Not so much, but it still seems to lack those very high contrast edges that I often notice in pictures that have strong 3D effect. It is a question of degree.
When I look at the right image, it literally appears as though the bottle is closer to me than the one on the left.
My wife just walked in and asked what I was doing. I asked which bottle is closer. "The right", she said, without even hesitating.
It's amazing how much closer it looks. Certainly sharpness is an important ingredient, but it must be detailed sharpness. In this case the highlights are starting to look a little brittle. I think the reason why I usually like the Zeiss look is that the sharpness comes without the cost of making highlights or shadows harsh. Maybe it would work better if you did this sharpening on a layer and set graduated layer blending so that the sharpening trails off in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Even then, surely a lens which resolves sharp detail must have the realistic edge over one which removes it and depends on a crude computer algorithm to re-introduce it. A sharp detail-rich lens and less usm must be better than the alternative, surely.
StevenPA wrote:
Kent, looking good for a re-process of a jpeg.
Okay, here's my attempt. It doesn't appear as sharp as some of the others already, and that's the way I prefer it. This was run through my LAB action (set saturation and contrast) and then sharpened with Smart Sharpen (90/0.5) and then "Save as..." at 100% in PhotoShop 3. No WB changes.
Samuli was kind enough to send the RAW file, and upon inspection it seems the rocks aren't as in focus as the cottage(?) or trees in behind.
brainiac wrote:
It's amazing how much closer it looks. Certainly sharpness is an important ingredient, but it must be detailed sharpness. In this case the highlights are starting to look a little brittle. I think the reason why I usually like the Zeiss look is that the sharpness comes without the cost of making highlights or shadows harsh. Maybe it would work better if you did this sharpening on a layer and set graduated layer blending so that the sharpening trails off in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Even then, surely a lens which resolves sharp detail must have the realistic edge over one which removes it and depends on a crude computer algorithm to re-introduce it. A sharp detail-rich lens and less usm must be better than the alternative, surely....Show more →
When looking at this and the reprocessed shot of my flower, I was thinking also, that selective sharpening is really needed to bring up the micro-details without over-sharpening the larger edges.
brainiac wrote:
It's amazing how much closer it looks. Certainly sharpness is an important ingredient, but it must be detailed sharpness. In this case the highlights are starting to look a little brittle. I think the reason why I usually like the Zeiss look is that the sharpness comes without the cost of making highlights or shadows harsh. Maybe it would work better if you did this sharpening on a layer and set graduated layer blending so that the sharpening trails off in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Even then, surely a lens which resolves sharp detail must have the realistic edge over one which removes it and depends on a crude computer algorithm to re-introduce it. A sharp detail-rich lens and less usm must be better than the alternative, surely....Show more →
I tweaked the contrast in PS as well. In hindsight I ought to have used the curves tool to tweak the blacks, instead. My use of the standard contrast adjustment blew out the whites. I noticed it later and didn't have time to bother re-doing it. This was/is not an effect of Fred's plugin, but my rushed/poor PS skills.
brainiac wrote:
When I look at the right image, it literally appears as though the bottle is closer to me than the one on the left.
cogitech wrote:
My wife just walked in and asked what I was doing. I asked which bottle is closer. "The right", she said, without even hesitating.
Yes, it does look closer, and by a significant margin. Very interesting. I've never really consciously noticed this effect before.
brainiac wrote:
Certainly sharpness is an important ingredient, but it must be detailed sharpness. In this case the highlights are starting to look a little brittle.
There's the description I should have given. "Harsh" is too vague.
brainiac wrote:
I think the reason why I usually like the Zeiss look is that the sharpness comes without the cost of making highlights or shadows harsh. ... A sharp detail-rich lens and less usm must be better than the alternative, surely.
Agree 110%. This is yet another reason I prefer the Zeiss look, and it merits repeating: sharpness without making highlights or shadows harsh.
Agree 110%. This is yet another reason I prefer the Zeiss look, and it merits repeating: sharpness without making highlights or shadows harsh.
I think this is an attribute of how lenses are designed to handle the transitions. Neither perfect, nor without areas of compromise (applies to all optics), but characterstic.
Its always interesting the see how something can 'look good' ... until something 'better' comes along. Nice work on the improvements ... all.
Joseph Marney wrote:
When looking at this and the reprocessed shot of my flower, I was thinking also, that selective sharpening is really needed to bring up the micro-details without over-sharpening the larger edges.
But over-all, great job, Cogitech.
Thanks. As I said, these were really quick jobs and I erroneously used PS "contrast" tool on the images as well. Fred's plug-in could be really showcased by more experienced PS gurus, such as yourself. It has a separate control for "fine detail".
