saxguy wrote:
Yes. It is very different than my Sigma 105 1.4. With the Sigma I can get subject separation at a wide range of distances from the subject. With the STF there is a very definitive zone and then the effect falls off fairly rapidly as you move further from the subject.
I first saw this kind of thing incidentally when I was comparing my M645 150/2.8 A with a C/Y 80-200/4 (at 150mm). Depending on different subject distances, the lenses "flip-flopped" on how much rendering they had. The M645 had a distinct "portrait distance" advantage, near & distant distance, it fell off compared to the C/Y which held more consistent through the distance range.
That was when I realized a bit about how a "portrait lens" is more than just a specific focal length, but that it is optimized toward that working distance, as well.
RustyBug wrote:
I first saw this kind of thing incidentally when I was comparing my M645 150/2.8 A with a C/Y 80-200/4 (at 150mm). Depending on different subject distances, the lenses "flip-flopped" on how much rendering they had. The M645 had a distinct "portrait distance" advantage, near & distant distance, it fell off compared to the C/Y which held more consistent through the distance range.
That was when I realized a bit about how a "portrait lens" is more than just a specific focal length, but that it is optimized toward that working distance, as well.
The other lens I like for the way it draws the subject and the background is the Zeiss Sony 50 1.4 ZA - it also gives me a very 3D look (to my eyes) but in a different way.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
These are fantastic shots (truly enjoyable!) but not 3D to my eyes. I believe a big part of it is seeing the transition zones from in to out of focus. But that's the difficulty with identifying 3D... there's not enough consensus on what is/isn't 3D.
If those comps had more "middle", we might see how it transitions.
But, the main point was that lenses have their "sweet spot", so if you're looking to maximize your whatever (transition rates) your lens has to work with ... you may need to do some testing / experimenting to find it.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
These are fantastic shots (truly enjoyable!) but not 3D to my eyes. I believe a big part of it is seeing the transition zones from in to out of focus. But that's the difficulty with identifying 3D... there's not enough consensus on what is/isn't 3D.
Agreed here. I think the persistent issue with this subject is that we don't actually have a good definition and it is very subjective across the board.
Personally, I see really good subject separation (and some slight pushing up against 3D in the last 2 photos from the set) from the backgrounds in saxguy's photos due to the STF element in conjunction with what looks to me like BW with a red filter processing but do not define them as 3D. To my eye, the shots from the STF have the relatively close distance with a short telephoto look to them and the BW w/ red filter accentuates the separation from the background. I'd be interested to see the photos in color as well to see if the isolation is different.
When I think of 3D pop, there is an element of depth that goes along with sheer subject separation from the background/foreground or OoF areas of the frame. This, for me, usually comes with much more data in the frame outside of the subject which either requires subjects being much further away, or being shot with a wider lens. This plays into the notion that was mentioned on the previous page of this thread by another poster regarding the spatial facet/element relationship and its affect on the perception of 3D pop.
Some other examples from before that I thought had the effect.
So one person said they thought they saw it in this shot, anyone else? I might play around to see if I can get similar results, but that only makes sense if people think they see it in this shot. Two people think they see it..but that's not anywhere near consensus.
-Tim
tsdevine wrote:
It's interesting to see how some think they see it in their shots, and others don't (happens to me too.) It makes you wonder if it's part lens, part perspective, etc. I see it in this shot, but my guess there will be others who don't.
I mentioned it once before, maybe in this thread. But a good guy over on DPR, Prof Hank (actual professor) tried to study the 3D effect. So he setup tests... and no one could agree on what did, or didn’t look 3D. Without any absolute truth, it’s hard to say there’s any defining characteristic.
tsdevine wrote:
So one person said they thought they saw it in this shot, anyone else? I might play around to see if I can get similar results, but that only makes sense if people think they see it in this shot. Two people think they see it..but that's not anywhere near consensus.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I mentioned it once before, maybe in this thread. But a good guy over on DPR, Prof Hank (actual professor) tried to study the 3D effect. So he setup tests... and no one could agree on what did, or didn’t look 3D. Without any absolute truth, it’s hard to say there’s any defining characteristic.
