When Lenses have “Character”

[@lxhk3595]

Love vintage glass and wonder since the beginning, what the je ne sais quoi is in some of them. A lot is about the right balance of local and global contrast. The color etc. You also have to respect their age and give them some light. But then there is a magic sometimes you can't explain with theory. It can be the color, it can be the dimensionality, or the subtle contrast. It is just a fun to explore this, i can't explain my friends and family, recommending me a modern zoom.

[@itmeremy]

I totally agree, some lenses just hit different and you can't put your finger on why. It's also a thing where back in the film days, lenses needed to be clean to make up for the imperfections of film. But now that digital sensors are so clean, we kind of want to go the other way and use glass to give it a look and dirty it up, rather than choosing different film stocks

[@2bebetter]

"Character is an excuse for a bad lens" - I love this and agree. Watched this whole thing, and will run back and watch some others to give you some watch time.

[@itmeremy]

Thanks, I appreciate that

[@AbdonPhirathon]

Inanimate objects can't have character. Character is a trait of living beings with higher consciousness who can express themselves. Lenses may exhibit certain traits, but attributing “character” to inanimate objects is simply misguided.

[@itmeremy]

This has been a thing with lenses for far longer than since I had the idea for this video, it's not a new thing. And sure, maybe by definition "character" refers to traits on an individual, but we've been using the term to describe inanimate objects for years. For example, if a house has some cracks in the walls, people might say that it gives it character. Plus, one could also argue that the camera itself is often a character in films, so the traits that it's image has, often caused by the lens, could absolutely be called character.

[@AbdonPhirathon]

@@itmeremy While it's common in casual speech to use the word “character” to describe the traits of inanimate objects, it's more accurate to use terms like traits, look, or vibe. We should avoid anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and avoid romanticizing the gear.

[@itmeremy]

@AbdonPhirathon who's to say we "should" do anything? The meanings of words evolve all the time, whether it's proper or not. Personification and anthropomorphism are very common so I don't think it's something we "should" avoid in this specific case

[@AbdonPhirathon]

@@itmeremy Saying ‘who’s to say we “should” do anything?’ is a cop-out. Just because there are no prescriptive rules in speech doesn’t mean we should simply do or say anything we want. This is borderline deflection from the original comment, and you’re relying on fallacies and false equivalencies to make your point. People today want to focus on mood and aesthetics over real substance. Actual craftsmanship in filmmaking doesn’t require us to romanticize gear.

[@itmeremy]

@AbdonPhirathon I'm not saying we should romanticise gear, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with liking the technical side of the craft, which includes the equipment. I only mentioned the thing about the word "should" because you used it in a context where I don't think it was necessary and you were stating a way you think people should talk as if it were an undeniable fact. I also don't think any of this is that serious, people say lenses have character and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

[@peterreber7671]

I was waiting to hear about the famed 3D pop some lenses are said to have.

[@itmeremy]

Mmm, I have heard about that. I literally watched a video from Cam Mackey yesterday where he mentioned barrel distortion on anamorphics can give that effect

[@hiskishow]

Yeah I remember hearing about this and thinking isn't it all 2D 😂