time, hang yourself you dog. I bet you've never even been outside America you sad fat cunt.

Once again a bunch of conflicting information, heavy batch of bitter retarded losers and a board slower than the worst fucking Reddit, this board sucks so much.

>>4306341
>>4306340
Buy a Nikon™ and install Capture One™

I refuse to explain further

>>4306345
Nikon is shit. It's not 1970 you moron, they're fucking broke they're so shit.
Full frames are shit.
It's Ricoh or Sony only.

>>4306347
ngmi

>>4306345
This poster knows the truth. Real artists only shoot leica, nikon, phase one, and hasselblad.

>>4306341
>>4306340
You're a part timer and we're professional. Sorry bud. Just the way it is.

>>4306330
>"DRO" and "HDR"
just find better lighting and stop using crutches. learning to accept that the conditions weren't right and you should try again later is an underrated skill. i've never seen shadow recovery/hdr in post used to make a great photo, only to turn bad ones into okay photos.

>>4306363
Read the negative and the print by ansel adams before making ignorant comments like these

Do you really think there is a true luma curve to digit and your camera/editor doesnt already do its own hdr from the start? Do you think film records real light instead of a shoddy technological interpretation of it?

>>4306363
Do you really believe this? Must be a fuji user because attitudes like this lead people to brandfag over the camera's jpeg engine or their favorite program's default profiles without being aware of what's actually going on

The shadow and highlight sliders you are familiar with are a dumbed down curves tool. There is already a gamma curve applied to present you with a jpeg. If you can't make it look good you just suck with photography. This is exactly like all the centuries of masters who took initially overexposed negatives and dodged and burned all the detail back to make stunning, high quality prints out of high contrast scenes - except it's so easy even you could do it.

>>4306176

if same dudes that wrote display begin adobe, have they lost it with 38 bake-in enhance?

>>4306340
>jpegs
>.dng

idefk

>>4306112

I have an experiment for you to try op you are going to love it.
Open your photo on your phone and pc. Now hold your phone right beside your pc screen and compare the colours of your photo on the 2 devices. It won’t match.

Every fucking thing, your phone manufacturer, your pc screen manufacturer adobe, windows etc, all these fuckers mess with the colours in your photos. They are all trying to sell you shit by thinking they will tweak your colours themself to make it look better.

The solution is capture one and a screen calibration tool. Anything else is a downgrade and Lightroom is the worst downgrade of all other than using Sony cameras which is the absolute worst possible thing to you can do.

>>4306536
Just did with my Iphone and Mac Pro and you are full of shit.

>>4306546
lol

>>4306546
>Two apple devices have similar colors
You dont say!

macbook pros dont have full ARGB coverage btw

>>4306594
>everyone that matters sees the exact same colors I do
So it's a nothingburger afterall

>>4306603
>everyone that matters
>apple users
Cattle among cattle.

Everyone that matters orders your work in print form.

>>4306318
Phocus only works with TIFF and it's a clunky piece of shit

>>4306202
>What is good?
To see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women

>>4306202
RawTherapee and darktable are non-faggot software

>>4307019
non-faggot, yes, but you forgot to disclose that they're for furries and otherkin instead

>>4307019
My only gripe with rawtherapee is that its color theme can't be changed. It's permanently in dark mode

>>4306202
To everyone responding with Capture One, does that shit not refuse to play nice with Nikon raws?

>>4307036
It also has a tendency towards overcooking your photos unless you reign in like a motherfucker. A good rule of thumb for RawTherapee is to start with only the most necessary edits first, then try experimenting with other settings while you keep comparing back and forth.

>>4307035
I know of no mentally ill people using either, they all use Photoslop
>>4307036
It can, you have a theme picker in options. Use this too https://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/BTDZS/RTLight.htm
>>4307064
IMO the best way is to use the Neutral preset, make sure everything is disabled that is not corrections, change settings you'd like for almost all or all photos, save as a preset and set it as the default. You only need to do it once, unless you want more of them

>>4306202
I literally just use a raw therapy plug-in to import raws into gimp. I don't process at all in the raw therapy module. it exports straight into a gimp project file so you don't lose any data and get to use all the nice gimp tools.

