DavidP wrote:
Just because people bandy about the term doesn't mean it exists, either.
I agree. David. All I'm saying is .. some people keep talking about this so-called 3-D effect when using high-end bodies or glass. I see the same effect when using a bright lens at moderate apertures .. not completely blurring the background, and not with an in-focus background. Somewhere in between, some images do stand out. Now .. this effect might be called "3-D effect" or "Subject Popping Out". Whatever we call it .. my question is this - can this effect be obtained ONLY with pro bodies and/or with Alt Lenses from Germany? What I'm disagreeing with you about .. is when you say that you've never read about such an argument, in other words, saying that nobody's talking about this at all.
Let's meet in the middle and call it "2.5D effect" shall we?
Nick .. good idea
saaketham wrote: I agree. David. All I'm saying is .. some people keep talking about this so-called 3-D effect when using high-end bodies or glass. I see the same effect when using a bright lens at moderate apertures .. not completely blurring the background, and not with an in-focus background.
My guess is that you're seeing the effect of superb lighting (and of course, the photographer's ability to capture it).
my question is this - can this effect be obtained ONLY with pro bodies and/or with Alt Lenses from Germany?
I'd say that's a definitive NO.
What I'm disagreeing with you about .. is when you say that you've never read about such an argument, in other words, saying that nobody's talking about this at all.
I see lots of discussion . . I just don't see anybody actually shedding light on the subject. Just lots of questions . . . primarily, IMO, because of a lack of definition.
One has to define what a nebulous thing IS before one can have rational discussions about it.
DavidP wrote:
That particular kind of "3D effect" (the duck) has always left me with the impression that the subject (the duck) has been Photoshopped into a background.
In one sense, I like it . . . but that "Photoshopped" effect (maybe some call it "3D"?) is something I'm not so sure I like.
Call me conflicted.
However this one was not photoshopped in but it does make you wonder at times Aren't we all conflicted
Thanks
Karl
On the third, it depends on the first. Certain bodies/sensors are better, IMO, at preserving accutance/sharpness/contrast (or some combination thereof) . . . and that may very well be what some people are claiming is part of the "3D effect".
But, it is my suggestion/opinion that it's better to talk about the speific things (#2 in your list) individually, rather than trying to lump them all together into some nebulous/mystical term like "3D".
What's wrong with simply saying something like:
This lens is so much sharper/contrasty than others I've used
This camera body gives much sharper detail than the last body I had.
If the lens actually is "sharper" and the body actually "gives much sharper detail" than some other body, there is certainly nothing wrong with quantifying that. I certainly didn't say anything (or at least didn't intend to say anything) to contradict that idea.
I stand by my response to the original question regarding whether so-called "pro bodies" as a breed are more able to produce some thing called a "3D 'effect'" than so-called non-pro bodies.
Of course, anyone who believes the that the bodies they imagine to be "pro" are clearly able to better produce something they describe as "3D effect" than the bodies they categorize as "non pro" can easily check the validity of their assumption. There is a simple alternative to working backwards via the inductive logic that is more or less "this is a really expensive body; it must be produce better images; I think that better images will have a "more 3D" effect; therefore this more expensive body produces a better 3D effect."
The alternative is to look at many, many photographs without reference to or knowledge of what camera body was used to make them. Categorize them using whatever standard works for you into two categories: "have 3D effect" and " does not have 3D effect." (Or substitute "really sharp" and "not really sharp" or "pop" and "no pop" or whatever pleases you.) After finishing the blind categorization of the photos check to see what camera, lens, process was used to make them and verify (or more likely fail to verify) that your categorization matches up with a particular body, lens, etc.
The Zeiss image imparts a greater *feeling* of depth to me than the 35L... while my computer screen is perfectly flat, this feeling of depth is an illusion, but the feeling is real... I don't care about the term used... no reason to argue reality. This is an image with no shallow DOF or subject isolation.
You are putting us on, right? You are just checking to see if anyone will actually stand up and say, "the emperor has no clothes!" Or at least I hope that is what you are doing.
DavidP wrote:
To me, it's simply a matter of perspective. It's quite clear, for example, that the lamp posts are in way out in front of the buildings. But there's nothing magical about the lens or anything else that produced that effect.
Perspective, but also dynamic range, color and form. The slightly cloud shaded light on the buildings gives them greater relief than they would have if flat-lit. Etc. There is nothing in this image that could not be created in an equivalent fashion with numerous different lenses and/or cameras.
are you saying it wouldn't matter to you which image you got out of your camera? You can't see any difference between the two? David moaned about not seeing comparitive shots, here they are (same everything). The rendering from the Zeiss has given an image that seems to appear to have more depth to me, the 35L image looks flatter...
I'm sure if the first was from the 35L and the second from the EF 35/2 the response on this (Canon) board would be much different... and all the wiggle words would come out to justify the cost of the L...
gdanmitchell wrote:
You are putting us on, right? You are just checking to see if anyone will actually stand up and say, "the emperor has no clothes!" Or at least I hope that is what you are doing.
