edwardkaraa
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
brainiac wrote:
carstenw wrote:
Richard, I have been looking at the dark jaw delineation you keep pointing out, and if anything, in that photo it makes the guy stand out from the background more, and drops the gradual transition, so for me, in that area, he looks more like a flat cutout and less 3D than in areas where this dark line isn't there, whatever it is. In other words, if you don't agree, I guess we have another individual perception factor on our hands 
OK - but I am curious whether these edge effects, on a smaller scale than you see on that jawline, are the reason that some lenses seem to be able to cut out a subject against a focussed background, i.e. produce 3D where there is no focus differential. Altogether, on the very small scale, that edge information could be the reason why objects and spaces appear to have depth in themselves. That's my point earlier in the thread: the quest for smoothness in boke might have interfered with the superposition of (more polarised) light coming off surfaces, thus robbing the image of subtle data that our brains normally interpret to build a 3D picture. I agree that stereo is probably not the only way that we compose 3D, and the way light reflects off surfaces is also an important cue. But those diffraction effects happen all over everything that isn't flat, and so I think it's possible that those correctly handled edge diffraction and polarisation effects are part of the brew that ensures convincing 3D in 2D images.
Looking closely at my photos with strong 3D, and I do have quite a lot, having used Zeiss lenses exclusively for several years, there are 2 things that are consistent in all the photos. One is subject delineation you are talking about. It is visible in each and every photo. The second will be difficult to describe with my english limitations, but it is some kind of distortion (I would call it sphericity if this word exists) in the center of the image that makes this area stand out or even bulge. The closer the subject to the center, the stronger the effect.
Probably these 2 are probably considered as imperfections in controlled tests as the first one could be some kind of CA, and the second some kind of distortion. I remember in one of hubsand's comparisons (can't remember which one) between a Zeiss WA and a Nikon I guess, he was criticising the Zeiss for having this kind of spherical distortion while the Nikon (or whatever brand it was) was completely linear (and flat).
My 2 cents.
|
). Quick 2 questions though. 1 Does it go to 1:1 without any adapters and 2 how is it at portrait and infinity as compared to upclose ( I guess what I'm asking is how is it as a non-macro lens)? Thanks for your help and thanks for sharing!
