Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Dec 2013 (Saturday) 13:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What is your most artistic lens?

 
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 10, 2013 18:08 |  #106

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16517253 (external link)
Technically, any BW photo is fauvism. Any lensbaby photo is cubism.

Uhh...how do you figure?


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Dec 10, 2013 18:18 |  #107

cdifoto wrote in post #16517267 (external link)
Uhh...how do you figure?

Monochrome abstracts color reality to just one tone, which is loosely fauvist (abstraction of color in general).

Cubism is abstraction of shape, which lensbaby does with its distortions.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 10, 2013 19:40 |  #108

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16517287 (external link)
Monochrome abstracts color reality to just one tone, which is loosely fauvist (abstraction of color in general).

Cubism is abstraction of shape, which lensbaby does with its distortions.

That's a heckuva stretch.

Fauvism is about vivid colors. B&W isn't color at all, nor is it an inherently painted look. You can't call anything that isn't realistic Fauvism.

Lensbabies are just uncorrected optics. Cubism is blocking, not merely distortion. Hence the name. You can't call anything that looks like crap Cubism.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Dec 10, 2013 23:54 |  #109

cdifoto wrote in post #16517452 (external link)
That's a heckuva stretch.

Fauvism is about vivid colors. B&W isn't color at all, nor is it an inherently painted look. You can't call anything that isn't realistic Fauvism.

Lensbabies are just uncorrected optics. Cubism is blocking, not merely distortion. Hence the name. You can't call anything that looks like crap Cubism.

Yes. It's a stretch. Same as posting a bad snapshot and proclaiming "art is subjective"

My point is that both lensbabies and B/W conversions stray away from realism. I suspect that it's this non realistic representation is what some people call "artistic".

If we have a snapshot of a girlfriend - boring realism. If we schlep a soft focus filter, the creative artist in us made the scene surrealist, cause the effect is dreeeeeamy. If we take an early uncorrected lens instead of a soft focus filter same thinking applies.

I don't have strict definitions of cubism, but I don't think having cubes in the picture is the key. I think the breakthrough for cubism was the abstraction of shapes through any forms. Les Demoiselles I think are considered cubist... Same with color, strictly speaking any BW picture is an abstraction of colorful reality. Whether it's done well or not is another question.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sonnyc
Cream of the Crop
5,155 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Jun 2005
Location: san jose
     
Dec 10, 2013 23:54 |  #110

abbypanda wrote in post #16512703 (external link)
Wow that Meyer Goerlitz Trioplan is awesome!

+1. Very cool lens. :)


Sonny
website (external link)|Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,573 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1542
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Dec 11, 2013 01:00 |  #111

gjl711 wrote in post #16512420 (external link)
After reading some of the responses I now understand my earlier misunderstanding. I am using a different definition of artistic than most posters here. For me color, DOF, contrast, bokah and pop are physical attributes of a lens. For me I see artistic as the quality of light, the subject, the framing,and post processing of an image, basically the elements that go into making an image and not the physical attributes of the lens that captures the light.

cdifoto wrote in post #16513911 (external link)
All my lenses must be defective because none of my photos are artistic.

gotaudi wrote in post #16516546 (external link)
For me my eye is the most artistic lens...

cdifoto wrote in post #16516893 (external link)
And to me that is a high risk of analysis paralysis. I do my best work when I'm not thinking about what lens I want to use because of some miniscule rendering quality that no one will care about but instead choose my focal length, aperture, and simply shoot.

You'll notice I don't have a gear list. I shoot professionally and still only have FOUR lenses. That's all I need. Why you think you need 300 is beyond me but that's your choice.

cdifoto wrote in post #16517155 (external link)
True. And I have to leave it to others to decide whether or not my photos are art because it's not my place to say.

cdifoto wrote in post #16517213 (external link)
He was hoping you'd help him rephrase the question. He stated it exactly as such.