Note: I have always avoided PS as much as possible, which is why I usually use a simple ImageMagick script to apply an arbitrary amount of USM to the JPEGs I post. The results are mediocre, but automatic. For "special" images, I use PS and a few of Fred's plug-ins.
Brainiac, you might be interested in knowing that my "Boldt Castle" shot was one image I liked enough to launch PS and use Fred's Intellisharpen II plugin. So that is an example of the results of the ultimate Zeiss 3D lens (C/Y 21/2.8), serendipitous lighting, and optimized presentation.
Steven, I presume that there is something else which makes you prefer Zeiss too, since Leicas are sharp, but are generally not as high-contrast as Zeiss lenses.
biotar wrote:
pfff... I finally got fed up with the way this thread turned out to be. In stead of using it as a means to communicate each others insights, which i feel we got close to here, and finally agree to a basis to elaborate further on, people stick with the 'lens has/ has not have anything to do with 3d'. Can't people get over that? We all seem to agree that the lens is part of the process right?
What sense does it make discussing 'how much' the gear contributes to the '3d-ness' of a picture, when we haven't even figured out what the phenomenon 3d consists of, or how we can use it to improve our photography....Show more →
Well, I guess part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus on anything at all. There is a fringe group who is hell-bent on proving that the lens has nothing to do with 3D, and then clusters of people who think the lens does have something to do with it. Then there is the whole "depth *is* 3D" contingent versus the "depth and 3D are independent" group. I see that most of the people I know and respect belong to the second group in each case, but that doesn't prove anything, it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy
And since we have no consensus on what 3D is, we cannot possibly define it, just discuss what we think the prerequisites for 3D are, and such.
FWIW, even though I have never used the lens in my life, if I were taking just one lens to 3D island, it would be the 100 Planar.
carstenw wrote:
Well, I guess part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus on anything at all. There is a fringe group who is hell-bent on proving that the lens has nothing to do with 3D, and then clusters of people who think the lens does have something to do with it. Then there is the whole "depth *is* 3D" contingent versus the "depth and 3D are independent" group. I see that most of the people I know and respect belong to the second group in each case, but that doesn't prove anything, it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy
And since we have no consensus on what 3D is, we cannot possibly define it, just discuss what we think the prerequisites for 3D are, and such.
FWIW, even though I have never used the lens in my life, if I were taking just one lens to 3D island, it would be the 100 Planar....Show more →
Thanks everyone for helping figure can we get this Leica shot look more 3D. Kent, you image is pretty dark and white walls are clipping badly, but from images this far posted the edge of the roof of the red building is most 3D to me, specially on the end of the building (=right edge in picture). As overall I liked Steven's version best, if that could be combined with Kent's 3D...
StevenPA wrote:
Samuli was kind enough to send the RAW file, and upon inspection it seems the rocks aren't as in focus as the cottage(?) or trees in behind.
Steven, this was shot at f/11 with 1DmkIII (strong anti-alias filter compared to pixel size) so small detail is smeared and the rocks don't have that much sharp edges so it may appear it's not in focus, since the hotel (it was main building of hotel with multiple wooden houses with grass roofs) has edge detail and forest behind has small detail with larger contrast. Also due to f/11 I doubt there cannot be much difference between house and rocks.
cogitech wrote:
..Fred Miranda's "Intellisharpen II"...
Paul, thanks for hint. I purchased this action and it seems to be pretty good.
I don't think FM Intellisharpen can replace my own sharpening action, but sometimes it can be useful. My action for webimages works so that it first resizes image to 2500px and then sharpens image (very rough sharpening) and then resizes to 975px and adds very mild usm (something like 0.2px, 200%) [I have about 10 slightly different versions of action but this I have used lately]. This does not create any haloes and I have been very happy to the results with Zeiss lenses. Also makes my effort minimal since I don't even need to open PhotoShop, since I have saved action so that I can right click TIFF image in Finder (equivalent of Microsoft Explorer in Windows) and select from menu that I open with this PhotoShop action and then jpg is generated automatically. I prefer to spend as little time as possible in digital darkroom tweaking images.
carstenw wrote:
Well, I guess part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus on anything at all. There is a fringe group who is hell-bent on proving that the lens has nothing to do with 3D, and then clusters of people who think the lens does have something to do with it. Then there is the whole "depth *is* 3D" contingent versus the "depth and 3D are independent" group. I see that most of the people I know and respect belong to the second group in each case, but that doesn't prove anything, it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy ...Show more →
+1
carstenw wrote:
FWIW, even though I have never used the lens in my life, if I were taking just one lens to 3D island, it would be the 100 Planar.
