Yes, that lens seems to have what it takes, even in quite low-contrast situations... -And this is a compliment as I think that higher contrasts often help in creating the situations that imply "3D". One of the biggest bargains out there, even after the recent price-hike.
Paul Yi wrote:
Here is one from Nikon 105/2.5 AiS ... .......am I right?
Yep.
We've discussed this lens before. A great example of how high micro-contrast WITHOUT extremely high resolution can still yield excellent 3D. (I mean plas... oh the heck with it! )
Yeah.... I do have a handful of nice lenses, so it kinda gets a less use than I'd like ...
Then again, all my lenses get their turns for uses.....
It's a happy problem....
I won't pretend it's the greatest shot ever, but I am consistently amazed at the depth that I see in my Sigma DP-2's images:
http://www.franzen-online.com/pete/dp23d.jpg
I don't know whether it's the lens, the sensor, or some combination of both, but every time I go out and shoot with it I come home wishing that my Canon SLRs produced such a striking look. I almost always prefer a DP-2 shot at f/2.8 to that of a 5DII + 50 f/1.4.
dhogan wrote:
Kyoto, CZ35-70 f3.4
Anything?
Not to me at least - CZ35-70 is cabable of producing, but subject you picked is having hardly anything with shape and texture in focus, therefore it's mainly just showing DOF separation no 3D. EDIT: a liitle bit on some of the branches but they are like 7-10 pixels wide in presented size so really difficult to get the feeling of shape.
This has largely boiled down to a question of definition. CUclimber and dhogan, I see 3D in both of your images, the same kind of 3D that I see, but others fail to see, in my image some pages back. There are several other images here too where I see 3D that have failed to please other participants. I would call it makro 3D, where there is a defined feel of depth in the image. It is NOT the usual in focus - OOF bokeh effect. No, it is tied to the edge effect that Brainiac describes well in p.7 #13 here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/822469/6 but on a global scale within the image.
If I have understood it correctly at all, the 3D that does please the eyes in this thread, is a certain edge effect that make small objects in the image stand out as if they were here in front of you as real touchable objects and not just part of an image that has, or has not, a larger feel of depth. This I would call micro 3D. When both a present the images truly pop. Otherwise they just pop for some and not for others.
Post processing bring further mud to the clearness of this subject. Participants of this thread have demonstrated and/or discussed the lens vs PP way of producing 3D on several occasions elsewhere. As I am almost totally uninterested in PP, I fail to find the clues to images that have been manipulated in PP, where a 3D effect might be a result of the PP, the lens or both. Or is it just an image that is in concordance with the local definition of 3D?
To avoid a bias towards certain lens manufacturer(s) the lens (and camera) should perhaps not be revealed with the images. I find it easier myself to find 3D if I know that I should expect that potential of the lens in question. Not a solid foundation to really get a grip of things.
Z250SA wrote:
If I have understood it correctly at all, the 3D that does please the eyes in this thread, is a certain edge effect that make small objects in the image stand out as if they were here in front of you as real touchable objects and not just part of an image that has, or has not, a larger feel of depth. This I would call micro 3D. When both a present the images truly pop. Otherwise they just pop for some and not for others.
This is one thing to enhance the 3D feeling of image. When you combine this effect with your subject having clear shape with good texture flat 2D projections can really come alive (e.g. both photos on Brainiacs post you referred). But when alone, without support from subject having clear 3D shape to me it doesn't give 3D, just DOF separation or pop, whatever term is preferred.
Z250SA wrote:
Post processing bring further mud to the clearness of this subject. Participants of this thread have demonstrated and/or discussed the lens vs PP way of producing 3D on several occasions elsewhere. As I am almost totally uninterested in PP, I fail to find the clues to images that have been manipulated in PP, where a 3D effect might be a result of the PP, the lens or both.
This far I have not seen 3D created in PP, but 1000+1 examples where PP has ruined it. Also doing no PP (upload fullsize image some photosite and let some automatic thing do you resizing and sharpening) is good way to ruin it, since the automated resizing definetly does rarely give best results on web.
I also hate doing PP as well and rather spend my free time doing something else than tweaking in Photoshop. Luckily there are programs like Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom, which makes it possible to process hundreds of photos in few minutes by adjusting one image and then copying settings to other or even using presets. For efficient resizing and sharpening it's possible to record actions and create droplets (drop file to droplet and it does what the action does - without user opening the Photoshop).
)