I don't know how to rephrase it myself because I don't think artistry hinges at all on a particular type of bokeh or sharpness (not to be confused with focus) or anything. I think artistry hinges entirely on the content of the photograph and the following processing of the image. I can't think of any ARTISTIC shot where the bokeh made it. Or any such shot where the lack of CA made it to the point that it wouldn't be as artistic with different bokeh or different CA. I can't think of any artistic shot where the microcontrast made it artistic to the point a different kind of microcontrast would have made it non-artistic.

Perhaps I'm prententious in what I consider art and my bar is so high that very few photographs to me are actually art. I've never created an artistic photograph. I don't consider good lighting or a certain focal length or a blurred backround or even a perfect technically executed portrait to be art. I don't consider photos of hot babes with cars to be art no matter how sexy they are, nor do I consider the myriad of flowers photos art. I don't have a definition for art, I just think the bar is pretty damned high. Or maybe I just don't think it's art until it's framed and hung. Hell I don't know.

To me, discussion of certain lens rendering qualities as crucial to artistic intent is just people excusing themselves for their GAS. I think if you can blur or show your background as intended, use the focal length and ensuing framing as intended, and light as intended, you can create artistic images. The message will be different based on how you use all of these things but artistic merit will not be decided based on microcontrast or whether your lens creates donut highlights.

OK, this is a GAS fueled question. (Like the pun? :D)

and that's ok if you're into that, But seriously, one lens having a more meaningful artistic effect on an image than another?

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Silly.

YMMV


xgender.net (external link) Miss Olivia "OA" Grey - please refer to me as she/her/Miss
Nikkor 28/2, 35/2.8-PC 55/1.2, 55/3.5 - Voigtländer 50/2.8 - Tamron SP 28-80, SP 60-300, SP 300/5.6 - Pentax SMC Takumar 135/2.5, 200/4 - Lensbaby Composer Pro II w/Sweet35mm & Edge50mm | Canon 5DII | Sigma 12-24 - Canon 24mm TS-E II, 28-105 II, 85/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Dec 11, 2013 06:17 |  #112

twoshadows wrote in post #16518045 (external link)
But seriously, one lens having a more meaningful artistic effect on an image than another?

Silly.

Despite evidence to the contrary? Really? There are images IN THIS THREAD that show that a lens can have a significant effect on an image.

But the original question (I can't believe I'm still trying to clarify this) was about how the lens supports the artistic process. How different lenses may influence photographers in different ways. How a lens might "inspire" you and help to get your artistic juices flowing.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,220 posts
Likes: 171
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Dec 11, 2013 07:06 |  #113

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16517940 (external link)
...My point is that both lensbabies and B/W conversions stray away from realism. I suspect that it's this non realistic representation is what some people call "artistic"...

Right, this brings up the crux of the debate, or at least part of it.

Artistic as an effect can imply otherworldly, dreamy, or surreal. But artistic as in the quality of art raises a whole other issue, whereby "art", however loosely one wants to define it, does not require altered realty as a prerequisite for its realization.

Defining art is congenitally contentious, so I'll try to swerve around that particular issue, but it is important to stress that the implementation and success of 'art' or 'creativity' do not rely on supernatural rendering or subject matter. Again, this connection is a spillover from 'artistic effect,' which presumably implies, in the case of photography, some type of visual distortion.

When someone has arguably over-processed a photo or used considerable manipulation, some folks will claim that it is not photography but instead graphic or digital art. The problem is that this categorization conversely suggests that literal or more realistic photos cannot be art.

Yet, a neutral lens, if we want to call it that, is perfectly capable of facilitating the creation of art, because ultimately, true art is a manifestation of the human, not the tool.

Can the tool play a significant role in the creation; of course, and it's the human's choice to appropriate this tool to attain his or her objective.

Where it gets more complicated is that artistic elements (not to be confused with artistic effect as described above) can be used to enhance the visual impact of a photo even if the photographer has no pretense of creating art. And basically, that's what most great photography relies on; the aesthetic components that make a photograph visually compelling regardless if it is art or not by anyone's definition.

Some of these elements, if not most, include the fundamentals, such as composition, balance, use of lighting, contrast, shadows, lines, and shapes. Some on this thread would further argue that artistic effects are, at least, artistic elements as well.

But as the OP has further explained, the issue is broader than artistic effect, elements, or even art itself. Here, the question centers on the inspirational qualities of a tool. Some folks will argue, "I don't need no stinkin' camera or lens to make me think; it's all in my head. Cameras and lenses are just tools."

Others, like myself, believe that tools can in fact impart a degree of inspiration, although how it does so, if at all, is likely to differ depending on the individual, particularly since much of this is psychological, not physiological.

However, there are physical elements at work as well. For example, what photos I choose to shoot with a large format camera will likely differ than those shot with a point & shoot. And for that matter, a square format camera is likely to inform my photographic process differently from how I shoot with a non-square format.

And for me personally, and for whatever reason, I have found pointing a lighter camera at a stranger easier than pointing a large and bulky one...that's my experience (it's not up for debate).

Now more specifically, as far as a lens that inspires greater creativity, no, I do not have one. I have lenses that have different characteristics that I'll exploit, but one or the other does not instill a greater sense of artistic motivation. This said, I use these lenses (and cameras) as a process of elimination, where cameras or lenses that in one way or another infringed on the process were eventually retired.


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceriltheblade
Goldmember
2,481 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2007
Location: middle east
     
Dec 11, 2013 07:13 |  #114

As far as I can tell from the people who are quite annoyed at the question - is rooted in the word "artistic" or that hardware places any specific limit on that artistic vision (??)
First of all people waned philosophic and asked "what is art/artistic" and when they realized that there is no good answer even in the philosophical literature, they went on to invalidate the question.
I feel that the best clarification was that after a photographer envisioned his image output, which tool does he most often use to realize his vision.
This, in my opinion, could be hardware on the level of the lens, the LIGHT, the post editing, and on and on.
So many times we see a picture that we really like - or one that generates a parallel/associated idea for something that we want to accomplish and what is asked? How? With what? When? Where?
What is so different than just asking generally - how do you (plural and generalized) MOST OFTEN (if there is such a thing) accomplish/realize your artistic vision in photography?

So, if my definition for my photography of something artistic is not your definition...so what?
There is no invalidation. It means that you consider capturing a wasp drinking honey drops or a fly blowing bubbles artistic whereas another may think that having a certain rendering and post editing on a gorgeous span of desert from a plane artistic....and on and on.
Is there a lens? great...answer the d*** question. If it a lighting setup...answer that.... maybe a filter modulation....maybe a time of the morning....shooting through a dewdrop....

that is how I interpret the question.
and we have many other questions on the board asking very similar things....
where do you get your inspiration for images that you are proud of?

peace


7D/5dIII
50 1.8 II, MP-E65, 85 II, 100 IS
8-15 FE, 10-22, 16-35 IS, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, 100-400 ii, tamron 28-75 2.8
600 ex-rt, 055xproB/488rc2/Sirui k40x, kenko extens tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 11, 2013 07:36 |  #115

twoshadows wrote in post #16518045 (external link)
OK, this is a GAS fueled question. (Like the pun? :D)

and that's ok if you're into that, But seriously, one lens having a more meaningful artistic effect on an image than another?

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Silly.

YMMV

there are images in this thread,this very thread,( you know, the one you didn't look at) that prove you ---------------> are ---------------|
<---------------|
|
|
|
|
|
V
wrong


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,573 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1542
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Dec 11, 2013 07:51 |  #116

Jerobean wrote in post #16518389 (external link)
there are images in this thread,this very thread,( you know, the one you didn't look at) that prove you ---------------> are ---------------|
<---------------|
|
|
|
|
|
V
wrong

Prove? Lol.

I read the whole thread, actually, word for word and image for image (I was eating a snack and was bored). I see that different lenses have different characteristics, but they create art? Nooo, my friend. We create art. A lens has no more to do with art than a camera, flash, etc. They're tools.

Seriously, this is a question related to GAS. Nothing more. And as I said, that's ok, let's just call it what it is. I create with a 28-105 II - yeah, a $150 lens. Not even a 24-105IS. Why? Because I don't need the L.

