This term "rendering", most often it seems is applied to a rather elusive and likely completely subjective "look" of most lenses. It may be analogous to the certain color characteristics of jpegs from one camera versus those from another and of and between which there appear to be many exponents and detractors. I think that "rendering" is really peculiar to jpegs, whether based on lens choices or body choices, because if one shoots raw and post processes, the photographer may and often does create his or her own rendering, and generalizations about lens rendering or camera looks really belong to those in the jpeg world, not that there's anything wrong with that.
I always figured it was more to do with the quality of the bokeh and the micro-contrast (macro contrast as well, but that's easy to fix), things that would matter no matter how you process. Colour tone in the RAW would obviously be a part of that, but obviously doesn't have anywhere near the same importance with digital photography as it once did. I have a deep distrust for JPEGs for the most part, anyway, and don't want them anywhere near my photography if I can help it.
What he said. Microcontrast and the characteristics of out-of-focus areas are lens characteristics and I believe are usually what people are referring to by "rendering." GX1•EP1•GF3•17/2.8•30/2.8
I don't think I've ever heard rendering applied to cameras, rather always lenses. Shoot the same pic on the same camera with a Zeiss lens and an Olympus OM or Leica R lens in the same focal length and observe the obvious differences in "rendering "
Right on the money. Many years ago, I saw what Zeiss lenses did compared to the Canon ones that I was using then. It was a no brainer - bye bye Canon
I think there are things that no PP could bring to the final picture and thats a mix of lens character combined with a certain camera. and that together becomes the rendering. at least in my world.
This is rendering: {} This is drawing: {} None of my lenses render or draw, they collect and focus light (or parts of the electromagnetic spectrum).
"Rendering is what expensive lenses do when they cannot do anything else exceptionally well." I cannot remember where I read that but it fits the way I often see the term used.
Oxford dictionary: Render Submit or present for inspection or consideration http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/render (link #1) Its used in many visual related studies. Computing Process (an outline image) using color and shading in order to make it appear solid and three-dimensional. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/render (see link #1) More generally, we can take a series of bits that is in a known image format and "render" it into an image for visual consumption. More advanced graphics use rendering term to describe techniques in the study of how light reacts with its environment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_(computer_graphics)#Techniques In music, its used to describe a performance of a piece. Its related to rendition http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rendition So its a pretty generic term used... and yes even optics "The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bokeh And if you spend some time discussing people interested in vintage optics, you will hear the term used quite a bit; and ~not~ just expensive optics. Its how a lens presents the collected and focused light to form an image in respect to but not limited to micro-contrast, specular highlights, and Bokeh. But its just easier to say "render" as collective term for these characteristics. We indirectly talk about rendering here all the time; we just say this lens is sharper than that one. Its a characteristic of lenses we compare against each other within the collection of MFT lenses available. Even if we as the photographic community misuse the term "render", the majority of us know what the person is referring to.... thus its still effectively communicating meaning. Many terms semantically change with time or culture. Many born prior to the Vietnam war would have a different use of the term "Gay" than its more commonly used meaning today. If the term came up in discussion over more recent political movements, you would be hard pressed to get any laughter poking fun at its current use today... There's a good Albert Einstein quote to describe some of the posts here. PS> Never knew that render also refers to the material for plastering. In the areas of the US I've been in, we just call it Stucco.... learn something new every day.
I don't use my lenses to render lard, it gets them all smeary and then people will look at whatever shots I give them and go "how artistically ironic and non-mainstream."
