>>42754243d pop and microcontrast: Widely attested to by actual photographers, also known as tonal resolution, rarely charted by photography gear marketing outlets because doing so would severely embarrass the jap scrap camera industry that funds them
note: digital workflows have limited tonal resolution anyways, so if you shoot jpeg your micocontrast is dithered in from the 14-16 bit original.
when i show people this issue in person, i compare a zeiss 50mm f1.4 planar (canon ef, adapted) and a tamron a063 zoom on an a7iv since it all lays around the studio and point out the differences in highlight and shadow rendering. give both exposures the same amount of light at f/11 and wala, the tamron has less microcontrast and highlights appear burned. all light seems to be harder than it is and the image is more contrasty and almost plastic or cartoony in character. there are smoother gradients on the zeiss lens, honestly reproducing the tonal character of the light source. you cant light your way out of poor microcontrast. it will make your light poorer than it was. you'll be using elaborate shadow fills and 60" softlighters by the end of the day. how does it do it? glass to air surfaces and poor coatings scattering light and causing bloom.
>inb4 isnt that BETTER contrast?not if tonal gradations are just fucking gone.
once you see it, you can't un see it. it's a lot like this.
Le heckin sharp overpriced mft "pro" glass: <1% marketshare, not exactly rented to shoot conde nast.. wonder why. overpriced le heckin sharp sony gm lenses... equally curiously absent on high end shoots, despite more consoomer market presence. wonder why. instead they use... old lens designs! very old!