>>4307068
I’m a core member of furaffinity’s photography community and our official setup is basically darktable+canon rp.

>>4307098
>not z50+28-400

>>4307047
Does it… not… refuse… to play nice…

Are you asking if it plays nice with Nikon raws? Yes it does. It’s fine. I’d argue it’s the best I’ve used personally.

>>4307019
RawTherapee is what I started with and used for years prior to Adobe, and it's just not as good as Lightroom is.

>>4306353

one can rotate D1H raws in shotwell, yay

>>4307176
Lightroom does not have an hot pixel tool. That alone is a deal breaker

>>4307156
>Are you asking if it plays nice with Nikon raws?
yes

RawTherapee is the worst fucking name for a product ever
I thought it was a 4chan made product because it sounds like Raw The Rapist

any of you fellas use affinity products?

>>4306603
nigga do you even have a computer monitor at home? even the cheapest, most trash monitors nowadays have different color ranges, like srgb, dcip3 etc... switch between them and then tell me how ''only people that matter see the difference'' youre using the same 60 IQ logic as those retards on here who pretend they dont see the difference between an image shot with a Sigma/Tamron lens and a Leica/Zeiss/Hasselblad/PhaseOne or a Cine-grade lens.

even my mom who is 61 and has shit vision on both eyes can tell the difference between sRGB color space and Adobe or DCIP3 or whatever the fuck else... she even noticed the difference between the colors on her phone and on my 100%+ srgb coverage laptop screen.

stop the bullshit please

>>4307221
Affinity Design is way ahead of InDesign. Other than that, for photography, I didn't touch Affinity Photo. I don't have the reosurces to adapt a different workflow that I am used to for a decade yet. Just buy the suite, it's literally no money.

>>4307218
you're dyslexic

>>4307232
>see the difference between an image shot with a Sigma/Tamron lens and a Leica/Zeiss/Hasselblad/PhaseOne or a Cine-grade lens
Oh you’re a schizo boomer, neat. Tell us all again about microcontrast and 3dpop and how curiously such things aren’t objectively measurable but somehow still valid. Please, go on.

DARKTABLE NUMBAH ONE

>>4307381
Microcontrast is real, it's strictly defined on the MTF chart as contrast at higher spatial frequencies.

3d pop is a mix of perspective distortion, CA, vignetting, spherical aberration and field curvature so you get the most by using a mediocre 35-45mm lens.

>>4307381
you have mistaken me for someone else but obviously youre blind in both color argument and lens argument
you might want to book that psych eval appointment after all

>>4307423
>so you get the most by using a mediocre 35-45mm lens
correction = *by using a lesser sharp lens if buying less expensive consumer grade camera lenses
and also theres an exception to this; cinema lenses and big budget manufacturing specialized lenses, will be both sharp and have very good 3d rendereing. european (especially german) lens manufacturers have already proven that time and time again for almost 100 years now.

also i believe theres an interview on youtube with some guy that designs glass for arri or phaseone lenses and he explains this pretty well

>>4307539
Lmao, cargo cult horseshit

There is no sharp 3d pop, half of the illusion (yes, OPTICAL ILLUSION) is sharpness falloff!

>3d pop
>depth rendering
>microcolor
and other things that do not exist or can be precisely expressed, but would make the lens sound bad if they were like
"this lens has a shitload of residual spherical aberration and coma, it has visible vignetting even at f/16, and nothing outside of the central third of the image is ever sharp"
Ok there's your 3d pop of legendary leica glass.

>>4307203
Hot pixel is automatic. Found out myself by comparing the same RAW between Rawtherapee and LRC.

>>4307542
thinking an accurate lens is a good one for art is pretty funny. imagine if guitarists were obsessed with getting as pure of a sine wave out of their guitar as possible and any character in the pickups was considered a minus.

>>4307649
a soft lens is usable

that doesnt make it worth as much as a sharp one. any chinese sweatshop can make a lens with “character”.

>>4307653
ah but that's the issue isn't it? character can be good or bad but there isn't an mtf curve or a dpreview studio test to prove it. "photographers" (gearfags) hate making art and hide behind technology, you see this all the time.

