cogitech wrote:
While lighting, converging lines, DOF and object placement in the image can all contribute to the 3D effect of an image, I cannot dismiss the effect of certain lenses as others do. I owned a CZ21 for a while and nearly every image I shot with it had the 3D effect. The images are like looking through a window into a 3D world. Many of them seem as if you could climb right through into an alternate reality. When a lens produces this effect so nearly consistently, I can only conclude that it has something to do with the lens.
I bet we can get plenty of 18-55 kit lens or 50 f/1.8 pictures with a majestic 3D effect if people want to post them.
...you are assuming that 3D effect is something that cheap lenses will lack. I know of some very expensive lenses which seem to lack it. I don't believe it's about how much you spend. I expect more 3D effect from a Zeiss 135 f2.8 than a Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
I would be interested to see examples of good 3D effect with a Canon 50 f1.2 and a Leica macro like zhangp's, as those are expensive lenses which I have found lacking in this respect.
The most instructive thing would be to post exactly the same shot taken with two different lenses and see if we can reach a consensus that one is providing more 3D. I think that's possible.
As we discussed in the other thread, I still think you're dwelling too heavily on the particular equipment and not on why that particular equipment makes a difference -- what about this or that lens helps the photographer achieve a 3D-effect?
In other words, it's fine to insist that you get a constant 3D effect on your CZ21 that you don't get from other lenses. But it's also fine to insist that Brahma created the world by exhaling, and neither statement is explanatory.
So I'm happy to take for granted that the CZ21 makes images look almost 3D. My own Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad do the same, and my Schneider lenses for large format are even better than my Zeiss lenses. But where does that leave us? It just leaves us with name-dropping elite lenses, but without a deeper understanding of what it means for a photograph to appear 3-dimensional -- which is, of course, an optical illusion considering that photographic images are indeed flat.
This photo has a few technical issues, slow shutter speed and puppy's ear moving enough to see motion blur. Folks have told me it me has a depth to it, like looking in a window. IMHO, the 3D effect is mostly on the puppy's muzzle area. It has some of the items mentioned previously, blue light on one side and warmer on the other side, all natural light, oof background, different distances in the composition. Before you scroll to the bottom, what camera and lens would you guess took this?
I think the above photo really points out that perhaps getting the correct, light, exposure and making the right adjustments on the image such as saturation are the things that make photo's POP.
I owned a CZ21 for a while and nearly every image I shot with it had the 3D effect. The images are like looking through a window into a 3D world.
Yawn.
The CZ21 is the perfect example of how this "3D effect" business is used to glamorize items by those who are excited by them, or who want to justify spending $3,000 on something that for most people is completely unnecessary.
Reminds me of all the expose's that have been done on "wine experts" who were shown to essentially be rating the wines based on expectations from their labels. When experiments were done where labels were swapped, they frequently claimed that cheap wines were great and great wines were junk. Many were unable to even notice anything out of the ordinary when served white wines that had been dyed red.
I feel rather confident that anyone who is sold on the "3D effect" of the CZ21 would not be able to consistently identify CZ21 shots by this alleged effect in a controlled test. And yes, I have owned the lens in the past. It's a good piece of glass that has been hyped beyond any sense of reason. --c
