Unusual lenses, article. Fun little article on a web site which is centered on making video with still cameras. I was caught by one line in particular:
Camera bodies are a tool built on shifting sands, ever improving. But a lens is what most determines the look and style of your film. Whilst people understandably are willing to spend £1500 on a camera body like the 5DMkII which will be obsolete in a few years, generally people are much less willing to spend that kind of money on a lens.
Well said. While I myself have actually bought some fine and expensive lenses, I've noticed that feel more guilty about it than when buying cameras. This is stupid, because like the article says, a lens is even more influential on the image than the camera, and it can be used for decades, whereas digital cameras are outdated in a couple of years.
Did you know that Stan Kubrick filmed Barry Lyndon without any artificial light? With the amazing and rare super-fast (sensitive) Zeiss/NASA 50mm F0.7 lens.
I admire that. I've noticed that modern film makers don't even film outdoors in good light without flooding everything in artificial light. Which of course makes for an artificial look.
I was just noticing in "Cat Ballou" yesterday, there was an outdoor shot where Cat (Fonda) was in partial shadow. It looked like a home movie, and it took me a moment to think that that is how things seem outside.
It's strange how when you are out and about the contrast is not as obvious as it is in photos. Does film really deepen shadow, or does our perception filter efficiently?
This is a very interesting question. I think the mind compensates a whole lot. Also, the mind is always busy with significances of things, rather than observing how things look. This is why it's so hard for people to learn how to draw, they keep drawing things how they think they look, instead of how they actually look.
By the way, there's a famous book/method for getting around this, Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain by Betty Edwards.