No offense to anyone, but I don't see how a lens' rendering can "make" a photo artistic.


xgender.net (external link) Miss Olivia "OA" Grey - please refer to me as she/her/Miss
Nikkor 28/2, 35/2.8-PC 55/1.2, 55/3.5 - Voigtländer 50/2.8 - Tamron SP 28-80, SP 60-300, SP 300/5.6 - Pentax SMC Takumar 135/2.5, 200/4 - Lensbaby Composer Pro II w/Sweet35mm & Edge50mm | Canon 5DII | Sigma 12-24 - Canon 24mm TS-E II, 28-105 II, 85/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,573 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1542
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Dec 11, 2013 07:54 |  #117

n1as wrote in post #16518281 (external link)
Despite evidence to the contrary? Really? There are images IN THIS THREAD that show that a lens can have a significant effect on an image.

But the original question (I can't believe I'm still trying to clarify this) was about how the lens supports the artistic process. How different lenses may influence photographers in different ways. How a lens might "inspire" you and help to get your artistic juices flowing.

Sorry, Keith. I just don't get it. Because of that I'm outta here. Don't see where I have anything else to contribute... :)


xgender.net (external link) Miss Olivia "OA" Grey - please refer to me as she/her/Miss
Nikkor 28/2, 35/2.8-PC 55/1.2, 55/3.5 - Voigtländer 50/2.8 - Tamron SP 28-80, SP 60-300, SP 300/5.6 - Pentax SMC Takumar 135/2.5, 200/4 - Lensbaby Composer Pro II w/Sweet35mm & Edge50mm | Canon 5DII | Sigma 12-24 - Canon 24mm TS-E II, 28-105 II, 85/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 11, 2013 08:22 |  #118

twoshadows wrote in post #16518421 (external link)
Sorry, Keith. I just don't get it. Because of that I'm outta here. Don't see where I have anything else to contribute... :)

you didn't contribute anything anyways, just that you disagree with the OPs definition of art (which has been discussed ad naseum in this thread already and has been clarified numerous times by multiple people as to what the OP meant by it)


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,573 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1542
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Dec 11, 2013 08:35 |  #119

Jerobean wrote in post #16518475 (external link)
you didn't contribute anything anyways, just that you disagree with the OPs definition of art (which has been discussed ad naseum in this thread already and has been clarified numerous times by multiple people as to what the OP meant by it)

Hey Jerobean,

What's the problem? I wasn't speaking to you. Why don't you try to be a little more calm about this, instead of taking this personally. I have my opinion and I have a right to it, whether you like it or not. So, since you don't seem to agree, are you mature enough to agree to disagree? :)


xgender.net (external link) Miss Olivia "OA" Grey - please refer to me as she/her/Miss
Nikkor 28/2, 35/2.8-PC 55/1.2, 55/3.5 - Voigtländer 50/2.8 - Tamron SP 28-80, SP 60-300, SP 300/5.6 - Pentax SMC Takumar 135/2.5, 200/4 - Lensbaby Composer Pro II w/Sweet35mm & Edge50mm | Canon 5DII | Sigma 12-24 - Canon 24mm TS-E II, 28-105 II, 85/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 11, 2013 08:42 |  #120

twoshadows wrote in post #16518505 (external link)
Hey Jerobean,

What's the problem? I wasn't speaking to you. Why don't you try to be a little more calm about this, instead of taking this personally. I have my opinion and I have a right to it, whether you like it or not. So, since you don't seem to agree, are you mature enough to agree to disagree? :)

No hard feelings man.

It's just annoying to me that a simple thread devolves into this ridiculous argument about the definition of 'art' instead of people being mature adults and responding to what they know the OP meant. The point you tried to make has been made like 20 times already, and countered with an explanation of what the OP meant.

There are images in this thread that show lenses CAN produce unique images which is what the OP wanted.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,146 views & 0 likes for this thread
What is your most artistic lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ellie.outram2002
1090 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.