which lens has the most 3D POP?
p.168 #1which lens has the most 3D POP?
rodenmg wrote:
I'd say it is one of the more divisive threads 
... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.Furthermore, for a discussion of optical influence, one would like to see images of reasonably good quality, whereas many posted examples here (and elsewhere) were resized to 1-2MP.About resizing images for posting here. On the other site I post frequently on (DPR) It's not unheard of to post full size 100mp images. I normally downsize images to 24mp for posting there though as that still preserves enough detail to pixel peep. Now here if I post images that size they fill the entire screen and the 5mb limit is tough to meet. I've also read of people complaining of posting large images.
I hate saying "look here at how awesome the image quality is!" and then post a tiny image with a lot of compression. I'm not...Show more →
Best practice would be to post jpg or png files that correspond to FM size guidelines (Hint: they are not 100MP files) and to add a ink to downloadable full size versions if that is your thing. (Generally, unless you like donating your IP to the Internet, you don’t want to share those original fines. Share a crop if it is necessary to see the original resolution for some technical reason.)
- - -
Ask, honest question: Is “philip_PJ” or whatever the screen name is an actual person? As far as I can tell he never actually interacted with reply posts here or has an actual dialog with anyone. It is as if he is simply posting stuff regardless of anything else in the thread.
Edited on Nov 10, 2026 at 02:34 AM · View previous versions
ruthenium wrote
RustyBug wrote
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves? ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.I hate saying "look here at how awesome the image quality is!" and then post a tiny image with a lot of compression. I'm not...Show more →
Best practice would be to post jpg or png files that correspond to FM size guidelines (Hint: they are not 100MP files) and to add a ink to downloadable full size versions if that is your thing. (Generally, unless you like donating your IP to the Internet, you don’t want to share those original fines. Share a crop if it is necessary to see the original resolution for some technical reason.)
- - -
Ask, honest question: Is “philip_PJ” or whatever the screen name is an actual person? As far as I can tell he never actually interacted with reply posts here or has an actual dialog with anyone. It is as if he is simply posting stuff regardless of anything else in the thread.
Edited on Nov 10, 2026 at 02:34 AM · View previous versions
Nov 09, 2026 at 05:35 PM
p.168 #2which lens has the most 3D POP?
philip_PJ responded to my images so I reckon he is an actual person. I enjoy seeing his environmental portraits from North Asia posted here and elsewhere in the forum.
Nov 09, 2026 at 06:02 PM
p.168 #3which lens has the most 3D POP?
jojib wrote:
philip_PJ responded to my images so I reckon he is an actual person. I enjoy seeing his environmental portraits from North Asia posted here and elsewhere in the forum.
Yep…he’s a talented travel photographer. I can see why he doesn’t respond to many members here…everything becomes a pissing match. He just lays down his view and people can choose how they want to interpret the posts.
philip_PJ responded to my images so I reckon he is an actual person. I enjoy seeing his environmental portraits from North Asia posted here and elsewhere in the forum.
Yep…he’s a talented travel photographer. I can see why he doesn’t respond to many members here…everything becomes a pissing match. He just lays down his view and people can choose how they want to interpret the posts.
Nov 09, 2026 at 06:32 PM
p.168 #4which lens has the most 3D POP?
Hodie wrote:
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Nov 09, 2026 at 06:33 PM
p.168 #5which lens has the most 3D POP?
chez wrote:
Yep…he’s a talented travel photographer. I can see why he doesn’t respond to many members here…everything becomes a pissing match. He just lays down his view and people can choose how they want to interpret the posts.
I agree with him. Great thing Fred has the hidden list so I don't have to respond myself to angry people.
jojib wrote
philip_PJ responded to my images so I reckon he is an actual person. I enjoy seeing his environmental portraits from North Asia posted here and elsewhere in the forum.I agree with him. Great thing Fred has the hidden list so I don't have to respond myself to angry people.