I wasn't necessarily looking at validation of those who may say they see it, or don't see it. Or even what it is. Just that I believe I see it in this shot, and if a few others think they see it, it's good enough for me. I was going to see if I can replicate the qualities I see in the shot, and if I see it in those shots...then I suspect others will see it as well. But if others don't see it in this shot, and it's truly only me, then they they probably won't see it in other shots where I think I see it.
See what I mean?
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I mentioned it once before, maybe in this thread. But a good guy over on DPR, Prof Hank (actual professor) tried to study the 3D effect. So he setup tests... and no one could agree on what did, or didn’t look 3D. Without any absolute truth, it’s hard to say there’s any defining characteristic.
It's a forum on the internet. Don't get too serious. It's a bless that we knew how to please our self. Some people doesn't even know how to do that.
tsdevine wrote:
I wasn't necessarily looking at validation of those who may say they see it, or don't see it. Or even what it is. Just that I believe I see it in this shot, and if a few others think they see it, it's good enough for me. I was going to see if I can replicate the qualities I see in the shot, and if I see it in those shots...then I suspect others will see it as well. But if others don't see it in this shot, and it's truly only me, then they they probably won't see it in other shots where I think I see it.
I was actually trying to be funny...at least a little.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
It's a forum on the internet. Don't get too serious. It's a bless that we knew how to please our self. Some people doesn't even know how to do that.
In seriousness, apologies. I should have been more clear, I didn't think you were seeking validation etc. But in your confusing soliloquy ( ) you hit on the question I was trying to answer via Prof Hank's work. As I understand it, he set out to identify what qualities made something look 3D. So he took a bunch of images, decided to have people rate them, then he planned evaluate the images selected as most 3D to see what qualities either of the image or lens helped make them look 3D, be it lighting, aberrations, field curvature, astigmatism, vignette, etc. He was quickly stumped though, what he found was absent Chromostereopsis (I always have to look up how to spell that) there was no consistency on what people did, or did not perceive as 3D. Its the same idea we frequenstly see on this discussion where some comment that a given image has more 3D pop than they've ever seen and the next person say it looks flat as can be. Since it varies so much, it's likely more about perception than any innate property. If that's the case, the whole debate is a rather pointless exercise (but fun none the less!)
tsdevine wrote:
I wasn't necessarily looking at validation of those who may say they see it, or don't see it. Or even what it is. Just that I believe I see it in this shot, and if a few others think they see it, it's good enough for me. I was going to see if I can replicate the qualities I see in the shot, and if I see it in those shots...then I suspect others will see it as well. But if others don't see it in this shot, and it's truly only me, then they they probably won't see it in other shots where I think I see it.
So, I was out and about the other day, and looked up at a cloud formation with the light hitting it a certain way, and thought ... wow, that looks kinda 3D.
No worries, my tongue twisting convoluted reply was not intended to be taken as seriously as it may have come across. I felt I have seen dimensionality in other peoples shots, but I generally shoot landscapes stopped down. Many of the shots that evoke more consistent feedback about "3D" tend to be at wider to mid apertures (not all, and there have been some good examples in this thread.) Given that some people (trying to stay vague) think some lenses exhibit this quality more than others, I was trying to see if any of my lenses produced shots that exhibited it more strongly. The shot I posted definitely stood out to me as having those qualities. Can't say I know why....but I want to shoot more with that lens and see if I see it as strongly in other shots, as I do in this one.
So my question about whether other people saw it in that shot, was more of a sanity check as to whether I was crazy (alone)....or at least crazy along with a small group of people (vs. another small set of people participating in this thread that don't see it at all in that shot.) I just wanted some reinforcement that a few people saw it......