Oh, and I just realized that this thread was 6 pages long and has passed the posting photos phase and moved well into the bickering about technicalities phase. My apologies.
DavidP wrote:
There is no such thing as a 3D effect.
If there is, somebody could actually define it.
So there is no such thing as love.
If there is, somebody could actually define it
3D effect is the same, it is a personal feeling and most of its aspects are common to most humans.
As love, you can easily tell what it is NOT.. while it is not possible to explain what it actually is.
As love, you can describe it by your feeling and these may be different for each one of us.
This does not mean that love (and 3D effect) does not exist.
DavidP wrote:
If all they're talking about is added micro-contrast/etc, then they can just call it what it is . . . and use MTF charts or such to prove (or disprove) their point.
David, MTF charts are very limited and can only represent a very small subset of lens attributes in a 2D plane. Let alone 3D qualities.
Finally, I feel the 3D effect when microcontrast is high in the plane of focus, and quickly decreases on the Z axis. It may or may not be the Z[eiss] axis, just the Z axis of a lens with this quality , and I feel it with pro and non-pro bodies.
This is of course a personal definition but it is a definition.
Now that I have my definition, you will agree that 3D effect exists.. at least for me
CheshireCat wrote:
So there is no such thing as love.
If there is, somebody could actually define it
A great metaphor for this whole "3D comes from pro bodies" thing. (Yes, that is where this thread started.)
Everyone (or perhaps "every one" might make my point clearer) knows "love" when they see it. But everyone recognizes a few things about it, including:
it is not one thing: I "love" French fries, I love my wife, I love to travel, I love my kids, I love good photography, I love the work of Diane Arbus, I love the work of Ansel Adams, I love to argue in photography forums, I love my brother, I love to sleep in on Saturday...
while we might agree that the word "love" might make sense applied to any of these things, I think we all recognzie that saying, for example, to a spouse, "I love you just like I love French fries!" might be a problem.
and this "love" thing is no more related to some specific, replicable condition (e.g. - "if I buy the $50 bottle of wine at dinner instead of the $6 bottle, I'll get 'better' love") than "3D effect" is to the use of a $1000 camera v. a $8000 camera.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I love you just like I love French fries
On the flip side, one day a co-worker overheard me talking to another programmer sitting in the same room. I dunno what we were talking about, but I said something like "Oh, I hate that". She asked me why I use the word "hate" instead of "dislike". She lectured me for a few mins, on how "hate" is such a strong word and not to be used lightly. I agreed.
A few days later, I overheard her telling her daughter on the phone "I hate it when people do that" and "I hate that place", all in the same conversation. Once she was done talking, I asked her about it, and why doesn't practice what she preached and she looked shocked. She hadn't realized that "hate" is such a commonly used term these days. "I hate .... food" or "I hate terrorists". We cannot tell terrorists "We hate you just like we hate brussels sprouts".
it is not one thing: I "love" French fries, I love my wife, I love to travel, I love my kids, I love good photography, I love the work of Diane Arbus, I love the work of Ansel Adams, I love to argue in photography forums, I love my brother, I love to sleep in on Saturday...
while we might agree that the word "love" might make sense applied to any of these things, I think we all recognzie that saying, for example, to a spouse, "I love you just like I love French fries!" might be a problem.
and this "love" thing is no more related to some specific, replicable condition (e.g. - "if I buy the $50 bottle of wine at dinner instead of the $6 bottle, I'll get 'better' love") than "3D effect" is to the use of a $1000 camera v. a $8000 camera.
ahhh... at least accepting the complexity is a start!
DavidP wrote:
I see a lot of difference in the two images. But sorting out what is lens vs. what is exposure becomes rather difficult, wouldn't you say?
Caused possibly by overexposure (at a minimum) or other changes in lighting?
Accepting complexity is the first step in figuring out that CONTROLLED experiments ar what's required to see what causes (and to what degree) any phenomenon . . . make that the second step, right after definining the phenomenon to be investigated.
If one throws out DOF-control from the equation, one is basically left with lighting and sharpness/contrast/accutance.
I don't know about you, but even in the "real world" (where 3D is the norm for most of us), the lighting can have a HUGE impact on how a scene looks . . . yet most of us remain fully aware that it's 3D. Thus my objection to the term.
I agree. David. All I'm saying is .. some people keep talking about this so-called 3-D effect when using high-end bodies or glass. I see the same effect when using a bright lens at moderate apertures .. not completely blurring the background, and not with an in-focus background. Somewhere in between, some images do stand out. Now .. this effect might be called "3-D effect" or "Subject Popping Out". Whatever we call it .. my question is this - can this effect be obtained ONLY with pro bodies and/or with Alt Lenses from Germany? 
