Upload & Sell: Off
Tariq Gibran 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.
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.