Definitely not arguing Prof Hank's findings....just seeing if I was on to something with that shot. As you note, it's something fun for me to play around with given the state of the world and the wrench that has been thrown into my normal shooting. I'm curious to see if I find other cases where that lens gives me similar results. (And maybe if some of the other lenses I have don't.)
-Tim
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I think I see? I dunno, I've confused myself now!
In seriousness, apologies. I should have been more clear, I didn't think you were seeking validation etc. But in your confusing soliloquy ( ) you hit on the question I was trying to answer via Prof Hank's work. As I understand it, he set out to identify what qualities made something look 3D. So he took a bunch of images, decided to have people rate them, then he planned evaluate the images selected as most 3D to see what qualities either of the image or lens helped make them look 3D, be it lighting, aberrations, field curvature, astigmatism, vignette, etc. He was quickly stumped though, what he found was absent Chromostereopsis (I always have to look up how to spell that) there was no consistency on what people did, or did not perceive as 3D. Its the same idea we frequenstly see on this discussion where some comment that a given image has more 3D pop than they've ever seen and the next person say it looks flat as can be. Since it varies so much, it's likely more about perception than any innate property. If that's the case, the whole debate is a rather pointless exercise (but fun none the less!)
Good advice is to be wary of any 'study' that asks anonymous photo forum readers to indicate whether they 'see 3D' in any image, because visual skills vary (very) significantly, down to very small p values. You would need to control for visual skills in the respondent sample.
Whether you see more 3D in images from a certain lens as compared with other lenses is strongly influenced by your visual skills, and very few ever do any vision training. This extremely important aspect of sensory performance has received belated attention in recent decades. Modern lifestyles appear to be very damaging to visual processing. Despite its importance, we need to keep the chat lighthearted so just a few quotes for now:
'vision encompasses a broader meaning as the mental process of deriving meaning from what is seen and is the output of visual pathway integrity, visual efficiency and visual information processing.'
'The eyes send information to the brain where it is integrated and interpreted as a three-dimensional (3D) phenomenon. The integration of visual information from both eyes into a 3D image is called fusion.'
'The perception of color affects visual acuity. Some people have difficulty discriminating between red and green, or between blue and yellow. This color deficiency is found in about 8 to 10% of males and less than 1% of females..'
'when the performer "looks" or fixates the eyes, information is gathered. The location, order, and duration of these fixations are assumed to reflect the perceptual decision making strategy used to extract information from the environment'
'In totality, vision is a learned complex and developed set of functions that involve a multitude of skills'
'..training of the visual skills following a definite approach is intended to improve these skills with sensory integration and improve the ability to interpret what is seen.'
If you could see as others see, what a surprise that would be.
My youngest son was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension back in 2015. He's on 3 vasodilators (one administered via a pump like a diabetic would have), a blood thinner, water pill, digoxin as well as other meds to help with allergies and some of the stomach aggravation that comes with the meds.
It was good to see him climbing the boulders at Gettysburg a couple of weekends ago. This whole Covid-19 situation has made it somewhat challenging to get him out and keep him active.
Not the greatest of shots, but with the context it tells a story. Whether it has 3D qualities or not is open to debate, but it reinforces with me the magic photography can bring at a more personal level.
There are other variables at play, but having the headstone in the foreground seems to accentuate the depth in the first shot. The second doesn't have that visual cue.
I do find it interesting how some photographs seem to play tricks on your mind. In this shot, the headstone almost seems to be pasted into the shot, or it almost becomes detached from the surrounding headstones.
I do find it interesting how some photographs seem to play tricks on your mind. In this shot, the headstone almost seems to be pasted into the shot, or it almost becomes detached from the surrounding headstones.
Is that because it is pasted in (or selective pp)? I mean, the headstone is very much not of the same ilk as the others. Not in tonality, nor contrast / sharpness, nor in date, nor emblem, nor wet looking at the bottom ... seems very out of place.
Or, is it simply a new headstone in the field of older ones?
It's a bless that we knew how to please our self. Some people doesn't even know how to do that. 