I don't have the Contax version, but I have ZF Makro-Planar version. Somehow the new Z* character looks more "clean" / "clinical", due to which Contax images appear maybe little more 3D, hard to judge since I have only shoot with ZF, Contax I have just seen in this forum in websize pictures. My opinion may have also been influenced by people processing styles, most samples I have seen are from Paul Yi and he seems to prefer darker "muddier" processing style than some others.
Two tries to imitate Contax Planar T* 2/100 3D look what I have seen on other people's posts, just for fun ;-)
Contax Sonnar T* 2.8/135 @ f/2.8
Canon (sorry not alt.) EF200mm f/2.8 @ f/3.5 few cardboard cutouts walking in the pier ;-)
--
Samuli Vahonen http://www.vahonen.com
carstenw wrote:
Steven, I presume that there is something else which makes you prefer Zeiss too, since Leicas are sharp, but are generally not as high-contrast as Zeiss lenses.
To me, Zeiss have more present micro-contrast ("presence") and more "brilliance" (that "inky wet" look) than do images from Leica lenses, which tend to have these characteristics to a lesser (and most likely intentional) degree. I find Leica to have a more comfortable, natural look (at times "painterly"), whereas Zeiss tend to "push the limits" a bit more. I want my pictures to have that overall "pop", which is why I prefer Zeiss.
I think we would be able to see clearly my (poor) description if Samuli had also taken a picture of the cottage with a C/Y 50. To process the Leica shot, I increased my LAB action in PS by about 20% to try to tease some Zeiss-ness out of the Leica file. I know that if I were to do the same thing to a Zeiss image, if we had one, that channels would be clipping severely. Red in particular, is nearly on the verge of being pushed too hard in my attempt as it is. Notice also on the left side of the image that the bright whites (sides of the building and chimney) have lost a lot of detail on the stucco texture from being pushed too hard.
Lastly, Carsten, thank you for your response to biotar. The back-and-forth is getting a bit tiring. The present topic is much more constructive at this point in the conversation.
RustyBug wrote:
1st stab at the RAW version ... using laptop, so I didn't try to push it to much.
Tried something a little different this time.
Kent, the second version looks good to me (first is a bit dark). I think you're done a fine job of bringing detail out of the rocks, retaining a naturally sharp look without overdoing it.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Steven, this was shot at f/11 with 1DmkIII (strong anti-alias filter compared to pixel size) so small detail is smeared and the rocks don't have that much sharp edges so it may appear it's not in focus, since the hotel (it was main building of hotel with multiple wooden houses with grass roofs) has edge detail and forest behind has small detail with larger contrast. Also due to f/11 I doubt there cannot be much difference between house and rocks.
I was surprised at the difference between how awesome the forest looked (that's the look I love!) and how smeared the rocks looked, comparatively. I've experienced the same thing many times and have always considered it focus error or DOF issues, or a combination therein, but your explanation makes sense.
Thanks ... I try to keep it clean. Now if I could just get the colors right without spending 30 hours doing 16 revisions to see which one I like best ...
StevenPA wrote:
Another amazing image, Samuli. What happened to the bark on that tree?
That is a good question. I would have suspected moose but there were no animal footprints in snow. So it must be something smaller like some worms eating the three inside, which kind would make sense based on the small network of grooves seen on the wood. It's really annoying that when person is ~15 year old nothing could interest less than biology and history classes, except for that they are good for sleeping...when person turn 30 both seem interesting but since person has been using these classes for sleeping, person doesn't have any base knowledge about subject... [this happened to me and many of my friends as well]
You guys' level of excellence/expectations leaves me speechless, wondering how I will ever measure up, as I am much more a "grab shot" kind of guy that the fastidious shooter that Samuli is. But thanks so much for the wealth of info, Carsten, Steven, Paul, Kent, Samuli, Richard, all of you. I feel like the worm eating the bark of the tree...yummmeee...
carstenw wrote:
Well, I guess part of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus on anything at all. There is a fringe group who is hell-bent on proving that the lens has nothing to do with 3D, and then clusters of people who think the lens does have something to do with it. Then there is the whole "depth *is* 3D" contingent versus the "depth and 3D are independent" group. I see that most of the people I know and respect belong to the second group in each case, but that doesn't prove anything, it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy
And since we have no consensus on what 3D is, we cannot possibly define it, just discuss what we think the prerequisites for 3D are, and such.
FWIW, even though I have never used the lens in my life, if I were taking just one lens to 3D island, it would be the 100 Planar....Show more →
I have to say that I am delighted at how this thread turns out to be! Frustratingly, deadlines prevent me now from participating much
(sorry not alt.) EF200mm f/2.8 @ f/3.5 few cardboard cutouts walking in the pier ;-)