>>4307655
no im saying leica charges a shitton for ttartisan quality

all the le character can be measured, you can pick your pictorial effects on lenstip, thats why i dont care about that you are as much of a gearfag as anyone else

leica is a ripoff thats what i was saying

>>4307655
You sound bitter.

>>4307656
It went over his head, besides, it's not like every "character lens" doesn't have 50 reviews autistically measuring its every aberration down to the degree of bokeh swirl.

>>4307639
The noise reduction module removes them automatically when enabled (which it is by default), to be precise.

>>4307540
>physics = cargo cult
XDDDDDDDDD
exactly how uneducated /p/ actually is? after 2 years i forgot how dumb you people actually are lmao

i would ask you to go to /sci/ and ask about physics of light but /sci/ is now a bunch of redditors anonimously pretending to be smart people

sure would be convenient if someone simply had some pictures that show what people are talking about
especially considering it seems about how images look
but i know posting photos on a photo board is too big of an ask for most

>>4307656
leica as a company is a scam, profiteering lying jew pile of shit
but their lenses were and still are god tier, thats the one thing they dont cheap out on manufacturing
unlike their cameras, their lens department gets TRIPLE the budget of Nikon/Canon/Sony for designing lenses and they are actually one of the only 2 consumer grade lens manufacturers that use the same advanced machinery for manufacturing as panavision, hasselblad, phase one, cooke, zeiss and other similar manufacturers do.

also, even consumer grade manufacturers like canon and sony have completely separate (more expensive and better) departments and machinery for their cine grade glass compared to their consumer lenses.

File: Z72_3976.jpg (2.26 MB, 3000x2000)

2.26 MB JPG

>>4307758
>FIZZICS
Would you care to explain the physics of "3d rendering" in optics? Since most lenses are designed by computers, there is surely a chart that measures "3d rendering" and a well explained set of physical principles that lens designers follow to make something "3d". Since you know so much about who makes what lenses how, you must be familiar with some of it, but because it's just banal engineering it's probably in a textbook somewhere.

As far as I've figured out, "3d pop" is just a happy accident of field curvature and vignetting and happens on a per photo basis. Since every lens has some field curvature and even if it's totally flat there's a subject out there that can look 3d at a moderate aperture, and vignetting can be added in post (so can gaussian blur so you don't have to rely on the lens' natural blur) 3d pop is not special and is more on the photographer than the lens.

>>4307761
The average leica lenses is measurably china tier because the entire point of that lifestyle brand is reselling the experience of photography circa 50s-60s. There is nothing about a lens that is immeasurable now that human understanding has progressed to its current level. There is no je ne sais quoi in optical machinery. It is just consumer goods, produced in a factory to a list of specifications. If there's something immeasurable it's the machinations of your consciousness and you've mixed them up with a piece of inert minerals and polymers.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/350 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	4500
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4307763
>All these typos and inconsistencies
Back to bed

>>4307759
you have ''3d pop'' and ''muh character'' idiots
and then you have ''its not real'' idiots who straight up deny physics and visual difference

both are wrong.

it does exist but its not 3d fucking pop, its simple fucking light physics and very, very, very, very, very precise and nano-scopic level precision manufacturing of glass. theres no magic to it.
its basically a question of ''who can make the clearest, least distorted light projector glass and make the light passing through the lens have the least amount of refraction, diffraction, reflection and caused aberrations?"

some big camera manufacturers and most, if not all 3rd party lens manufacturers lack the proper machinery to do so, reason being either of financial nature or because of greed and not wanting to spend so much money on expensive machinery for making cheap costing glass (e.g tamron, sigma, viltrox, samyang, laowa, 7artisans, lensbaby, etc, etc) while the few 3rd party manufacturers that do have the machinery to do so (mitakon, voigtlander, etc..) also struggle financially at the moment and cant be competitive with their product pricing because its VERY expensive using those machines and your average joe nowadays will appreciate sharpness of a lens more than visual quality and accuracy.

