Makten wrote:
Isn't it a bit pointless to NOT tell what lens was used, in a thread about lenses?
There are so many images in this thread that have nothing to do with three-dimensionality, and yet we know what lenses were used to take them... so knowing what lenses were used to take flat images is just as pointless.
Anyway, if you're curious, you can always ask.
Ripolini wrote:
There are so many images in this thread that have nothing to do with three-dimensionality, and yet we know what lenses were used to take them... so knowing what lenses were used to take flat images is just as pointless.
Anyway, if you're curious, you can always ask.
So, because the thread is pointless to you, you will add more pointlessness to others, who might otherwise find it useful? That's a pretty bad idea actually.
The thread is far from pointless. If you see an image where the lens draws in a way you like, and you know what lens was used, you could get that lens (or try it).
Personally I see zero 3D or "pop" in most images, and that includes the one you posted. But it's there in some. Which means the thread is not pointless.
Anyone who knows anything about photography (or art) knows that the factors that can create the illusion of three-dimensionality in a two-dimensional image are different—and far more important—than this or that lens.
And if we were to evaluate the least important factor in creating the illusion of three-dimensionality—namely, a lens’s performance—we’d have to compare its images with those taken by other lenses.
So EVERYTHING in this thread is pointless until photos are taken under controlled conditions of the same subject, with the same lighting, and using different lenses.
Surely, you can take flat-looking images even with the lens that emerges as the winner in the test. And so we’re back to the staring point: to achieve the 3D effect/illusion, you need something else—you need to be a photographer.
Some of them are distinctly banal and, well, flat. Others seem to exhibit, at least to some extent, this very loosely defined thing that people think of when they hear the term “pop” applied to photographs.
There is essentially no visible correlation in the images here between what lens was used and that quality. That’s because, for the 100th time or so, that quality comes very little, if at all, from which brand or model of lens was used, and a whole lot from other things that are well understood, have been by photographers for a long time and by painters for even longer.
If you want your photographs to “pop,” the way to make that happen is not to buy some expensive or unusual or ancient lens. It is to pay attention to things like:
1. Composition.
2. Light
3. Color and tonality relationships
4. Use of selective focus
5. Application of techniques such as vignetting
If you fail to address these things, using that fancy-schmancy rare 1937 SuperPopagon (G Series) 44.78mm f/1.025 Manual Only cinelens isn’t going to make your photographs “pop” in any meaningful or even visible way. (We’ve seen plenty of evidence of that in this thread, which has featured a lot of really unremarkable images from these supposedly remarkable lenses.) Learning about how we see, about color and light and composition, developing your post-processing (optical/chemical and/or digital) skills and aptitudes… and learning how to apply all of that to your photography will.
Not that repeating these truths one more time will do anything to end this godforsaken thread…
… so do prattle on about those magical lenses, and do continue to post photographs that don’t remotely demonstrate the magical lens qualities that apparently only the elect and true believers can see. ;-)
Makten wrote:
Isn't it a bit pointless to NOT tell what lens was used, in a thread about lenses?
Mind you, not scientific, but I have gotten more likes from shots that I don't mention the lens (where feel exhibit 3D pop or at least dimensionality), than when I publish the lens used. Note I do this for lens brands where the wisdoms here tend to poo poo said brand in terms of 3D pop. So sometimes I post without the lens being identified, but I usually fess up later.
Meaning if enough people hit like, or confirm that it does, then I fess up on the lens. And I always post if asked.
My dark horse (pardon the sports lingo---its just a few days before the US Open starts) 3D lens is the Sonnar 55/1.8. It's light and I like the rendering.
Ripolini wrote:
Anyone who knows anything about photography (or art) knows that the factors that can create the illusion of three-dimensionality in a two-dimensional image are different—and far more important—than this or that lens.
And if we were to evaluate the least important factor in creating the illusion of three-dimensionality—namely, a lens’s performance—we’d have to compare its images with those taken by other lenses.
So EVERYTHING in this thread is pointless until photos are taken under controlled conditions of the same subject, with the same lighting, and using different lenses.
Surely, you can take flat-looking images even with the lens that emerges as the winner in the test. And so we’re back to the staring point: to achieve the 3D effect/illusion, you need something else—you need to be a photographer. ...Show more →
"I can't tell any difference, so no one else can either."
Why are you posting in a thread where the whole topic is beyond your intellectual reach? You are not contributing anything of value to those who actually can see a difference and think it matters. Please go somewhere else.
tsdevine wrote:
Mind you, not scientific, but I have gotten more likes from shots that I don't mention the lens (where feel exhibit 3D pop or at least dimensionality), than when I publish the lens used. Note I do this for lens brands where the wisdoms here tend to poo poo said brand in terms of 3D pop. So sometimes I post without the lens being identified, but I usually fess up later.
