All I did is adjust contrast and color, and ran it through Topaz Sharpen AI. I didn't do any mucking selectively. No adjustment for vignetting even. All work was done globally, except I guess for Topaz which may do something selectively. But I can post the version sharpened normally, I don't think you'll find it strikingly different than the one I posted.
I think the fact that there is a gap on the left side of the stone, and the stone in the foreground left isn't covering any of the main stone, makes your brain get a little confused.
Also, that is a fresh stone, it is pristine with deep black paint. It caught my eye, and is part of the reason I chose to focus on that stone.
You want the RAW file to play around with?
RustyBug wrote:
Is that because it 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 ... seems very out of place.
tsdevine wrote:
All I did is adjust contrast and color, and ran it through Topaz Sharpen AI. I didn't do any mucking selectively. No adjustment for vignetting even. All work was done globally, except I guess for Topaz which may do something selectively. But I can post the version sharpened normally, I don't think you'll find it strikingly different than the one I posted.
I think the fact that there is a gap on the left side of the stone, and the stone in the foreground left isn't covering any of the main stone, makes your brain get a little confused.
Also, that is a fresh stone, it is pristine with deep black paint. It caught my eye, and is part of the reason I chose to focus on that stone.
No RAW necessary ... I just wondered if you had "played a trick" to make a point about playing tricks.
Since contrast plays such an integral part to depth cues ... this one is likely exaggerated by the relative contrast of the new stone amid the field of older ones.
Yeah, there was no way to not see that stone, it really stood out and caught my eye. I believe the plots are bought in advance, and they place blank headstones in the spot and then of course they are swapped out when the time comes.
I didn't make this public in Flickr, so I guess it stripped off the EXIF. I posted it on my site, but I still don't think it gives full EXIF.
It was taken with the Sony FE 100-400 GM @ 400mm @ f/5.6
-Tim
RustyBug wrote:
Thanks.
No RAW necessary ... I just wondered if you had "played a trick" to make a point about playing tricks.
Since contrast plays such an integral part to depth cues ... this one is likely exaggerated by the relative contrast of the new stone amid the field of older ones.
Bumping this somewhat old thread with some photos.
I personally think there is something really pleasing with this effect. So much that it actually makes me a bit sad how some other lenses in my repertoire render images.
The most 3D pop i've gotten out of a lens is with the CY 35-70/3.4 fixed at 35mm. It seems to lose this effect when zooming in.
Stopping down the Voigtländer 21/4 will also have some pop, but it's not as clear as in the Vario-Sonnar
I was really surprised to find that also the Noctilux knock off, Mitakon 50/0.95 has some pop even wide open with the correct light
The more recent Batis 25/2 also has some pop to it
Very nice shots, but I don't really see any special 3-D qualities over very many other lenses, including many Zeiss ZE and Loxia, as well as many quality Canon and Sony.
I am glad you are keeping the thread current for members who like to explore getting the most out of their camera systems.
Gunzorro wrote:
Very nice shots, but I don't really see any special 3-D qualities over very many other lenses, including many Zeiss ZE and Loxia, as well as many quality Canon and Sony.
I am glad you are keeping the thread current for members who like to explore getting the most out of their camera systems.
Recently I have been re-evaluating my gear setup and searching for Nikon S pictures and I was quite suprised to find that many S primes posess 3D rendering on par with Zeiss. I mean 50/1.8S, 85/1.8S and 24/1.8S. They are superb.
Here are some examples from the dedicated thread. Credits to @Dj R @charles.K @lukemeup
Soem amazing pictures in this post. Thank you all for sharing them.
I took my 100-400GM on the hike around Howth near Dublin and took that picture which impressed me with its 3D appearance.
This lens does not stop to surprise me.
AlexDROP_2.0 wrote:
Recently I have been re-evaluating my gear setup and searching for Nikon S pictures and I was quite suprised to find that many S primes posess 3D rendering on par with Zeiss. I mean 50/1.8S, 85/1.8S and 24/1.8S. They are superb.
Here are some examples from the dedicated thread. Credits to @Dj R@ @charles.K@ @lukemeup@
Thanks for the reminder! Yes, and sorry to omit Nikon from the list of superb offerings. Even in their classic manual focus lenses, Nikon has some that really stand the test of time. I haven't used many of the newest AF top quality Nikons, but I've certainly followed the images by the people you mention and more on the Nikon forum. Great work and very inspiring.
I'm going to have to keep up to date on on that Nikon Z forum!
The 100-400 GM definitely has the rendering quality I look for in my lenses - good microcontrast, pop. That's what makes deciding between it and the $1000+ cheaper Sigma 100-400 so difficult.
N4865G wrote:
Soem amazing pictures in this post. Thank you all for sharing them.
I took my 100-400GM on the hike around Howth near Dublin and took that picture which impressed me with its 3D appearance.
This lens does not stop to surprise me.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Fantastic shot. I think it proves 3D pop is more a matter of photographic technique than the actual quality of a camera lens.
With the right software, one can do anything. Thank you
Jim...
Only had the Canon RF 50 for a little while and haven't had a ton of shooting time with it. But just in the limited experience so far, it is right up there for me with the best of them at producing the effect (subjectively of course ).
As a side note, one key thing for me with a lens that does it well is if it can consistently do it through varying types of lighting scenarios to include ones that are pretty flat. Also, masking and/or other software/processing don’t count in my book if we are specifically having a conversation about lenses that yield that look of depth.
I think there a fee different things that I differentiate things. I think there are two different types of what we are talking about. One is a sense of depth. That has a background falloff that looks natural and still gives a nice sense of separation. This is an example that I have always thought had a nice sense of depth. DSC07489 by the3mrys, on Flickr
There is no sense of "pop" to me, but there is a very nice sense of depth from the fall off.
The other example I find is one that I find is more of a sense of "pop." Lily-10 by the3mrys, on Flickr
I think it comes down to the eyes to the tip of the nose is in focus, but the hair goes from sharp to out of focus as the plane of focus is being left behind.
To me, it comes down to bringing in the "foreground" into focus along with the focal point, versus making the background a tad bit in focus where the details are evident (grass blades in this case) that gives me a feeling of depth.
So, just sort of my thoughts. I am not arguing it is the way, but that there are factors in composition that give an image more of a feeling of 3D. I find I am most successful in getting depth of background with normal to wide lenses while foreground is easier with longer lenses. In the prior examples with the hills and rocks, that is composition that will let itself to a bit of both as long as the lens has gentle falloff in both foreground and background transitions.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Only had the Canon RF 50 for a little while and haven't had a ton of shooting time with it. But just in the limited experience so far, it is right up there for me with the best of them at producing the effect (subjectively of course )
I've really taken a note on the new RF lenses when people are posting pictures taken with them on fb. Most if not all of them seem to have a very distinctive pop to them. I'm an ex-canon guy myself and these lenses are really pulling me back to my old favorite brand.
^ Actually managed to find a pristine condition Electro 35GX on the flea market. I've owned one of these before, can't wait to see the pictures out of that 40/1.7 again
1bwana1 wrote:
I think if you are calling 3-D pop just a matter of subject/background separation, almost any lens, manipulated image combination will get you there.
To me it is much more than that, it is rendering, transitions, an colors that make it happen.
).
