I don't think the stills photography world is ready for this debate yet. Too many feel threatened by it. The opposition to imaged depth perception is now vociferous, despite the widespread recognition of the phenomenon in the cinema world. But that arena is still a world away from photography, and receding into the distance still.
It was already causing ructions way back on p2, when sebboh had this to say, referring to an even earlier thread:
'curses! i thought this debate had finally died with the archiving of the "what is 3d" thread. after raging endlessly the only thing to become clear was that many people have a different idea of what 3d means and that there is rampant disagreement about whether any given image has "3dness".'
One recent observer placed the estimated proportion of the general population with the ability to see 3D well in images at 10-15%. And the subject is not well understood:
"Depth perception is complex and still not completely understood. It begins with the two-dimensional patterns of light that are projected onto the retina, the array of light-sensitive neurons at the back of each eye.
When considered in this way – as the problem of recovering the third dimension from a two-dimensional image – depth perception is what scientists refer to as an ill-formed problem. That is, there are infinitely many arrangements of three-dimensional objects that could lead to the two-dimensional array of light that is projected onto the retina."
"Ageing: Depth perception naturally degrades over time. Research indicates that distance depth perception is approximately halved between the ages of 40 and 80."
One of the naysayers should take it up with Fred directly. Probably, it's best to delete it all rather than archiving the thread. We don't want any search engine-induced 'comebacks', by the look of things.
RoamingScott wrote:
This particular lens has been giving me consistent results with a very pleasing pop, moreso than any other lens I've used in a minute.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Is there were a contest for the longest, most ridiculous FM thread, this one would be a strong contender.
;-)
Pereptually adding to its length is the discussion about its length and the discussions that the discussions shouldn't be discussions ... kinda gaslighting it a bit, in certain regard, to keep it alive to perpetuity, so you can have something to interlope over. Yeah, it goes on ... stemming from two very different camps (for the most part). Those who want to discuss optics vs. those who want to discuss the length of the thread, etc.
It could be interesting to know the actual length / cadence of the thread without all the interloping vs. with the interloping.
Just sayin' that everytime someone gripes about the length or "ridiculoulsness" of the thread, THEY are making it that much longer.
rico wrote:
At least we have @jojib@ posting pics, so that's a plus.
hahaha Rico, thanks. Loving my new Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N for the A7V! Before I got this lens I always thought that the main difference between shooting with a 50mm and a 35mm is in the former the subject is the star of the show. With the latter it shares top billing with the environment. Shooting the 35 @ f/1.2 tilts it back in favour of the subject. Love the rendering of the Viltrox plus the AF is pretty fast. And it was on sale :-) The only drawback is it is a heavy lens.
Hmm, it looks like that extreme background processing went a bit awry. Just take a look at the gaps in that foreground element—areas where the background ought to be visible. What you see there bears almost no resemblance to the actual background. People have asked you this before: what is the point of posting examples to demonstrate a lens's rendering when 80% of the result has been manipulated via digital post-processing?
But you see what I mean, right? Personally, I don't think it really matters whether heavy editing is done manually or via an "auto" button. Both interfere with the rendering process, making the image useless as an example of that rendering. And masks were clearly used here. At least, I can't explain the phenomenon in question (which really jumped out at me immediately) in any other way.
If I wanted to throw a little grenade into this silly discussion I might post a photograph made with an unidentified lens and wait to see what happened as people try to decide whether it was made with an exotic “pop” lens (and therefore warrants admiration and gushing over its “rendering” and marvelous “microcontrast”) or made with something funky (in which case the photo warrants derision and a lengthy critique of all elements of its presentation).
To really play the game right, I might use a photo made with a very mundane lens. Heck, it might even be some inexpensive Chinese prime...
If it were me, though, I might strip the EXIF… ;-)
jojib wrote:
hahaha Rico, thanks. Loving my new Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N for the A7V! Before I got this lens I always thought that the main difference between shooting with a 50mm and a 35mm is in the former the subject is the star of the show. With the latter it shares top billing with the environment. Shooting the 35 @ f/1.2 tilts it back in favour of the subject. Love the rendering of the Viltrox plus the AF is pretty fast. And it was on sale :-) The only drawback is it is a heavy lens.
I enjoy most of your posts, they're alway nice to look at for sure. There's only one thing I'd like to mention. Most of the time you either use flash or a reflector (probably that), which in my opinion makes the subject look flatter than without - this is only stating my impression of the "3D look". Obiously the model and stand out more with the extra lighting, but the spatial impression get's less for me.
I really like the last shot, with the model in the lobby. That's a good one for me (in 3D impression).
Thanks very much for your kind words and observations Rob. I received the Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N last Thursday and I was really excited to shoot with it so I asked the model to test it out. She was available the next day but only at 12 noon. Not ideal but I said sure why not. It was also pretty hot here in the 6ix (Toronto's nickname). Glad I was able to shoot indoors too.
So for side or back lighting when I have the chance I prefer to use flash to balance it out. Also, I followed Jason Vong's (one of my fave youtubers) advice to shoot with RAW + jpeg so I can use the jpeg immediately to share on my instagram and tag my model. BTW, Sony engineers did a terrific job with the jpegs of the A7V as well as the new White Balance system.
I am not sure the flash gives it a flatter look, sometimes it gives it a bit more subject separation but I guess it all depends on the background. Geez, I hope I don't turn this thread into a Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB N lovefest .
I just used the jpegs as base.
SOOC jpeg
I cleaned it up into this; but I left the slightly tilted look
Here, it's just SOOC jpeg. I bounced the flash to my left. Dang, my Sony A7V jpegs (portrait creative setting) very much look like my Canon now :-)
But I get it.
