alundeb wrote:
Thank you, Robert. You can safely sell any other 14 - 18 mm prime UWA lens for this one
I guess you found the support group fro those waiting for their 15 mm in the alternative forum. More torture
I don't know I don't think I could say goodbye to my 14L MKII and 17L T+S, though you may have a case for the 14-24.
I avoid support group threads at all costs and I deny just like that beer shot that none of us over indulge in anythng photography related. I'm sure the drink shot was an advertising shot and the photographer was demonstrating the capabilities of his camera but as a good samaritan he made sure the glass was polished off after the shot was taken. Wouldn't want the waitress to accidently spill the full glass onto the floor and have someone slip and fall,..... .
The 15 support thread you mention is about the EF mount 15 FE with all the pictures defished and any 3D thread is about pictures taken with the EOS 3 or the never ending rumored 3D, So I think it is safe to go into these threads because I have the FE and I haven't shot film in a longtime and who believes rumors unless they are a CR1.
Lastly we all know 3D can only be accomplished by stacking several 2D shots on top of each other as layers in Photoshop or sandwiching negatives or transparencys together.
alundeb wrote:
Yes, if we learn how to foul our brains, we can instantly produce images with enormous 3D, irrgardless what gears we use to prepare our shots with.
The word "irregardless" is just as real as "3D effect." Look it up. ;-)
Dan issues with this topic actually go beyond the term.
gdanmitchell wrote:
rprouty wrote:
We just need a different term from "3D" to describe this viewer reaction to types of 2D media.
I don't think we need a different term. Coming up with a "term" is not the issue - and I'd argue that it is actually sort of the problem.
Nice shots BTW.
justruss wrote:
Dan, I'm with you (it's not 3D). But I just chalk it up to a sort of socio-linguistic turn towards hyperbole that pervades pop culture. I think it has a LOT to do with modern marketing (as in the last 50 years), consumerism, and marketing-lingo.
But that's not a battle we're going to win in a thread like this. This decadent sort of linguistic bent is just how things are going; the overemphasis results in the loss of meaning from specific, often technical terms. Soon, everything is 3D (think what Picasso would say about this... or did), and nothing is 3D.
There are some parallels to terms like 4G in wireless networking. It does have a very specific meaning, but its use is wide and loose and inaccurate. But it sells! Same with the word "instant" as used in selling food items. It doesn't mean quickly; it means in a single moment.
That said-- it's good for those true believers to hear our quibbles from time to time (and it probably makes us feel better)-- and at least we can even understand what it is they are talking about (though we disagree with the term), and even participate.
For the record: I also argue against the use of "enormity" for big, "decimate" for devastate, and "irregardless" for anything.
Seen many shots from that lens, but haven't seen one that is steroscopically 3-d. Seen lot of punchy, poppy shots though. Wonder if any owner will sue Canon for false advertising...
Through commercial exploitation and popular laziness, the term 3D has come to be used for any rendering of visual three dimensionality, stereoscopy, isometrics, animations, graphics, et cetera ad nauseum. So if you want to label any sense of visual depth or "presence" in imagery you are probably stuck with the term 3D if you want any undifferentiating peasant to understand you. Canon's use of the term three dimensionality is probably one of the more responsible usages to describe the visual illusion we are not successfully discussing.
