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.
AndDavidP replied: And that's why the Greeks had something like 13 words for "love".
They probably would have more than a few words for "3D", too.
Hah! I was certainly thinking of that when I wrote my little post - but I decided that listing Greek terms for "love" here would only make me look like a Greek geek. And I hate it when people do that...
gdanmitchell wrote:
Hah! I was certainly thinking of that when I wrote my little post - but I decided that listing Greek terms for "love" here would only make me look like a Greek geek. And I hate it when people do that...
I only know one, agape. And I *think* I'm right about there being 13 . . could be a different number, though.
Oops, a quick Google search shows that there are four.
In real life many things influence our persection of how we see things...
With lighting and shapes you can create the illusion of something 3D being 2D... so much so that you are completely fooled. If you can be fooled into percieving that something 3D is 2D, why not the opposite? (Oh, I guess because you said so).
Regarding DOF, it doesn't take super shallow DOF to have an impact on how we percieve a photo, subtle properities can have a large impact on how some people perieve an image... of course there are boneheads that can't go beyond a caveman's comprehension... photo of object, nothing more.
DavidP wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Anden wrote:
Please post your results. What body do you presently use?
Just sold the 5D1 to finance the 1dm3. Right now I only have 500d(lightweight&video). The 500d has a lot of detail, but I think it is lacking depth. I often used a 350d, and when I look through my photos I find I like those pics a lot.
irris wrote:
Just sold the 5D1 to finance the 1dm3. Right now I only have 500d(lightweight&video). The 500d has a lot of detail, but I think it is lacking depth. I often used a 350d, and when I look through my photos I find I like those pics a lot.
DavidP wrote:
You mean good lighting, and a sharp lens with way too shallow a DOF?
But with some "sharp" lenses, "good lighting" and "way too shallow a DOF" give little or no 3D effect at all. So regardless of DOF, lighting and sharpness, some lenses routinely produce pictures which look 3D, and some don't. For instance, compare the Contax 100 f2 against other 100mm lenses. Some 100mm lenses will not produce the tangible 3D effect of the Contax 100. And in fact that difference between those lenses is visible across a very wide range of shooting conditions, lighting, and sharpness.
brainiac wrote:
But with some "sharp" lenses, "good lighting" and "way too shallow a DOF" give little or no 3D effect at all.
Got any controlled examples to show this?
For instance, compare the Contax 100 f2 against other 100mm lenses. Some 100mm lenses will not produce the tangible 3D effect of the Contax 100. And in fact that difference between those lenses is visible across a very wide range of shooting conditions, lighting, and sharpness.
If true (again, got any controlled examples to demonstrate?), what would you bet that the MTF curves would explain it?
have the 3-D effect. Canon 30D, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L