Marcel VanEerd wrote:
^ I disagree... although perhaps painstakingly sharp, there is no 3D feel to either image: could it be your mistaking 3D for "pop"?
Dammit yes - that's the word. Pop. I was reading Ansel Adams 'the Print' the other day and suddenly it all became clear. He says always use more pop. And in 'the Camera' he even recommends buying cameras that have a 'pop' button ;-)
Seriously, at least 3D effect is specific. I think 'pop' is a word people use in order to avoid objective discussion. None of my photos has ever had 'pop' and to be honest, I hope they never do. It's the noise a balloon makes when you stick a pin in it, and it's short for popular, especially in reference to music. If we can't agree on a definition of 3D effect, we'll certainly never be able to define, and therefore use 'pop' to communicate anything useful.
Eric Schwab wrote:
That picture has more Jazz than Pop. Seriously though if you don't see the 3D effect on the planar 100/2 images you're blind.
"Tone Deaf" vs. "3D Blind" ... some people may just not be able to differentiate as well as others, which is unfortunate as they are missing out on what we enjoy ...
weezintrumpete wrote:
Was this the 35/1.8? I feel like it has some pop. Although aparently my definition of "3D" is different from others in this thread.
It was just a quick test shot from the other day. Walked by a local photo shop that had a used one for sale at a good price. Could not resist and the 3D is a bonus...'
I see a bit around the middle of the shoe, but in general I think this photo shows more of a Leica-typical boke than Zeiss, i.e. subject isolation and less detail in the boke.
For me, 3D isn't only about shallow DOF but about finding something in the picture that helps relate to distance. Here, at f/2 (135L, not Alt sorry), the front and back OOF seems to help that 3D feeling. So, more than magic driven from German engineers, composition might have something to do w/ it.
I totally disagree (regarding doesn't have much to do with lens).
I agree that other elements contribute to perspective, but without the lens' ability to resolve the gradient changes as the light 'wraps' around its subjects ... you'll NEVER get it. Does it have to be Zeiss lens, certainly not, but it must have the ability to resolve minute variance (forgive the technically challenged) ... otherwise, you should be able to get as much a 3-D from a coke bottle as you do a microscope.
AlexTokyo wrote:
For me, 3D isn't only about shallow DOF but about finding something in the picture that helps relate to distance. Here, at f/2 (135L, not Alt sorry), the front and back OOF seems to help that 3D feeling. So, more than magic driven from German engineers, composition might have something to do w/ it.
AlexTokyo wrote:
For me, 3D isn't only about shallow DOF but about finding something in the picture that helps relate to distance. Here, at f/2 (135L, not Alt sorry), the front and back OOF seems to help that 3D feeling. So, more than magic driven from German engineers, composition might have something to do w/ it.
Is there additional selective blurring via post processing in this image to increase the illusion? It certainly does not look like a 'straight' photograph.
