jeffersoncasey wrote:
I have a different take here. Like those Renaissance paintings that has the 3D-ness to them, there are 2 important elements that contribute to the perception of depth - shadow, and gradation (which strongly related between both).
We perceive a photo without dark regions or shadows as flat, no matter how sharp they are. And on pictures that does have shadows, but without smooth gradients, will often look flat too.
So the biggest factor here, as some already mentioned, is the composition (particularly lighting). Then, it's whether the camera will be able to capture the gradation of the transitions between dark and bright regions, to give it more refined look.
In other words, having the best camera in the world, shooting in a bad and flat lighting, nothing will look 3D. However, when the lighting is right, and the framing and angle is right, even mobile photo can take pretty 3D looking photos. ...Show more →
This is, by far, the most sensible post I've read about the 3D-pop in ages. Far more intelligent than the usual pseudo-scientific stuff people like to hang into. And it makes perfect sense: gradations gives clues about the shape and the contrasty shadows emphasize the effect. Kind of explains why 3D is often associated with Zeiss, they strive for contrast in their lens design, but of course it's entirely possible with other brands also. It would also be more beneficial to understand the good/bad 3D-pop as an attribute of a some particular image and not a lens (just like bokeh). When mixed up with the theory of optical design (or other sciences) the whole concept of 3D-pop just adds more confusion than really explains anything. Therefore, it belongs to field of aesthetics. In my humble opinion - though I'm sure many will disagree with this kind of herecy..
Makten wrote:
The point is that it would probably look less "3D" if there was more background blur. I think most of the images in this thread shot wide open with fast tele lenses don't at all look "3D" because it's something that my eyes can't relate to. It would never look like that IRL. Edit: A totally blurred background also eliminates the context of the surroundings of the subject. Which, in many ways, isn't beneficial.
Bro it’s going to start all over again.... others get it and some don’t. And watch.. it will become heated argument like year 2007.
No, no, no, no. To bring this discussion to a definitive close, there is but one name: YANNICK KHONG.
I’m shocked his name and authoritative work on the subject hasn’t been brought into this discussion. Sneak preview... it is not at all complicated everyone, it is really very simple: there are only a “few elements” that determine if a lens renders flat images or with great depth perception. Read it and weep.
I am interested... I might learn something from his style. You have alink?
there is a lot of interesting neuroscience work that might be relevant trying to figure out how responses of individual neurons across different visual brain regions are bound together to create a coherent percept of an object. the short answer to that though is that we are a long way from figuring it out and a large part of it may come from top down processing...
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
For me, it varies depending on what focal length range and look we are talking about.
On the wide end, the Sigma 20 Art does a really good job of it. For normal-ish FL, the Voigt 40/1.2 is the one that yields the most for me. Lastly, the Sigma 105 Art on the longer end also does a pretty good job of creating that look in certain scenarios.
More often that not, the lens is only a part of the equation. I think it is equal parts lighting and post processing as well.
Agree with this opinion....3d pop, or "subject isolation" is a function more of distance and focal length. For instance...I can shoot my 85 1.8 wide open, but I can get more pop from my 70-200 at F4 if I shoot the subject at 200mm vs 85 mm, even though the f stop is quite a bit smaller
echelonphoto wrote:
Agree with this opinion....3d pop, or "subject isolation" is a function more of distance and focal length. For instance...I can shoot my 85 1.8 wide open, but I can get more pop from my 70-200 at F4 if I shoot the subject at 200mm vs 85 mm, even though the f stop is quite a bit smaller
Personally - I don't see subject isolation and 3D pop as interchangeable.
I've seen tons of shallow dof images with no pop and "poppy" images in which the background is in relatively sharp focus.
vdo1 wrote:
I find the word “pop” to be too vague and also rather vulgar. Are there any clearer, more precise terms that could help describe what exactly we’re discussing here?
In looking at the Zeiss marketing page tsdevine posted, I tried to visually see what Zeiss was talking about. Zeiss seems to point to what can be accomplished in LR by bumping the saturation and increasing contrast (or probably dehaze a bit) while moving the clarity slider to the right and then labeling it 3D pop.
seanj wrote:
In looking at the Zeiss marketing page tsdevine posted, I tried to visually see what Zeiss was talking about. Zeiss seems to point to what can be accomplished in LR by bumping the saturation and increasing contrast (or probably dehaze a bit) while moving the clarity slider to the right and then labeling it 3D pop.
It is certainly Zeiss marketing but if you review this thread, or any other similar thread on the net, you will see Zeiss come up over and over and over again.
I might sound like a fanboy (and perhaps I am) but I would have to say that none of my lenses from the majors (including Canon, Sony, Nikon) have quite the colors, pop, and punch that Zeiss does.
It's not the only "look" and it may not be one's favorite "look" but if it appeals to you you'd be hard pressed to name a company that does it better.
Don't take my comment the wrong way, if you look at my Batis 40 posts in this thread, I do believe in Zeiss having some of the best 3D pop producing lenses. (I also have quite a few Zeiss lenses....ZE 15, ZE 21, Loxia 21, Loxia 25, Batis 25, Batis 40...even some older C/Y Zeiss.)
But even in their marketing, they mention smooth bokeh and the transitions from focus to out of focus. I see some 3D pop even in my stopped down shooting with the Batis 40. Given the discussion over what exactly produces "3D pop" it's hard to ignore that there is some marketing occurring here. Doesn't mean it isn't grounded in some truth.
-Tim
DaveFP wrote:
It is certainly Zeiss marketing but if you review this thread, or any other similar thread on the net, you will see Zeiss come up over and over and over again.
I might sound like a fanboy (and perhaps I am) but I would have to say that none of my lenses from the majors (including Canon, Sony, Nikon) have quite the colors, pop, and punch that Zeiss does.
It's not the only "look" and it may not be one's favorite "look" but if it appeals to you you'd be hard pressed to name a company that does it better.
tsdevine wrote:
Don't take my comment the wrong way, if you look at my Batis 40 posts in this thread, I do believe in Zeiss having some of the best 3D pop producing lenses. (I also have quite a few Zeiss lenses....ZE 15, ZE 21, Loxia 21, Loxia 25, Batis 25, Batis 40...even some older C/Y Zeiss.)
But even in their marketing, they mention smooth bokeh and the transitions from focus to out of focus. I see some 3D pop even in my stopped down shooting with the Batis 40. Given the discussion over what exactly produces "3D pop" it's hard to ignore that there is some marketing occurring here. Doesn't mean it isn't grounded in some truth.
Earlier in the thread had posted the international version of the link you posted. I definitely think that Zeiss has a "look" in most lenses...and it's a good one. This detour started when someone suggested we shouldn't use the term "pop" and I posted that Batis link to show that even Zeiss is using that terminology.
But any page like this is a marketing page, doesn't mean it isn't true..... Just that you have to take it with at least the knowledge that it is marketing.
And I very much like Zeiss lenses, and agree with much of what they tout as Zeiss advantages.
tsdevine wrote:
Earlier in the thread had posted the international version of the link you posted. I definitely think that Zeiss has a "look" in most lenses...and it's a good one. This detour started when someone suggested we shouldn't use the term "pop" and I posted that Batis link to show that even Zeiss is using that terminology.
But any page like this is a marketing page, doesn't mean it isn't true..... Just that you have to take it with at least the knowledge that it is marketing.
And I very much like Zeiss lenses, and agree with much of what they tout as Zeiss advantages.
