0

Given, the fact that every camera has a distinct photo look in its result, is there a technical term that is used for denoting this aspect, which basically denotes the nature of photos a particular camera or lens takes? Basically a term which signifies photo characteristics as a whole.

For example, this question discusses "leica look".

What is the Leica look?

Is there a specific term for these outcomes?

mattdm
  • 143,140
  • 52
  • 417
  • 741
Vibhu Tewary
  • 135
  • 5
  • 3
    I think you may be starting from a false premise - but could you clarify what you mean by "distinct photo look"? The differences between cameras are extremely subtle compared to, for instance the differences between lenses. – Tetsujin May 05 '19 at 14:22
  • Could you give some specific examples of what you mean? – Philip Kendall May 05 '19 at 15:02
  • For example, a point and shoot camera, would always have its particular look. And this would be different from a DSLR, even if the view is the same. Its like using the camera finder on flickr or pixabay, and seeing that all photos of that camera share likeness, in some way or another. – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 15:04
  • That's still not nearly specific enough. A DSLR is mostly different from a P&S because (generally) a DSLR has a much bigger sensor than an P&S, and therefore the photos from the DSLR have a much shallower depth of field. However, the difference between (say) a Canon full frame DSLR and a Nikon full frame DSLR is pretty small. – Philip Kendall May 05 '19 at 15:06
  • 1
    With respect to the question you've linked, see the conclusion: "I think a modern photograph on a Leica has no more of a special look than any other professional camera with a professional prime". While some of this may have been true historically, it's just not any more. – Philip Kendall May 05 '19 at 15:08
  • Yes, but it is still there, and i was wondering if there is a term for that difference in the look or feel. – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 15:08
  • 1
    OK, so: could you give a specific example of what you think indicates the "look or feel" of a Canon 5D Mark IV vs a Canon 1DX Mark II vs a Nikon D850? – Philip Kendall May 05 '19 at 15:09
  • Hi Vibhu, Welcome to Photography StackExchange. We hope you will enjoy sharing knowledge and experience with us. – Stan May 05 '19 at 15:17
  • For example, Nikon D850 images are more colorful, than Canon 5D... See - https://pixabay.com/cameras/nikon-d850-20067/ ---- and ---- https://pixabay.com/cameras/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-13169/ – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 15:17
  • @Stan Hi there, i'm learning, thanks for the warm welcome – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 15:19
  • 2
    @Vibhu Many of these images are over-post-processed. It's not Canon-vs-Nikon, it is a matter of personal taste of the person doing the post processing. – xenoid May 05 '19 at 22:36
  • I have noticed that nikon is more colourful and canon lesser on my P&Ss – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 23:43
  • @Vibhu If you are talking about JPEGs created using the in-camera processing engine at factory default settings, Nikon will tend to be "more colorful" for blue and green. Canon will tend to be "more colorful" for magenta, red and orange. All have user selectable settings that allow one to adjust color saturation and tint. – Michael C May 06 '19 at 11:10
  • Thanks I'll study these aspects in time :-) – Vibhu Tewary May 06 '19 at 11:46

3 Answers3

2

After thinking about this for several seconds, I would suggest that at the very most any difference at all would be very subtle. That said, how could one begin to identify such a quality?

Suppose you had an infinitely interchangeable camera system where you could change one factor at a time (like a specific lens or a specific sensor or a specific system of interior flare-reducing baffles within the camera body or even the kind of black anti-reflecting coatings within the system). Then, you had a cadre of photographers with different interests such as portrait, landscape, street, and such.

Then, you mix-and-match the work and compare a pile of un-cropped prints, say. Colour in one pile and monochrome in another to make comparison between them easier. The question at this point would be what would you be comparing?

Subject, most definitely. Definition and acutance, possibly. Focus and hyperfocal distance, yes. Style, probably depending on the photographer you might pick out similarities. We could go down the list.

In most cases I can think of, the camera format size would be the defining difference between cameras' "look" all things considered. Small formats have a look that large format cameras cannot compare or imitate with and vice-versa.

When I compare a sub-miniature shots from a Tessina or a Minox to a miniature Brownie or an instamatic to a small Nikon or a Canon to a medium Mamiya or Hasselblad to a large Zone VI or a Linhoff there is a distinct difference ("look") between each of these categories of Camera Format Size.

I'm not sure this actually answers the question posed; but, I had to give it a shot. I've identified the factor, I believe. An actual term eludes me other than the nebulous one usually used which is image "quality."

Stan
  • 5,521
  • 15
  • 32
  • Thanks for the insight @Stan ... The electronics used and optical components used would make a difference in a camera... If I were to design a camera, then I would have to choose parts wisely – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 16:14
  • @Vibhu xiota gave me an idea for an answer which is the definitive technical difference between any two imaging systems - called the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function). It has little to do with visual evaluation so it may be off topic insofar as "Photography." Few non-technical people even know what it is. – Stan May 05 '19 at 16:47
2

Perhaps je ne sais quoi is the phrase you're looking for.

... is there a technical term that is used for denoting this aspect, which basically denotes the nature of photos a particular camera or lens takes?

There is no technical term for something as vague and broad as "nature". Technical terms tend to be precise. They can often be described in mathematical notation.

xiota
  • 26,951
  • 4
  • 39
  • 126
  • Thanks for the answer.. I'm relatively new to the theory and relate to music mostly... There color of sound is a great concept... For me. – Vibhu Tewary May 05 '19 at 16:26
  • Technical terms related to music and sound are often described mathematically. That is what makes audio compression possible. – xiota May 05 '19 at 16:29
  • @xiota This also applies 100% to imaging. This is what makes digital imaging possible. Both can be put into the realm of physics. : ) – Stan May 05 '19 at 16:39
  • Beautiful description ... Je ne sais quoi – Vibhu Tewary May 17 '19 at 14:24
0

YES.

The definitive technical difference between any two imaging systems - is called the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function). That's how imaging systems are compared for fidelity of reproduction among other things.

It has little to do with visual evaluation so it may be off topic insofar as "Photography."

Few non-technical people even know what it is.

Here is a brief introduction for the beginner including the formula to generate the result mathematically. Modulation Transfer Function - York University

Stan
  • 5,521
  • 15
  • 32