philip_pj
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
The derailleur shot is an 'of course' 3D subject due to perceptual expectations, together with the gentle fade off from sharp focus - along the rear arm, chain and soil. Helped also by bright objects in the foreground sharp focus area, with less bright subject rendition in the defocus areas. The eye will naturally travel from bright to dark, sharp to unsharp, colourful to muted tones, contrasty to flat.
Even without the sidelight/wall render effect in Makten's shot, fine detail shaping (a trademark effect of that lens) provides excellent depth - witness the door, the downlight side of the 134 lamp and even the low grated windowframe.
For those whose main subject matter is best rendered in (more or less) clear focus, this effect is a winner if depth is considered desirable. There are many shots in this thread that are simple exercises in bokeh, a truly contrived and unconvincing (albeit often very attractive) effect, because the eye can never see defocus to a high degree in the real world. It is literally focused elsewhere. The sparrow shot on p29 puzzled me, it has 3D in spades, despite the bokeh - but the bird itself has convincing depth, as does the seat top. Lovely lens also, a classic. The Nizamuddin image is high contrast, decreasing its 3D potential - is another factor in 3D the actual tones of objects, do midtone objects render it better?
Many shots depend on longitudinal diminishing lines, fences disappearing into the distance - a pure optical device that should guarantee a 3D cue, but may not be 'enough'. So I guess I feel the opposite of RustyBug's comments above at 11.24 this page. Opinions as always.
|