>>4307766
Can you explain this "light physics" or perhaps link to an academic source

It sounds like you're actually talking about high sharpness and low copy variation, not any sort of character, but leica is the subject and their MTF say that leica shouldn't be the subject, rather, nikon should be.

>>4307763
>FIZZICS
yes, physics.
you dumb fuck lol

if you knew all the scientific shit and amount of research and development resources (not just money) that manufacturers like ARRI, Cooke, Hasselblad, Panavision, Zeiss, Leica, etc. etc... put into manufacturing their lenses in comparison to some mass production village factory chink shit like sigma or samyang, your brain would explode

File: eye_optics2.png (43 KB, 744x388)

43 KB PNG

>>4307766
>Sharpness is not visual quality and accuracy
what is this schizo smoking

sharpness is literally quality and accuracy, perfect transmission, no distortions, no aberrations. usually beyond the capabilities of human vision (a shitty ass lens put in front of an AI video camera with a randomly arranged RGBW CFA)

>>4307769
>all the scientific shit
name it, link papers, articles, explanations, show you know what you are talking about and that it exists.

>>4307766
its too bad you dont have any photos to show it

>>4307769
can you show an example of these differences, so we can actually see what you mean?

>>4307771
Way back yen last year maybe he posted a heavily cropped photo of some leaves that basically showed the difference between contrast and acuity.

One was a $30 sigma lens that had decent acuity and well defined details, but was hazy with poor contrast so the entire image looked washed out, like the corners of a budget zoom
The other was a stopped down chinese prime which had maybe lesser acuity, but good contrast, so the less washed out image appeared to have more depth due to the better shadows

I've noticed another weird lens quirk, which is some lenses really emphasizing the highlights. I don't know what causes it. Maybe bright enough light causes some scattering in shitty optics, but not enough to create the hazy look.

These are all noticeable and probably well defined on some charts but it's not a manufacturer thing, other than a lot of tamron and sigma zoom lenses being more likely to have the highlight quirk and the haze/poor contrast being common to cheap complex lenses shot wide open.

>>4307768
it took me 30 seconds seconds to browse through google links to find a link that lead me to an article with pictures and videos of overviewing manufacturing process of hasselblad lenses in sweden and it took me <5 seconds to copy paste anons reply and look up ''light refraction, diffraction and reflection'' you should learn how to use the internet before spamming bullshit on 4chan go back to plebbit

>>4307774
>I have the source go find it yourself btw
Confirmed: source does not exist

>>4307775
im not the anon you replied to i just said i looked up the entire topic on google in less than 30 seconds you angry pseudo intellectual retard

>>4307776
Photos of hasselblad's factory do not explain the physics that go into their "3d rendering"

This is something "photographers" often claim exists as a gear feature, and only as a gear feature, something they can just order on ebay and slap on their camera, but consistently fail to show is an objectively defined trait.

Meanwhile, actual photographers get "3d rendering" even with lenses that go against all of the "photographers" rules for selecting a lens with "3d rendering"/"depth rendition" (such as "buy from leica or hasselblad, or zeiss cine grade")

>>4307763
>Would you care to explain
>>4307769
>No

it doesnt exist.
/thread

>>4307773
i remember those, they were simply poor comparisons
back then no one could pick out sigma/leica/zeiss from one another from simply looking at images
i just want to see pictures when people talk about stuff like this, but it's an impossible ask for something so apparently obvious

>>4307780
I went through flickr and cropped a bunch of tree branches shot with a beloved zeiss and a $350 sigma with a similar fl/fstop. When he finally guessed he was correct less than half of the time.

It's hardly about the lens. Lenses do objectively handle contrast differently, lenses do objectively have differences in resolution across the frame, and how their field of focus is shaped. Some have bloomy highlights, some have deeper shadows, some have cooler greens some have warmer reds, but even with all of that, if you pick your light, your subject, and your scene you can work the lens do get the photo you want, even with "3d rendering", and just buying the lens of someone that knows how to place a camera in space and time won't get you the same effect because it's not just the lens that projected light onto the sensor/film that made the photo. It was mostly the light that was in front of the camera, and the monkey behind it.