Meaning if enough people hit like, or confirm that it does, then I fess up on the lens. And I always post if asked.
I'm of course only talking about threads that are about certain lenses, not when posting images in general.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are a lot of photographs in this thread.
Some of them are distinctly banal and, well, flat. Others seem to exhibit, at least to some extent, this very loosely defined thing that people think of when they hear the term “pop” applied to photographs.
There is essentially no visible correlation in the images here between what lens was used and that quality. That’s because, for the 100th time or so, that quality comes very little, if at all, from which brand or model of lens was used, and a whole lot from other things that are well understood, have been by photographers for a long time and by painters for even longer.
If you want your photographs to “pop,” the way to make that happen is not to buy some expensive or unusual or ancient lens. It is to pay attention to things like:
1. Composition.
2. Light
3. Color and tonality relationships
4. Use of selective focus
5. Application of techniques such as vignetting
If you fail to address these things, using that fancy-schmancy rare 1937 SuperPopagon (G Series) 44.78mm f/1.025 Manual Only cinelens isn’t going to make your photographs “pop” in any meaningful or even visible way. (We’ve seen plenty of evidence of that in this thread, which has featured a lot of really unremarkable images from these supposedly remarkable lenses.) Learning about how we see, about color and light and composition, developing your post-processing (optical/chemical and/or digital) skills and aptitudes… and learning how to apply all of that to your photography will.
Not that repeating these truths one more time will do anything to end this godforsaken thread…
… so do prattle on about those magical lenses, and do continue to post photographs that don’t remotely demonstrate the magical lens qualities that apparently only the elect and true believers can see. ;-)
The thread is about lenses, not about art. All of what you mention has nothing with the topic to do.
If you use two different lenses for the same photo, the outcome won't be the same (but of course very close if everything else is the same). The whole point is that lenses DO make a difference, no matter what you do with all of the other things.
Edit: I don't know if that wasn't obvious, but the images I've posted here are mostly "test" images. They have been shot with no intention of creating art, so it would be ridiculous to examine them for any other reason than the topic of 3D-ness. Because that's the only reason I posted them.
I generally don't post images that I find value in, on forums.
Makten wrote:
"I can't tell any difference, so no one else can either."
Why are you posting in a thread where the whole topic is beyond your intellectual reach? You are not contributing anything of value to those who actually can see a difference and think it matters. Please go somewhere else.
Oh, have we reached the point where identifying a mysterious effect, one where, even after 3,000 posts spanning 15 years, it still hasn't been clarified exactly what is meant by it, counts as an intellectual feat? Hats off! You’ve taken this thread to a whole new level. I eagerly await the intellectual flights of fancy to come, reminiscent of a certain Chinese lens influencer.😄
We all know we won't find an answer to the original question. We also know there will be no consensus about anything regarding the thread. But, we can agree we all are here, reading and posting. How can that be meaningless?
I like the thread as it has told me a lot about nearly everything, not least about group dynamics and limitations when it comes to written discussions with anonymous strangers. I say let the thread roll on and anyone who thinks he/she has a3D POP image... just post it _and_ don't do a ripolino but tell us what lens was used. Thank you.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Oh, have we reached the point where identifying a mysterious effect, one where, even after 3,000 posts spanning 15 years, it still hasn't been clarified exactly what is meant by it, counts as an intellectual feat? Hats off! You’ve taken this thread to a whole new level. I eagerly await the intellectual flights of fancy to come, reminiscent of a certain Chinese lens influencer.😄
No, because it's not ONE effect, but several. I might not value the "3D" that someone else does, but I know what I like when I see it. And I could not care less if you or anyone else DON'T see it in that particular image. And I'm sure those who find 3D in images where I don't, couldn't care less that I don't.
If no one ever saw anything that looked "3D" in a 2D image, this thread would be dead. It obviously isn't.
Makten wrote:
No, because it's not ONE effect, but several. I might not value the "3D" that someone else does, but I know what I like when I see it. And I could not care less if you or anyone else DON'T see it in that particular image. And I'm sure those who find 3D in images where I don't, couldn't care less that I don't.
If no one ever saw anything that looked "3D" in a 2D image, this thread would be dead. It obviously isn't.
Well, it makes absolutely no difference to me who sees what or doesn't. I just find it pretty ridiculous to elevate the whole thing into an intellectual achievement.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Well, it makes absolutely no difference to me who sees what or doesn't. I just find it pretty ridiculous to elevate the whole thing into an intellectual achievement.
Understanding what the thread is about (lenses), is strangely enough an intellectual achievement, that not everyone reaches.