Nov 09, 2026 at 06:40 PM
p.168 #6which lens has the most 3D POP?
rodenmg wrote:
I'd say it is one of the more divisive threads ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.Furthermore, for a discussion of optical influence, one would like to see images of reasonably good quality, whereas many posted examples here (and elsewhere) were resized to 1-2MP.About resizing images for posting here. On the other site I post frequently on (DPR) It's not unheard of to post full size 100mp images. I normally downsize images to 24mp for posting there though as that still preserves enough detail to pixel peep. Now here if I post images that size they fill the entire screen and the 5mb limit is tough to meet. I've also read of people complaining of posting large images.
I hate saying "look here at how awesome the image quality is!" and then post a tiny image with a lot of compression. I'm not...Show more →
I am not aware of a hard set of rules on FM for what is acceptable here. I know that I can post 3.3 - 3.4 MB images without a problem, as a paying member. I normally set the jpeg "quality" to 85 on export. The pixel size is varied to achive the 3.3-3.4 MB disk size. This pixel size can be very different between the exported images, depending on the amount of detail. Efficient, high-quality denoising can reduce the disk size considerably, and I use denoising regularly.
When posting images as a paying FMer, expect them to fill the window of your post from the left to the right edge. This doesn't depend on the image size, and there seems to be no way to change this default behavior. Thus, the MP size of an image is irrelevant here. Images taken in the portrait orientation can be expected to overflow vertically: as these are still scaled to fit horizontally, the vertical dimension becomes too long and won't fit a typical display window. This is particularly a problem with the narrow 3 x 2 images (I normally shoot 4 x 3). In any case, a posted image can be viewed in a full-screen view - just click on it.
Finally if you do professional/ paid photography and have serious reasons to be concerned about the IP theft, then I think it is best to avoid posting such work at all, instead of sharing poor quality low-res copies that usually look uninspiring and don't give the work due credit.
I personally have zero concerns of this nature.
ruthenium wrote
RustyBug wrote
Hodie wrote
Is the consensus here that this thread is the stupidest one on FM yet we all can't help ourselves? ... those who genuinely want to discuss optics, as it pertains to the subject (i.e. the intent of the thread) ... and those who have spent a decade exercising their efforts to incessantly impede, derail, deflect and mock the conversation (interlopers), moreover than trying to help develop and foster an increasing understanding of optical influence.I hate saying "look here at how awesome the image quality is!" and then post a tiny image with a lot of compression. I'm not...Show more →
I am not aware of a hard set of rules on FM for what is acceptable here. I know that I can post 3.3 - 3.4 MB images without a problem, as a paying member. I normally set the jpeg "quality" to 85 on export. The pixel size is varied to achive the 3.3-3.4 MB disk size. This pixel size can be very different between the exported images, depending on the amount of detail. Efficient, high-quality denoising can reduce the disk size considerably, and I use denoising regularly.
When posting images as a paying FMer, expect them to fill the window of your post from the left to the right edge. This doesn't depend on the image size, and there seems to be no way to change this default behavior. Thus, the MP size of an image is irrelevant here. Images taken in the portrait orientation can be expected to overflow vertically: as these are still scaled to fit horizontally, the vertical dimension becomes too long and won't fit a typical display window. This is particularly a problem with the narrow 3 x 2 images (I normally shoot 4 x 3). In any case, a posted image can be viewed in a full-screen view - just click on it.
Finally if you do professional/ paid photography and have serious reasons to be concerned about the IP theft, then I think it is best to avoid posting such work at all, instead of sharing poor quality low-res copies that usually look uninspiring and don't give the work due credit.
I personally have zero concerns of this nature.
Nov 09, 2026 at 08:55 PM
p.168 #7which lens has the most 3D POP?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Best practice would be to post jpg or png files that correspond to FM size guidelines (Hint: they are not 100MP files) [...]
I checked the FAQ without finding anything about image sizes. Where can I find theese guidelines?
Best practice would be to post jpg or png files that correspond to FM size guidelines (Hint: they are not 100MP files) [...]
I checked the FAQ without finding anything about image sizes. Where can I find theese guidelines?
Nov 10, 2026 at 03:37 AM
|
p.168 #8which lens has the most 3D POP?
chez wrote:
Yep…he’s a talented travel photographer. I can see why he doesn’t respond to many members here…everything becomes a pissing match. He just lays down his view and people can choose how they want to interpret the posts.
