gdanmitchellOffline Activity Details
|
Jack Flesher wrote:
RustyBug wroteJack Flesher wroteOkay, donning my flamesuit for this comment: I have seen more 3-D "pop" from careful use of lighting than any other single factor. Yes I appreciate shallow DoF, yes I appreciate glorious bokeh, yes I appreciate telephoto compression and wide-angle expansion, and yes I even appreciate legacy lens designs that had notable vignette and sharpness fall-off. But none of those looks render 3-D pop anywhere near as much as good lighting creating balanced highlights with well positioned and defined shading.
For this ... there should be no actual debate (i.e. flamesuit not required). But, that was never the question for the thread. 
I recall using my old Viv Series 1 100-400 and it was always kinda "meh" in flat light. But, it would "come alive" in specular light. So, yeah, lighting (and other physiological resopnse cue factors) are part of the puzzle contribution. I've always maintained that it isn't the lens alone that "magically" does it.
That said, If I paired my Viv against my EF 100-400 II ... ummm, yeah the glass made a diff in how much "pop" I could get from the same scene.
For me, I think one of the areas where the glass makes a difference that is meaningful ... is when folks are shooting in less acute lighting. THERE, the benefit of the lighting is absent ... thus, the significance of the acutance (focal, resolution, color correction, APO, etc.) and falloff, etc. of the OPTIC ... now, become more significantly weighted contribution (sans / absence / reduction of the noted lighting acutance contribution / reduction / variance).
To that end, the full matter of physiological response DOES ABSOLUTELY incur benefit from more factors than the optic alone ... and to your point, great lighting CAN make a mediocre lens, look great. Been there, done that ... absolutely agree.
That said, all optical contributions are not the same. It'll be interesting to see the new Sigma 50 C series and compare it to the Sigma Art series. Who knows, maybe that'll present itself in a way that folks can "see" a difference ... things like the VM 50/2 APO or some of the Zeiss glass (same apertures, of course) could make for some interesting comps to the new Sigma 50 C as well.
My main point here, though ... flamesuit for you ... not from me ...I'm fully +1 with the impact lighting (color, compression, et al) makes on physiological response cues, but that was never the question this thread posed from the OP. Others inserted everything non-optical into the discussion ... that was intended to be solely focused on optics, and the differential impact thereof optics.
  The OP simply asked, "Which lens has the most 3D pop?" My point here was the glass has little (if anything) to do with "3D pop." Conversely, lighting quality, directionality and grading has almost everything to do with it, and as such, virtually any lens can relate it in a capture. All meant respectfully, and IMHO only...
That essentially summarize my points in this thread. The premise of the thread is that it would be possible to identify some “lens (that) has the most 3D pop.” Finding that lens is a lost cause, for several reasons.
1. No one really knows what “3D pop” actually is or can offer a definitive objective definition that is widely accepted. So the thread asks for the identity of soething that meets a standard that doesn’t exist.
2. The closest we come to a notion of what “3D pop” is relates to a subjective sense that a photograph exhibits some kind of dimensional quality or depth and, it seems, some primary subject that stands out from other elements.
3. This effect is nothing new and it does not involve minute technical differences among lenses. As we’ve been over in this thread multiple times, the “dimensionality” quality has been present in paintings for centuries, and there’s a ton of acquired knowledge about the factors that contribute to it — composition, lighting, color relationships, use of leading lines, differences in brightness that highlight or suppress attention, varying levels of contrast in the scene, atmospheric recession, and more. None of that required any particular lens… or any lens at all.
Whatever “3D pop” means, we’ve seen it in everything from paintings to photographic images made with every kind of gear imaginable.
Any photographer who wants their photographs to have this quality and who is looking for it by purchasing some particular brand and model of lens… is looking in the wrong place. The answers to how to achieve it exist, but involves spending time learning about how 2D visual images are constructed and perceived and the effects of various decisions about the factors listed above… not about what “3D pop” lens you buy.
And let’s be blunt. The photographs in this thread that ostensibly demonstrate the “3D pop” of some lens or lenses fall broadly into two categories:
1. In the first category there’s nothing special about them that anyone but the lens owner can see — and I don’t just mean that photographs in this category aren’t especially interesting — it is just that they don’t really demonstrate this “3D pop” thing.
OR
2. In the second category the photographs exhibit this amorphous, subjective quality to a greater or lesser extent… and we can see how the various visual factors listed above (lighting, color, composition, etc.) contributed to the effect regardless of what lens was used.
Edited on Oct 29, 2026 at 06:12 PM · View previous versions
|