>itt. a bunch of faggots derail a thread to talk about shit they know nothing about
good shit /p/, good shit, im sure richardson, chong, deakins, hoytema, fraser or prieto or any other dop would love to listen to you and pick the the most pin sharp, MTF chart big dick sigma and samyang lens recommendations you have to offer, but sadly they are too busy being actual artists and CHOOSING LENSES NOT BY BRAND BUT BY LOOKS THEY GIVE OFF so they can make literal pieces of art for more than half the world to enjoy.

but yeah, if /p/ says that three dimensional look from cine lenses and other expensive hassy, p1 or jew premium branded lenses isnt real then i guess a director of photography with 30+ years of experience and 40+ awards to their names EACH are all wrong, and /p/ is right.

WE CONCEDE /p/ YOU ARE RIGHT!
IM GETTING MY 14 SIGMA LENS BOX ON ORDER AS IM WRITING THIS!!!

fucking degenerate stuck up, egoistic, napoleon complex psychos, all of you

File: fa6fca3fc1020ef16d09d07a4(...).jpg (57 KB, 600x497)

57 KB JPG

>>4307801
99% of famous le fashun photographers and cinematographers are often happy to just grab an off the shelf first party lens that fits on the nearest camera and take photos with it. They will gladly forego elinchrom and profoto lighting gear and use godox and even god forbid meike and brandless shit with plug in strobe kits found at estate sales because the elinchrom setup was just what the rental place had and 99% of what makes their work is their crew of assistants and their own directorial talent.

As long as gearfag fanboys like you don't see it until after you've seen them with some brand they're on the "artists" marketing page for!

Hoytema could have filmed interstellar on an fx3 with sigma zooms and you'd still say it looked amazing.

Disagree? Quantify what makes speshul lenses speshul, no photographer required.

File: zE5WNO8tWqlA7xZ9dqEn_MISS(...).jpg (343 KB, 721x525)

343 KB JPG

>>4307805
Behind every great work of art is generic rental equipment

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800E
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Photographer	"NATALIE DYBISZ; MISS ANIELA"
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:27 16:23:19
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	721
Image Height	525
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4307801
if only someone could simply post photos showing how great those lenses are

>>4307805
you degens will say anything to argue and try to justify YOUR gearfaggotry about shitty made lenses

so no, i hate to break it to you but a DOP or a fashion photog would MOST DEFINITELY NOT brainlessly pick a random lens for their scene/set, 100% of the best DOPs and fashion photogs pick lenses based on LOOK and COLOR they give off, which fits the scene/set they have in mind for the shot. this goes especially for DOPs, they will switch between 999 different lenses from 999 different manufactures for the scene if they have to, and will spend DAYS just to find the right one that fits best for the feel and look and story of the scene.

youre too busy jerking off to 4chan URL and being a psychotic, stuck up, entitled, egoistic retard to admit to finally admit to yourself that different lens designs and manufacturing finishes have different looks - every fucking DOP is a living proof of that, looking at BTS or interviews or any fucking videos of any fucking DOP will show you that they all look for different lenses of the same focal length BASED ON LOOK because different lens designs have different looks and LITERALLY ALL DOP's HATE DEALING WITH FLAT LOOKS!

even DOPs like richardson and deakins, who both do photography on the side and both said they will shoot with anything but prefer to shoot with leicas or snoys with either shitty ancient lenses or zeiss glass BECAUSE THEY MAKE IMAGES LOOK MORE NATURAL AND THREE DIMENSIONAL

you faggots just hate to admit being wrong,
you think people will ignore what 50+ directors of photography, who all have 30-40 years of experience and countless awards behind their names, and instead listen to you, an artless troglodyte 4chan dweller?? really??

>>4307813
>guy names 6 of the best cinematographers to ever live and their work and what they do with their lenses as an example
>''if only someone could simply post photos showing how great those lenses are''
surely youre not being serious?