I of course agree he [Philip] is a real person.
Sometimes he posts unreal claims though. I expect anyone talking about better and best _and_ posts images for us to compare to post images that actually can be used for comparison and discussion. philip_pj has failed that several times during the last year.
Asking for valid comparison subjects aren't part of any pissing contest. It is part of trying to keep the quality of the forum at a high, or at least decent, level.
I like some of Philip's images, while some don't speak that much to me. Totally OK to me.
Yep…he’s a talented travel photographer. I can see why he doesn’t respond to many members here…everything becomes a pissing match. He just lays down his view and people can choose how they want to interpret the posts.
I of course agree he [Philip] is a real person.
Sometimes he posts unreal claims though. I expect anyone talking about better and best _and_ posts images for us to compare to post images that actually can be used for comparison and discussion. philip_pj has failed that several times during the last year.
Asking for valid comparison subjects aren't part of any pissing contest. It is part of trying to keep the quality of the forum at a high, or at least decent, level.
I like some of Philip's images, while some don't speak that much to me. Totally OK to me.
Nov 10, 2026 at 03:44 AM
p.168 #9which lens has the most 3D POP?
Jonas B wrote:
I checked the FAQ without finding anything about image sizes. Where can I find theese guidelines?
With the new site design, I’m not sure where to look any more. There used to be some pretty clear — but frequently violated — format guidelines in the “presentation” forums, such as the landscape forum where I sometimes share my work. They specified pixel dimensions that might seem surprisingly conservative (maybe something a bit over 1000px on a side?) that may be partially a bit dated but also recognize that many (most) FM users are not always on high speed connections or using extra-large monitors. (For example, at the moment I’m in Paris and reading on my iPad.)
Overtly large sizes in landscape mode are less of an issue, perhaps, than in portrait mode now that FM seems to more consistently resize images to fit screen width. The word “width” is the key — portrait orientation images of great size regular spill off the bottom of the screen for those on many devices.
In truth, I can understand (to some extent) posting images of somewhat larger size, but the post I was replying to earlier referenced sharing 100MP images here. That’s simply ridiculous and unnecessary in any case other than (weakly arguably) in some technical discussion forum.
At full screen size on, for example, a 27” monitor, a well made excellent qualty 3000 pixel jpg will be essentially indistinguishable form some theoretical 100MP images. (Is someone thinking that they would post a raw image here?)
As to the quesiton of whether people want to offer up their highest quality work for free online in formats that would make excellent 30” x 40” prints, that’s their prerogative, I suppose. But there are fine technical reasons not to do so in addition the intellectual property issues. (If you have had your work co-opted, say as a company’s product logo — ahem — withou credit, much less permission or compensation, one might feel a little differently about this real risk.)
YMMV.
gdanmitchell wrote
Best practice would be to post jpg or png files that correspond to FM size guidelines (Hint: they are not 100MP files) [...]With the new site design, I’m not sure where to look any more. There used to be some pretty clear — but frequently violated — format guidelines in the “presentation” forums, such as the landscape forum where I sometimes share my work. They specified pixel dimensions that might seem surprisingly conservative (maybe something a bit over 1000px on a side?) that may be partially a bit dated but also recognize that many (most) FM users are not always on high speed connections or using extra-large monitors. (For example, at the moment I’m in Paris and reading on my iPad.)
Overtly large sizes in landscape mode are less of an issue, perhaps, than in portrait mode now that FM seems to more consistently resize images to fit screen width. The word “width” is the key — portrait orientation images of great size regular spill off the bottom of the screen for those on many devices.
In truth, I can understand (to some extent) posting images of somewhat larger size, but the post I was replying to earlier referenced sharing 100MP images here. That’s simply ridiculous and unnecessary in any case other than (weakly arguably) in some technical discussion forum.
At full screen size on, for example, a 27” monitor, a well made excellent qualty 3000 pixel jpg will be essentially indistinguishable form some theoretical 100MP images. (Is someone thinking that they would post a raw image here?)
