SKumar25 wrote:
Here's a stunning example from EdwardKaraa:
That's great, and points out how our visual perception works. Naturally, our vision darts its focus from subject to subject and/or details of the subject we are seeking or find significant, simultaneously locating it in space and momentarily marginalizing the rest in our field of view.
Since the background in this image is blurred and well separated from the subject, the subject has been purposely preselected and the surroundings have been pre-marginalized by the photographer. I think you will find it difficult to hold everything in a scene in focus at once, even if the whole scene is sharply in focus, as it will be overwhelming until we start our process of selecting, locating and marginalizing.
So perhaps you could call presence and 3D in the sense of photographic images as preselecting and premarginalizing, and we are seeking a term in appraising the photographer or photograph's success at grabbing our visual perception in spacial relations to the whole image.
It's refreshing to see such limited DoF images, there is magic in them, "presence" as you've coined Peter. A type of seeing that our P&S society seldom appreciates. Is thin depth of field true 3D, nope, but the gears held in hand are!
Keep posting all, this is a great alternative view thread and a glimpse into what the fastest glass on earth can produce...given my fastest is a 50 f1.4, I'm really enjoying these images
StillFingerz wrote:
I like this image Peter, well seen!
It's refreshing to see such limited DoF images, there is magic in them, "presence" as you've coined Peter.
Jerry, I just learned that expression usage a few months ago on this very forum. I haven't got a clue who started it, perhaps our resident 3D experts SKumar or Dan GM might know that.
PetKal wrote:
Jerry, I just learned that expression usage a few months ago on this very forum. I haven't got a clue who started it, perhaps our resident 3D experts SKumar or Dan GM might know that.
Glad you like it, Fred, I also prefer the 200 f/1.8 version.
Although my 50 f/1.0 is a pretty sharp lens for its model, it can not possibly match 200 f/1.8 in clarity, sharpness and smoothness of bokeh.
artsupreme wrote:
That's a sick one Petkal! (200 1.8)
Yup, that's my specialty: sick photography.
Sometimes I see 3D in this one, sometimes I do not.....however, here it is, judge for yourself.
1DX + 600 II.
:
