-kind of picky with the semantics, though!
"shallow DOF" still makes more sense to me, interms of my point, than "blurry backround." - What if the background was moving, and the photog used a slow shutter? - What if the lens used simply isn't as sharp at infinity as it is up close?
Well, the important point still got through, I think.
I like clear definitions, because that makes discussions easier and more transparent. At least, if people use the same definitions.
A lens that is not sharp at infinity ... depth of field is not infinite then.
I'm wondering if the ISO 800 & f4 are working against you on the 3D effort here.
Shoot this lens at ISO 100 & f8-f11 ... I think you'll see a very different result
At this size the ISO 800 is not problem, on fullscreen or A3 print this would look not so good. Also at f/4 it's sharp enough (for 975px wide webthumbnail) on the region into which I focused. I doubt this shot would work with f/11 since then there would be no DOF generated separation.
I shoot few hundred frames last weekend at f/11, ISO 100 - no 3D-ish/plasticity/what-ever-word-it's-approved-to-be-used-today in, not even hint in any of those. See the earlier discussions about this lens I referred on my last post.
Don't take this wrong, I like the lens, it's extreme sharp at f/11, has very nice colours and behaves nicely on situations I would expect flare to ruin image. For example today posted to alternative image this photo or few days ago, which are nice but no feeling of "being there", looks flat photo like any other photo I took with the lens.
Some people prefer this kind rendering, I don't; so it seems OM 24mm will end up to collect dust or if I get really bored or poor then I'll sell it (I hate selling...). I wanted to see if I like OM-rendering and 24mm seemed to be good candidate to test it since it's having good "reputation".
I'll have to pull out my Oly 24 & see what I can come up with. I find that the wider lenses have a little tougher time with the 3D effect, but I think that is because of what shooting distance / zone the composition is. As for the f11, I think you still could have achieved DOF separation ... just with a slightly adjusted focus point.
Also, check how it looks at different crop sizes. I think that can have an impact on how our brains perceive it as well. I wouldn't give up on it just yet, but I think it is a little more finicky than some other lenses are in this regard.
Z250SA wrote:
Does anyone see any 3D in my image p.25 #21? Itīs not meant to be beautiful, just perhaps 3D.
I have a growing feeling that our screens have an effect on the 3D perception.
I think you picked subject which is extreme difficult to render as 3D-ish/what-ever-terminology-is-approved-to-be-used-by-the-theory-people-in-forum since there is no texture, which could perception of shape your subject. Please read this: page 10, #25.
Separation by DOF yes, 3D-ish/what-ever-terminology-is-approved-to-be-used-by-the-theory-people-in-forum no.
There is a bit of relative 'distance' being suggested by the foreground & background blurring, while the middle distance is in focus (DOF) . . . i.e. SELECTIVE FOCUS . . . drawing your eye TO the subject. But, there is nothing that gives me a sense of mass & volume that coincides with the shape & form of subject(s) to yield a 3D illusions once i've arrived AT the subject(s).
There is a bit of relative 'distance' being suggested by the foreground & background blurring, while the middle distance is in focus (DOF) . . . i.e. SELECTIVE FOCUS . . . drawing your eye TO the subject. But, there is nothing that gives me a sense of mass & volume that coincides with the shape & form of subject(s) to yield a 3D illusions once i've arrived AT the subject(s).
Thanks! Learning a lot here. Even harder without asking.
Samuli, the definitions in p.10 #25, yes ok. But those I see in few images here. Better than Canon-flat, absolutely, but very few pop on my screen.
This is just a snapshot walking from my car to the house in the snow a couple weeks ago....before I screwed up my knee...I'm looking forward to getting out and taking some serious shots with my new lens soon. But despite it just being a poorly exposed snapshot I think it shows some 3D effect...
For comparison purposes I have another photo of the same flower taken a half hour later with a Zuiko 35-70mm f/4 lens at 70mm. This lens gives me very sharp pictures. To my eyes the flower in this photo is at least as sharp as the one above, but it looks relatively flat.
