Yea, the image looked 50ish in perspective to me, and then I cheated and checked your gear list. I recently picked one up too, more so for stopped down type stuff though.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Actually I think the f3.5 one has better 3D because the watering can spout stands out more against the more blurred background than in the f8 shot. However for the best effect you should copy the f8 watering can spout onto the f3.5 watering can spout with photoshop. This will give an even sharper spout standing out against a more blurred background and thus it will look more 3D.
This is crux of the what people consider to be "3-D". To me, "3-D" is not the illusion of space between objects -- which is easily done by opening up the lens to increase differential focus. To me, and I believe many others, "3-D" is the ability to create a compelling illusion of a form in 3 dimensions. In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.
In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.
Lotusm50 wrote:
This is crux of the what people consider to be "3-D". To me, "3-D" is not the illusion of space between objects -- which is easily done by opening up the lens to increase differential focus. To me, and I believe many others, "3-D" is the ability to create a compelling illusion of a form in 3 dimensions. In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.
But the separation between the watering can and the background is very important in giving a 3D effect...The sharper you make the watering can in relation to the background the greater the 3D effect.
Alf Beharie wrote:
But the separation between the watering can and the background is very important in giving a 3D effect...The sharper you make the watering can in relation to the background the greater the 3D effect.
I guess we'll have to essentially disagree about that -- basically I think we are talking about 2 different things.
David, thanks for a truly lovely shot. But, to my eye, your explanation does not fit. To me (this thread shows divergence on what is "3D"), both your shots have more or less the same 3D. The second one is only sharper, which makes it more obvious. To me 3D is not a form of sharpness. Zeiss lenses which seem to shine more often than most in this area are not, IMHO, sharper than Leica lenses which are not renowned for 3D. Just my 2 cents.
(NOTE: I did not take this photo. I decided to link it here to try to understand what this effect really is. For the sake of not plagiarizing, PM me for the actual source.)
I recently picked one up too, more so for stopped down type stuff though.