jeffersoncasey wrote:
A factor worth mentioning is that not everyone is using good quality display to view the pictures. On my retina MBP the dimensionality difference is more readily apparent, particularly the color gradation. On my mobile phone, not so, with few exceptions that the image quality even shine through lesser quality display.
bushwacker wrote:
If you are into Zeiss lenses and don't care anything else...
Get yourself a Zeiss 2/35 ZE/ZF2 lens either classic or in milvus form... used or brand new whatever you like.. Yeah believe the hype!
Bokeh is little bit nervous but not distracting for my taste, actually I like to have a little just to give some funkiness not even sure funkiness is the right word.., it's like this - a woman with smooth skin, slightly red toned hair... few small sized freckles but noticeable thought not distracting.
If you want all smooth bokeh go with Zeiss 1.4/35
Look for Luka or Luca he got nice 2/35 captures or Helena i think... just browse some of their posts.
Ha, I have one sitting on my desk! Wasn’t looking for a lens to try out, but rather if I were to take say 6 or 7 35’s and see what has dimentionality and what doesn’t... what scene should I use.
bushwacker wrote:
If you are into Zeiss lenses and don't care anything else...
Get yourself a Zeiss 2/35 ZE/ZF2 lens either classic or in milvus form... used or brand new whatever you like.. Yeah believe the hype!
Bokeh is little bit nervous but not distracting for my taste, actually I like to have a little just to give some funkiness not even sure funkiness is the right word.., it's like this - a woman with smooth skin, slightly red toned hair... few small sized freckles but noticeable thought not distracting.
If you want all smooth bokeh go with Zeiss 1.4/35
Look for Luka or Luca he got nice 2/35 captures or Helena i think... just browse some of their posts.
the question is not which ones show good 3D, but do you think the one with greater dof has more or less 3D than the one with less dof.
also: lighting is identical for each pair (though vignetting is not). none of them are blown, if they look that way it's a downsizing issue or a monitor calibration issue.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Ha, I have one sitting on my desk! Wasn’t looking for a lens to try out, but rather if I were to take say 6 or 7 35’s and see what has dimentionality and what doesn’t... what scene should I use.
any scene... shoot the ones you like most. Start from there.... you will noticed that the focal length you used may not be suitable for whatever you're expecting.
sebboh wrote:
the question is not which ones show good 3D, but do you think the one with greater dof has more or less 3D than the one with less dof.
also: lighting is identical for each pair (though vignetting is not). none of them are blown, if they look that way it's a downsizing issue or a monitor calibration issue.
No.
Especially in the third and fourth. The shallower versions both have more of the look than the stopped down versions.
It was more a perception (fuzz) on the flower that makes it look blown.
Light is certainly not identical on the 3rd. At least it does not look that way to me.
(Please excuse me if this is not useful to the discussion.)
sebboh wrote:
the question is not which ones show good 3D, but do you think the one with greater dof has more or less 3D than the one with less dof.
also: lighting is identical for each pair (though vignetting is not). none of them are blown, if they look that way it's a downsizing issue or a monitor calibration issue.
realVivek wrote:
It was more a perception (fuzz) on the flower that makes it look blown.
Light is certainly not identical on the 3rd. At least it does not look that way to me.
(Please excuse me if this is not useful to the discussion.)
it is useful to me even if not to the discussion. the 3rd one has much stronger vignetting in one image compared to the other, this results in making the lighting look quite different. for my own curiosity i corrected the vignetting with the flat field plugin for both apertures and then the lighting looked the same. when i compared the corrected to the uncorrected wide open shot, the vignetting seemed to me to give a much stronger sense of 3D. i suspect other people might have the opposite reaction though.
Okay first here's how I viewed the images. Calibrated 27" Monitor 2.5K resolution 100% setting, Viewed at 100% resolution with Chrome browser. I have to go home just view it on bigger screen... cell phone screens, ipads, surface tablets... they all look the same.
A - that's 3D but I don't like vignette... it resembles Samuli's... but this one the subject is not vibrating [ not sure how that guy process his images ]. The green young moss takes the cake. B is flat.
Have some thoughts on scenes I was just curious. Yes I have the ZE35, and 5-6 other 35’s... most with decent reps.
bushwacker wrote:
any scene... shoot the ones you like most. Start from there.... you will noticed that the focal length you used may not be suitable for whatever you're expecting.
It's relatively easy to get POP with shallow focus against blurry background, which is that's not exactly 3D but more like flat cardboard cut-out in undefined space.
To get sense of dimensionality you need a lens that can separate/project front --> back and transition in between, ideal light/framing plus image processing to bring up the effect.
