Great discussion here, a joy to read a new chapter every evening!
Can it be correct to say that "per-pixel clarity" = microcontrast? It would fit fine for my brain and the way I think of the word microcontrast. Is there something I am missing?
So, it seems we are coming to some sort of conclusion here. I certainly understand everyone's perspective on this; how there are several factors that *may* produce a feeling of 3D in an image, and that those factors can be combined, for best results.
The thing is, it is difficult for me to find a CZ21 shot that *doesn't* show this effect, unless it is badly focused, of course.
If we look at Dr. Paul's "harbour" (houses and water) shots again, it seems to me that the kit lens shot has more 3D effect than the other. The scene is the same and the lighting very similar (by that I mean natural), but I feel as though I can "look into" the kit lens shot. I can only attribute the difference to acutance and/or sharpness (of the final web JPEGs).
Of Steven's shots, I have to say the second one is a far better example of the 3D effect, but DOF seems to be the dominant factor there. I do not feel as though I am "looking into" the leaves shot, but I have a feeling that a larger version (or a large print) might show more 3D.
Edited by cogitech on May 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM GMT
warrenfoster wrote:
You guys are wierd, it is just lighting and depth of field that makes it pop.
Go back to page 23 and tell me how the lighting and DOF created a 3D effect in my landscape images. I'd be very happy to know, because then I could have the same effect with my Zuikos and Takumars.
cogitech wrote:
If we look at Dr. Paul's "harbour" (houses and water) shots again, it seems to me that the kit lens shot has more 3D effect than the other. The scene is the same and the lighting very similar, but I feel as though I can "look into" the kit lens shot. I can only attribute the difference to acutance and/or sharpness.
Well, I'd disagree that the difference is one of actuance and sharpness (at least as intrinsic properties of the lens). That is, unless you're arguing that the Canon kit lens is better than a CZ/Hassy prime lens. I think any head to head test of the Canon 18-55 kit lens versus the Carl Zeiss 80 f/2.8 C T* Planar would be an utter massacre. The 18-55 lens is at best below average, and many would say it's worse than that. The CZ 80/2.8 Planar for Hasselblad, and particularly every one since the T* coating came out, are some of the best lenses ever made period, and they stand with the ones made for Contax like the CZ21. The Contax ones probably have higher aerial resolution than the Hassy ones in a lab, but that's an irrelevant point because of the format difference and how that affects circle of confusion requirements.
So the difference in the picture just can't be that my copy of Canon's kit lens is better than one of the best Zeiss lenses in history. I think the difference has about 75% to do with lighting (there really is a difference) and about 25% to do with my hasty scanning technique.
One more point -- what's missing from my kit lens shot are the delicate midtone gradations that you can see in the Hassy shot. In other words, the lighting effects that have produced this 3D appearance have indeed come somewhat at the expense of subtle tonality and gradations. On the Hassy shot (and plenty of other better-scanned ones that I can post), this effect is far more visible, and it can be attributed to the larger format, the better lens, and the fact that nothing else in photography is yet able to render delicate transitions of color the way that color slide films can, especially on MF and LF.
cogitech wrote:
If we look at Dr. Paul's "harbour" (houses and water) shots again, it seems to me that the kit lens shot has more 3D effect than the other. The scene is the same and the lighting very similar (by that I mean natural), but I feel as though I can "look into" the kit lens shot. I can only attribute the difference to acutance and/or sharpness (of the final web JPEGs).
Edited by cogitech on May 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM GMT
I could not disagree more. THE main difference in the creation of dimension in the two harbour shots is almost totally due to Lighting. The version witht the more detail in the shadows on the porch on the left side and reflections in the water was shot under a low raking light(probably early morning) which gives that 3D look we are talking about. The other shot has much flatter lighting with closed up shadows on that same porch and a much harsher constrast(probably shot moe towards hte middle of the day with the light directly above or somewhat close to it). This shot really demonstrates the power of lighting in the creation of dimension. Calling the lighting very similar just because it is natural light is way off..no offense.