As to the quesiton of whether people want to offer up their highest quality work for free online in formats that would make excellent 30” x 40” prints, that’s their prerogative, I suppose. But there are fine technical reasons not to do so in addition the intellectual property issues. (If you have had your work co-opted, say as a company’s product logo — ahem — withou credit, much less permission or compensation, one might feel a little differently about this real risk.)
YMMV.
Nov 10, 2026 at 05:13 AM
p.168 #10which lens has the most 3D POP?
gdanmitchell wrote:
With the new site design, I’m not sure where to look any more. There used to be some pretty clear — but frequently violated — format guidelines in the “presentation” forums, such as the landscape forum where I sometimes share my work. They specified pixel dimensions that might seem surprisingly conservative (maybe something a bit over 1000px on a side?) that may be partially a bit dated but also recognize that many (most) FM users are not always on high speed connections or using extra-large monitors. (For example, at the moment I’m in Paris and reading on my iPad.)
[...]
YMMV.
So, perhaps a per forum thing then. And then a common sense thing - I agree with you about unnecessarily large images.
Thank you.
With the new site design, I’m not sure where to look any more. There used to be some pretty clear — but frequently violated — format guidelines in the “presentation” forums, such as the landscape forum where I sometimes share my work. They specified pixel dimensions that might seem surprisingly conservative (maybe something a bit over 1000px on a side?) that may be partially a bit dated but also recognize that many (most) FM users are not always on high speed connections or using extra-large monitors. (For example, at the moment I’m in Paris and reading on my iPad.)
[...]
YMMV.
So, perhaps a per forum thing then. And then a common sense thing - I agree with you about unnecessarily large images.
Thank you.
Nov 10, 2026 at 05:52 AM
p.168 #11which lens has the most 3D POP?
This point can be valid elsewhere but not on a TECHNICAL forum:
"many (most) FM users are not always on high speed connections or using extra-large monitors."
Those engaged in a technical discussion can be expected to view images on a calibrated wide-gamut display - otherwise, what's the point of a technical discussion?
The physical size doesn't need to be extra-large.
Viewing 3MB images shouldn't present real challenges, compared to 0.5MB, for those few FMers who have real slow Internet connections.
If guidelines for image posting on the technical forums on FM should be developed, I would like to see 8MP set as the minimal size, with the limit on the disc size being the same as it is today, about 3.5MB (in my experience).
When viewing 1-2MP images, we can evaluate the composition and the overall colors and WB (except when someone like philip_pj would post degraded images). However, 1-2MP images cannot be seriously used to discuss the optical quality of a lens - the contrast and microcontrast for example.
"many (most) FM users are not always on high speed connections or using extra-large monitors."
Those engaged in a technical discussion can be expected to view images on a calibrated wide-gamut display - otherwise, what's the point of a technical discussion?
The physical size doesn't need to be extra-large.
Viewing 3MB images shouldn't present real challenges, compared to 0.5MB, for those few FMers who have real slow Internet connections.
If guidelines for image posting on the technical forums on FM should be developed, I would like to see 8MP set as the minimal size, with the limit on the disc size being the same as it is today, about 3.5MB (in my experience).
When viewing 1-2MP images, we can evaluate the composition and the overall colors and WB (except when someone like philip_pj would post degraded images). However, 1-2MP images cannot be seriously used to discuss the optical quality of a lens - the contrast and microcontrast for example.
Nov 10, 2026 at 07:38 AM
p.168 #12which lens has the most 3D POP?
Just for the record I said nothing about wanting to post 100mp images here. I said it's not uncommon to do so on the DPR Medium Format forum when people have a reason to do so.
The issue I'm having here is I would like to post images of at least 4K but it seems that anything larger than a thumbnail is scaled so large in my browser that it takes scrolling to see the entire image. I'm accustomed to images being scaled down for viewing in line with the option to click on them and see or download the full (as posted) size file for critical viewing.
The issue I'm having here is I would like to post images of at least 4K but it seems that anything larger than a thumbnail is scaled so large in my browser that it takes scrolling to see the entire image. I'm accustomed to images being scaled down for viewing in line with the option to click on them and see or download the full (as posted) size file for critical viewing.
