Lotusm50 wrote:
I for one think the lenses are playing a large role. I have 2 Canon lenses (70-200 and 300/4) and just don't use them because they consistently look flat and uninvolving to me.
Yes - I sold my 70-200 f2.8 L IS because of this. It's a great lens, and I can see why people like it, but the results are too flat and I got bored with it and stopped using it.
carstenw wrote:
I hate to say it, but neither do I. There is some in the babyshot, but the flash is too flat (frontal) for more 3D I think.
I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).
I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.
Clearly good lighting can help effectively model a 3-dimensional form so that it doesn't look flat. it will give you the shadows and edges necessary for the eye to determine that the object pictured is 3-dimensional and not flat. No question about that.
But I think we are talking about something beyond simple modeling of a form to convey its form. We are talking about the quality in an image that make it look like it is now bound by the 2 dimensions of the paper (or screen). Like it is coming out of the page or that you can almost reach out and touch. A good lens can make a significant contribution to producing that illusion in a way that lighting alone can not. Some suggest the way Zeiss lenses differentiate color, texture, volume, spatial position, macro and mIcro contrast, etc contribute to this illusion. Honestly, I don't know how they do it, just that it is palpably visible to the eye. Like I said previously, good lighting can help with this, but ultimately is not responsible for it and will have a difficult time producing the illusion without a lens that can do it. In the multiple recent threads dealing with this issue, we have seen this illusion of palpable dimensionality produce under a wide range or lighting conditions -- good, bad and indifferent, artificial, natural and mixed. This just leads me to conclude that lighting is not the responsible factor for this 3-D-ness, merely a contributing or assisting one.
I was just going to post the same thing. That image is shockingly TWO-d.
Of curse, we may all have different mental images about what the term means, but I think most of us feel it's a sense of a CURVING of the subject. It doesn't just mean low apertures and tons of background separation.
I also don't think it demands, as someone said earlier, a super-low f-stop. The CZ Planar pic I posted earlier is at f/2.8, and has PLENTY of 3D, especially if you see the original.
Cableaddict wrote:
Of curse, we may all have different mental images about what the term means, but I think most of us feel it's a sense of a CURVING of the subject. It doesn't just mean low apertures and tons of background separation.
From my reading, there are a significant number of people who think it is differential focus, with the subject in focus and the background not. There is also the camp that you describe. Let's call it a 50/50 split
Lotusm50 wrote:
Do you see field curvature in the ZA 135? It's got nice 3-D qualities as shown in your own images, yet from what I understand (and see in its MTF's) its got a pretty flat field.
You are absolutely right regarding the 135. But I have got some really good 3D shots taken with Zeiss wide angles where field curvature seems to play a role in this effect. No body knows exactly what is the "trick", it could be the other way around: Whatever Zeiss is doing to improve 3D may be worsening the field curvature in wide angle lenses. This is of course pure speculation from a clueless user