The web image is not as sharp, despite the fact that the system used to take the image was superb. This results in a flat image, IMO.
Tariq,
In real life (not in a photo) do things look less 3D due to lighting? I don't think so. So, I can only conclude that if these two images where taken with the exact same system and processed the same way, and only the lighting changed, that the 3D effect would remain. I know many will disagree here, but I am pretty certain that if you were to soften the first image it would end up looking nearly as flat as the second.
In real life (not in a photo) do things look less 3D due to lighting? I don't think so. So, I can only conclude that if these two images where taken with the exact same system and processed the same way, and only the lighting changed, that the 3D effect would remain. I know many will disagree here, but I am pretty certain that if you were to soften the first image it would end up looking nearly as flat as the second.
The answear is YES to that question. Things certainly DO look more 3D due to lighting in real life..
In real life (not in a photo) do things look less 3D due to lighting? I don't think so. So, I can only conclude that if these two images where taken with the exact same system and processed the same way, and only the lighting changed, that the 3D effect would remain. I know many will disagree here, but I am pretty certain that if you were to soften the first image it would end up looking nearly as flat as the second.
The Answear is a most definate YES to that question. Things certainly do look more 3D due to Lighting in "real life"... Sorry for the double post. Seems the only way to get my reply to show up is to post twice here? Just to use this space better, things are of course always in 3 dimensions in "real life" but Lighting differences do create more of a sense of depth or vice versa, the illusion of 2D even in "real life".
Edited by Tariq Gibran on May 11, 2007 at 01:29 PM GMT
The reason I am on so much about acutance and resolving power, again, is due to my experience with the CZ21. Pretty much every in-focus shot I took with it looks 3D, to me. Every shot (about 60 of them) from the cruise (see page 23) just blows me away. The lighting varied greatly that day due to clouds and the fact that the cruise boat was oriented differently throughout the trip. Every shot looks and feels like I am seeing it with my bare eyes, not through a lens.
So, while lighting *can* play a role, I don't think it is a *necessary* factor.
I'd love to see a better scan of Paul's second image with some careful sharpening done. I'd be willing to bet it shows wonderful 3D.
With much respect cogitech, I am shockingly surprised that you would consider lighting not a necessary factor in the creation of depth and dimension in 2d space. Just about every master painter from time immortal is now turning in their grave.
With as much due respect, Tariq, I fail to see more (or less) 3D in "real life" depending on lighting. In a 2D space, such as a painting, the "lighting" (shading) creates an illusion of depth. These are two different things.
I can understand how "lighting" in the "real" 3D world translates to an illusion of depth in a 2D photo, but any lighting considered "natural" will have an appropriate effect when translated to 2D by a superb optic.
In other words, while certain types of lighting in photographs may achieve similar results to "shading" objects in a painting or drawing, the image will ultimately look flat if the optics and/or processing results in an un-sharp, low-acutance image.
Lighting critically affects our sense of depth with our native vision. To ask about a sense of 3D in real life is a ridiculous question, though -- we live in a 3D world, so we never question that. But our sense of texture, distance, and depth is absolutely and undeniably dependent upon lighting in real life.
Any skiiers here? What is skiing like when it is overcast and the lighting is completely flat? You can't see the textures and surface features in the snow nearly as well as you can with angular lighting, and you ski more conservatively. In my own experience, I'm much more likely to wipe out when I'm skiing in flat lighting than when I'm skiing in angular lighting. You don't question whether it looks 3-dimensional, because that's an irrelevant question, but you certainly have trouble differentiating and resolving the ground. We ask the question about 3D effect in print, because we know a priori that prints are in fact 2-dimensional.
Paul -- I'll try to re-scan that one later on. But even looking at the actual 6x6cm slide, which is extremely sharp, it still lacks the 3D punch of the kit lens shot. In fact I also shot this using Astia, a lower contrast film, and the same is true. Better tonal gradations, less sense of 3-dimensionality.
