AcuteShadows
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.32 #10 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
philip_pj wrote:
random notes:
1. Photographers tend to recall the 3D ('image depth' carries less emotional baggage) from the scenes they shot, and it influences their thinking, often heavily.
2. Two major kinds: full DOF and longitudinal separation. Not a surprise that the starting points for these are: wide angles and telephotos.
3. Lenses with the best 3D tend to defy poor lighting, even OOC. The opposite applies too. This effect can shorten or prolong post-processing significantly, as it provides the 'base view' of the image - its foundation or starting point.
4. 3D can be post-engineered easily quite often - see Ansel Adams work. The viewing eye moves from light to dark, bright to dull, saturated to less saturated, sharp to unsharp, high contrast to low contrast. It's a fudge to replace reality with artifice.
5. ALL 28mm and wider lenses show 3D easily. 50-100mm is the hardest focal length range for deep images (f5.6-f11).
6. Taken to extremes, both kinds of 3D tend to look postcard-like and unauthentic. Ultra wide angles distort motifs and spatial relationships heavily. Longer telephotos show major subjects flattened and 'painted on to the background' (very common in the current fad of bird images shot with 200-600mm lenses). The novelty of each should not be confused with 3D.
7. Too much sharpness acts against 3D by drawing undue attention to unworldly edge acutance and visually spiteful micro-contrast. Zeiss is staying clear of this look by moving towards 'rounded sharpness' (sheer resolution, with balanced spatial frequencies (sorry for the tech terms)). It's seen to great effect in our recent Voigtlander lenses. The best designers know their audiences well! The 'too sharp' look is well-observed in Nikon's Z lenses, many examples here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612242/9
8. Images from one lens shot in isolation from other lenses are discounted, due to lighting and absence of comparative visual cues. Standardised same-aperture 'deep image' near-far tests may one day become fixtures in reviews.
9. All leading lines are tricks to enhance '3D', this includes corner views of 90 degree structures. The eye is forced to acknowledge the shape and therefore the real world depth, in the image.
10. Color is a huge yet unacknowledged contributing factor because photographers have trained themselves to see primarily in one dimension - 'sharpness'. This over-arching take pushes other factors into the background of their vision.
11. The lack of colour subtlety damages 3D, often badly - ending up as a posterised look, lacking good gradation. B/W images dull the perception of 3D badly, replacing it with textures, noise/grain, shapes of motifs.
12. Focus fade and OOF drawing are 'born again factors' we are still processing as a community - an ongoing process in an era of high Mp and super lenses.
13. Being multi-factorial and personal, image depth will aways be controversial.
14. With a sufficiently dramatic subject, 3D is less important - even unimportant. Cats, brides, macros, etc.
15. 3D is worth pursuing (especially for landscapes, open field), as it increases authenticity and relaxes the mind of the viewer, who is seeing something he could expect to see had s/he been there alongside the photographer. Photo reality in a fake imaging world will always be attractive....Show more →
Very good points! I think wide angles are better at showing 3D, such as a 21mm f/1.4 that I've recently bought. I'm not sure whether lenses can be too sharp - I have three different sets of sharpening paramenters for different lenses, the sharpest lenses get the least sharpening. Lenses with uneven sharpness/smoothness ("busy bokeh") are not capable of 3D, especially as you cannot add sharpening without further degrading the visual appearance of the image.
|