>>4307817
if someone is making a claim about the way a certain lens looks, it would just be nice to include examples, its really easy to do, i do it all the time
i have no doubt experts in the field pick lenses for certain reasons, i have no doubt certain lenses render differently, i just want to actually see it, not schizo ramblings

i do know enough experts in other fields that are often just old farts sticking with what they know, and i know that carries over in the photo world too

>>4307816
This is a fantasy you generated to justify your brandfaggotry, but lenses are soulless pieces of glass, plastic, and metal, not unique magical objects. Every single thing a lens does to light is quantifiable, chartable, well defined. At the outset they were designed by mathematicians, now they are designed by mathematicians with computers measuring them even more accurately.

The only things brand really affects are selection and quality control. If a photographer has a lens they like, they will use that lens over and over because even if they buy a second copy it won't look the exact same with that brands quality control, and a photographer might go with brand A over brand B because brand A has the sharp double gauss 50mm with mild coma they wanted... but that's it, and it's very banal stuff, like woodcarvers picking out knives and chisels. Not magic.

>zeiss glass BECAUSE THEY MAKE IMAGES LOOK MORE NATURAL AND THREE DIMENSIONAL
Can you explain, or link an explanation, of the optical principles that make a 2d image look more natural and three dimensional, and post photographic examples you have taken showing the inescapable three dimensionality of a zeiss lens that is totally an optical property and not a side effect of skillful composition and camera operation in good light (or so you say)?

Optics is a very mature science and this "3d pop" has been a PHOTOGRAPHY GEARFAG SPECIFIC MYTH for decades so the patent has definitely expired. Let's see it. Let's see the proof that there is an optical formula that makes things 3 dimensional, and it is not just skillful use of the camera.

>>4307816
>BECAUSE THEY MAKE IMAGES LOOK MORE NATURAL AND THREE DIMENSIONAL
great, can you show us an example of this?

>>4307763
literal snapshit of a dog with a $250 chinese plastic lens has "depth rendition"

the technical aspects are easy to notice
>close-ish focus ensures DOF fallof at f/8, but gentle, not "ominous bokeh wall"
>focal length has minor perspective distortion at this distance, adding depth reference points
>cloudy day, soft shadows well within camera DR add even more reference points
>depth reference points run front to back
>typical cheap lens field curvature wraps back around the center and subtly separates a centered subject from the midframe, making it jump out more

a lot of reviewers have pointed out that the nikon 40mm f2 does this, throwing out horseshit words like microcontrast, but really, they're just shooting roughly centered subjects so the way the DOF is shaped wraps around them a little and it just shows up in photos that have distance reference points running front to back, without bokeh obliterating things, which is partly a characteristic of every 35-40mm lens ever made because 1: they get more in the frame 2: they have some perspective distortion but not so dramatic it loops back around to looking like a subject slapped on top of the background, meaning you can tell if something is closer or further based on its size 3: they have more mild bokeh which preserves the things your eye would use to gauge distance.

>>4306112
>100 replies
>no one has yet caught on to the fact that the left and right images are exactly the same

>>4307827
>-sent from my thinkpad t420 running gentoo

>>4307656
I don't care about Leica or look at any of their lenses but I resent the notion that a lens is objectively bad if it has vignetting or aberrations.
>>4307685
>You sound bitter.
I am, this industry sucks and most photographers have no interest in making interesting photos, just well exposed and sharp ones.

>>4307837
A lens is objectively bad if it has aberrations therefore it should be cheap

Remember you can always add aberrations to optics with filters or do digital effects in post. You are a gearfag who sees low quality as a desirable spec sheet item.

>>4307837
Agreed re: lens flaws being characterful.

Unless you're a photo editor, why would you care if other photogs suck? Sounds good for you if it means your lane is more open.

>>4307840
>A lens is objectively bad if it has aberrations therefore it should be cheap
>Remember you can always add aberrations to optics with filters or do digital effects in post. You are a gearfag who sees low quality as a desirable spec sheet item.
There are more qualities to a lens than vignetting and aberrations and mtf etc. I am not saying aberrations should boost the price. I am a gearfag in the sense that I enjoy leveraging different gear for different effects, I am very much not a gearfag in the way most are because I do not think technical perfection is especially relevant for optics.

>>4307843
Every optical aberration is objectively measurable. And they are signs of a subpar, cheap design. They should be cheap. Nothing more.