As to your experience with the CZ21, I can't comment based on experience using it, but I have seen a lot of pictures from it. I will absolutely concur that it has incredible sharpness, resolution, color, and contrast. But I've never gotten the sense that it has an inherent 3D effect that can't be attributed to the mere fact that it's a wide angle lens used by skilled photographers who know composition and lighting. I'm sure it increases the odds of a photo looking 3D, all else being equal. But I'd bet you that a cheap-ass lens will create a better 3D effect in perfect lighting than the CZ21 will in lousy lighting.
A very simple experiment Cogitech. Observe your favorite Tree, Building, or any object at different times of day, weather and year and you will(might) notice that that simple subject will indeed be transformed depending upon the direction and quality of the light striking it. It may look flat in mid afternoon textureless overhead sun light but might look more dimensional(with more texture) with morning or late afternoon light when the light rakes accross it from a low angle or from the side or slighty from the rear. You do not have to paint or take any picture of it to see this. Just observe. Simple observation will reveal everything.
Your persistence (Tariq and Paul) has me thinking that I am missing something very fundamental about perception here. I am a skiier (it's been a while) so I can understand that point.
I think I need to spend some time observing things in different light. More than anything, this discussion has me questioning things and that is always a good thing.
I think I'll do some testing with various lenses and lighting on the same subject and see if I can come to the same conclusions that you two have. I no longer have the CZ21, so if I can trick my Zuiko 21 into giving me the same effect, then all the better.
cogitech wrote:
Your persistence (Tariq and Paul) has me thinking that I am missing something very fundamental about perception here. I am a skiier (it's been a while) so I can understand that point.
Well, I don't speak for Tariq, but I'm persistant because I'm an annoying forum troll, not because I know anything
I don't think you're missing anything fundamental -- at least not any more so than people who insist that DOF or any other single factor is the answer. I think you're emphasizing one variable to the exclusion of many other important ones, though.
Look, we can all agree on these points: we need light to see and to take pictures. We need light to resolve things. Resolving things means telling things apart from one another. Telling things apart from one another means we can discriminate fine surface details, and we associate the appearance of fine surface details with the tactile qualities of these details. By extension this applies to wide angle photos where the fine textural surface features are the constituent details of a landscape.
If we can agree on that, then we can agree that a number of things have to occur simultaneously for a 2-dimensional photo to look real enough to touch. You need lighting conditions that emphasize textural features. You need a lens with sufficient actuance and resolution to transmit these features. You can employ differential focus to mimic the selective quality of human vision, which tends to expand our sense of depth in an image. Etc, and all the other things we've talked about.
But having a great lens isn't enough. Obviously if you point your CZ21 at a flat wall under flat lighting, you're not going to get nearly as much of a 3D effect as if you point it at the Grand Canyon at sunset.
No one, by the way, has comented about my "definitions" of the 3D effect, in which I talk about texture versus depth as two separate qualities of a photo. If we separate ourselves from this 3D conversation, we can talk about the various requirements for textural realism in a photo, and the various requirements for depth in a photo. These, I think are the central points in our discussion, because the 3D effect in a photo, to me, means nothing more than convincing textures and/or depth cues.
DrPablo wrote:
But having a great lens isn't enough. Obviously if you point your CZ21 at a flat wall under flat lighting, you're not going to get nearly as much of a 3D effect as if you point it at the Grand Canyon at sunset.
Obviously, in one case you are photographing a (nearly) 2D subject.
I also have to say that I am not emphasizing the importance of optics to the exclusion of the other factors. Rather, the optics make it a hell of a lot more likely that the 3D effect will be fully realised.
Why do I know this? Well, because I have never studied how to use lighting to achieve depth (no Photography 101 for me, sorry) but I somehow, by accident, ended up with a whole series of photos that have the 3D effect. Now, either it is just sheer odds or maybe I am going crazy, but doesn't it strike anyone as odd that it is my Zeiss glass that is giving me this 3D effect by accident? I had a CZ21 on a Rebel XT, stuck the lens on infinity focus at f5.6 and literally used it like a P&S. No thought at all to lighting. Yet still, the 3D effect is very evident. Look back again at my "castle" photo. The lighting is pretty nearly flat, no?