Nov 10, 2026 at 07:50 AM
p.168 #13which lens has the most 3D POP?
rodenmg wrote:
Just for the record I said nothing about wanting to post 100mp images here. I said it's not uncommon to do so on the DPR Medium Format forum when people have a reason to do so.
The issue I'm having here is I would like to post images of at least 4K but it seems that anything larger than a thumbnail is scaled so large in my browser that it takes scrolling to see the entire image. I'm accustomed to images being scaled down for viewing in line with the option to click on them and see or download the...Show more →
"the option to click on them" - the same on FM (give it a try)
When uploading images as a paying member, expect these to fill the frame of your post horizontally, always - from the left to the right edge.
An alternative is to post images hosted elsewhere, e.g. one common case is posting from Flickr.
Then, one can "wrap the image's url in a bbcode img tag and use CSS styling to set the width of the displayed image to an appropriate value so that the entire image can be seen" as was explained by @danny_j1971 in this post
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1891396/0&year=2025#16754740
and in the following posts in that thread.
This is actually a relatively simple and straightforward approach. The downside is that moving or removing the original images would mean that they will disappear on FM, whereas those uploaded directly shall survive for as long as FM shall exist on the Internet.
Just for the record I said nothing about wanting to post 100mp images here. I said it's not uncommon to do so on the DPR Medium Format forum when people have a reason to do so.
The issue I'm having here is I would like to post images of at least 4K but it seems that anything larger than a thumbnail is scaled so large in my browser that it takes scrolling to see the entire image. I'm accustomed to images being scaled down for viewing in line with the option to click on them and see or download the...Show more →
"the option to click on them" - the same on FM (give it a try)
When uploading images as a paying member, expect these to fill the frame of your post horizontally, always - from the left to the right edge.
An alternative is to post images hosted elsewhere, e.g. one common case is posting from Flickr.
Then, one can "wrap the image's url in a bbcode img tag and use CSS styling to set the width of the displayed image to an appropriate value so that the entire image can be seen" as was explained by @danny_j1971 in this post
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1891396/0&year=2025#16754740
and in the following posts in that thread.
This is actually a relatively simple and straightforward approach. The downside is that moving or removing the original images would mean that they will disappear on FM, whereas those uploaded directly shall survive for as long as FM shall exist on the Internet.
Nov 10, 2026 at 12:30 PM
p.168 #14which lens has the most 3D POP?
ruthenium wrote:
The issue I'm having here is I would like to post images of at least 4K but it seems that anything larger than a thumbnail is scaled so large in my browser that it takes scrolling to see the entire image. I'm accustomed to images being scaled down for viewing in line with the option to click on them and see or download the full (as posted) size file for critical viewing."the option to click on them" - the same on FM (give it a try)
When uploading images as a paying member, expect these to fill the frame of your post horizontally, always - from the left to the right edge.
An alternative is to post images hosted elsewhere, e.g. one common case is posting from Flickr.
Then, one can "wrap the image's url in a bbcode img tag and use CSS styling to set the width of the displayed image to an appropriate value so that the entire image can be seen" as was explained by @danny_j1971 in this post
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1891396/0&year=2025#16754740
and in the...Show more →
Thanks for the tip.
rodenmg wrote
Just for the record I said nothing about wanting to post 100mp images here. I said it's not uncommon to do so on the DPR Medium Format forum when people have a reason to do so.The issue I'm having here is I would like to post images of at least 4K but it seems that anything larger than a thumbnail is scaled so large in my browser that it takes scrolling to see the entire image. I'm accustomed to images being scaled down for viewing in line with the option to click on them and see or download the full (as posted) size file for critical viewing.
When uploading images as a paying member, expect these to fill the frame of your post horizontally, always - from the left to the right edge.
An alternative is to post images hosted elsewhere, e.g. one common case is posting from Flickr.
Then, one can "wrap the image's url in a bbcode img tag and use CSS styling to set the width of the displayed image to an appropriate value so that the entire image can be seen" as was explained by @danny_j1971 in this post
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1891396/0&year=2025#16754740
and in the...Show more →
Thanks for the tip.
Nov 10, 2026 at 12:45 PM