Technical perfection IS relevant because it is a blank canvas. Aberrations can be added at will.

>>4307850
based and correct

the character cult is as bad as the sharpness cult (the ones that wont even use uv filters without checking the point spread modulator for phase harmonic disruptions in the saggital diffraction zones)
>OMG MAGIC 35 MUST PAY 1500 YOU DONT GET IT THERES MORE TO LENSES THAN CHARTS
>the “magic” is literally on a chart

>Gearfags: sharpness is quality
>Gearfags: NO THERES MORE
>Actual enlightened people: taping a coke bottle to the front of a zeiss otus, as a joke

>>4307805
>99% of famous le fashun photographers and cinematographers are often happy to just grab an off the shelf first party lens that fits on the nearest camera and take photos with it.
TRVTH NVKE

pursuing shit glass is as much of a hobbyist crutch as thinking a sharp lens will make your photo good.

>>4307850
>Technical perfection IS relevant because it is a blank canvas
Lenses can do things computers can't, at least easily and in a reasonable amount of time (iphone bokeh for example). A "perfect" lens can be useful but not all you ever need, that's all I'm saying. Most people are making extremely boring images with sharp, expensive, "good" lenses and doing nothing in post. Lens selection (along with lighting) are extremely underrated tools.

>>4307900
>Lenses can do things computers can't
You can also put things before and in front of lenses and invent your own optical path. For a long time, this was the thing. Photography did not have ebay crawlers, vintage junkers, or japan camera hunters. You would buy the best lens you could, and smear vaseline on it. There was also a wider selection of devices that accepted filters at the mount, and darkroom tricks were still cool. It was a more creative, less consumerist time and there was a wider selection of interesting effects and techniques in the general consciousness. There were also always petzvals, cooke triplets, and aperture plates for special bokeh but they were less common - and less memed.

Today, most people who value "lens character" are just vlogging, ebay browsing gear collectors taking the same boring pedestrian/building corner/cat photographs to test their gear before moving on to the next member of their collection. It's late stage gearfaggotry as everything old becomes that special something and people start overpaying for garbage gear hoping to cop the special something and being disappointed so the cycle begins, endless consoom until the shittiest lens in russia is at least $200. In this stage, quality becomes defined as the antithesis of soul and character, which basically means old or old-esque. Also see: The electric guitar market. Classic cars. Shitboxes then, "SOVL" today! The commonality - aging male hobbyists and collectible equipment.

The knowers, the smart ones, we have our sharp lenses for their potential and their own character, and we bought basically the same thing as the heckin character lens from meike for half of what the antique version costs. We are the based ones. Join us.

>>4307926
the lensbaby etc effect lenses are also the same thing, unless someone saw you use them they'd never know. these are strangely underrated because they aren't vintage brand name and are explicitly called effect lenses.

>>4307542
>Micro-pop
>Color depth
>3D rendering
It's like someone took existing concepts and shuffled the words around

File: tt5.jpg (293 KB, 1024x679)

293 KB JPG

the amount of people defending shit lenses while not even knowing everything that goes into designing a lens is beyond my understanding

>>4307766
just let them be retards, you wont change anyones mind here, this is 4chan, if someone wants to take your advice, they will do so without replying with bullshit or at all

>>4307381
>>4307540
>>4307542
>>4307656
>>4307763
>>4307768
>>4307770
>>4307771
>>4307772
>>4307773
>>4307775
>>4307777
>>4307783
>>4307805
>>4307818
>>4307819
>>4307822
the one or two guys writing these mental asylum patient type replies need to reconsider being alive

>>4307801
im baffled at the fact that you can literally name some cine directors as examples of what youre talking about and retards like >>4307813 or >>4307822 will still exist and ask for image examples even after you just gave them names of 6 cine directors (out of hundreds who do the same thing) to choose from so they can watch their movies, behind the scenes so on and so forth. absolute brain rot level retardation right here

>>4308027
I know, asking for photo examples on a photo board is crazy right?

>>4308027
>cargo cult
Can you tell us about the scientific basis for 3d lenses