denoir wrote:
Closed down paper mill? Interesting. Are the fun parts easily accessible or does it require bolt cutters and do some breaking and entering?
Oops, what a snailshot, never seen it before. Annoying ;-)
And for the question, yeah the steering wheel is just a teaser compared what you can get once inside. They tell me that the place is going to be demolished within months so if you like the idea get there now. You dont need burglar equipment but you do need to breach a couple of low-grade hindrance to get there. But it's easy.
When in, there there's juicy stuff all around - the below is from a couple of weeks ago. Not by your standards but it gives you an idea. Let me know if you would allow my meager (but for me beloved) Canonstuff to join you before the promised beer
3D has as much to do with what the viewer brings to image as what the lens imparts the image with. pop is something different entirely that has to do with foreground/background separation and contrast. the fact that the two are used interchangeably and can contribute to one another just makes things more confusing. the fact that all the forum members who believe that zeiss is particularly good at 3D couldn't agree most of the time on which images had it and which didn't (what is 3D thread) indicates that you're not going to get a good answer from others about which lens is best for this.
i would go through a bunch of images from the same photographers shot with all the candidate lenses and decide for myself.
Sounds like good advice. "Pop" is what I called "Depth", by the way, i.e. it separates foreground and background somehow. It is only one, and not a necessary, ingredient for 3D.
Then... (not to beat a loooooong dead horse but...) there is no such thing as 3D in a single-lens camera system. The sebboh description implies pure imagination given some pop and/or contrasting micro-contrast in the photo.
Personally, I can definitely see what people mean when they say they think the image has "3D" - in my case I only disagree with the term itself. Indeed as carstenw says. It's really not important at all I think tho. I mean communication's main purpose is to share ideas and as long as those ideas are getting across then it's all good - no matter the terms or vernacular used.
I'm also with sebboh in that it's best to look and decide for yourself. In my experience (for me) I see that's it's the most easily achieved with very sharp lenses and since zeiss kinda has that going for it generally across the board then zeiss might be the best to consider. I also notice it easiest with telephoto lenses in the 100mm ~ 200mm range so there's a second indicator to keep in mind.
Bifurcator wrote:
Then... (not to beat a loooooong dead horse but...) there is no such thing as 3D in a single-lens camera system. The sebboh description implies pure imagination given some pop and/or contrasting micro-contrast in the photo.
not imagination, that implies something volitional. a better word borrowed from psychology and neuroscience might be priming. the human visual system has numerous cues besides stereoscopy that it uses to form a 3D representation of the world. if you cover one eye up the world doesn't suddenly lose all 3D appearance. given conflicting 3D info to the brain a small suggestion can get the visual system to weigh one parameter more than another.
More important then lens choice is likely going to be simply employing the elements of classic design principles to create the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface:
Those 'Elements and Principles of Design' are artistic tricks to fool (or hopefully please) the viewer's eye - they can be accomplished by any lens, whether it imparts any 3D/depth or not.
All part of the repertoire of the canny photographer to be sure, but cynical, unoriginal and cliched at the end of anyone's day.
In statistical terms these are among the factors to be adjusted for (i.e. removed from the analysis) to help arrive at the answer to the OP's question. He may be interested in choosing lenses that can add 3D to a non-contrived composition, one chosen instead on the basis of artistic merit or visual description.
philip_pj wrote:
Those 'Elements and Principles of Design' are artistic tricks to fool (or hopefully please) the viewer's eye - they can be accomplished by any lens, whether it imparts any 3D/depth or not.
All part of the repertoire of the canny photographer to be sure, but cynical, unoriginal and cliched at the end of anyone's day.
In statistical terms these are among the factors to be adjusted for (i.e. removed from the analysis) to help arrive at the answer to the OP's question. He may be interested in choosing lenses that can add 3D to a non-contrived composition, one chosen instead on the basis of artistic merit or visual description. ...Show more →
While the examples are certainly over dramatized for emphasis, the principles have been used to much more subtle effect since the Renaissance. I think it's highly likely that the photo's many consider to exhibit 3D rendering employ some of these "artistic tricks".
For a lens to add to the effect of 3D, I think the image must first contain some of the above principles with the lens perhaps accentuating the illusion. As an example, I have noticed that many of the Zeiss lenses I have used really do something special with warm colors, particularly red, and also pump up the color contrast of most other colors. High acutance and micro-contrast also serve to enhance the graphic qualities of an image. This combo is likely what people refer to when they state the lens has a lot of "pop". Thus, this "pop" would over dramatize the effect of, for instance, warm colors coming towards us, particularly when combined with intensified graphic overlaps (microcontrast and acutance at work) and atmospheric backgrounds (atmosphere including out of focus backgrounds and weather conditions such as haze). Toss in a dark background combined with side lighting to emphasize volume and texture in your subject and you have some pretty compelling 3D. The originality or unoriginality is totally dependent on the photographer/ artist, not simply because basic design principles are used.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
More important then lens choice is likely going to be simply employing the elements of classic design principles to create the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface:
I think that first one is a good example of using the DOF rolloff to suggest that the subject is not completely flat. DOF isolation without the rolloff or transition often makes the subject in focus look flat, but superimposed or "cut out" like a figure in a popup book. There may be an impression of depth (a distance scale in the image) but not of volume of the subject.
I think the first Sigma shot could have a stronger 3D effect with stronger microcontrast and higher sharpness (usually seen on Zeiss lenses) and perhaps a bit of vignetting.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
While the examples are certainly over dramatized for emphasis, the principles have been used to much more subtle effect since the Renaissance. I think it's highly likely that the photo's many consider to exhibit 3D rendering employ some of these "artistic tricks".
For a lens to add to the effect of 3D, I think the image must first contain some of the above principles with the lens perhaps accentuating the illusion. As an example, I have noticed that many of the Zeiss lenses I have used really do something special with warm colors, particularly red, and also pump up the color contrast of most other colors. High acutance and micro-contrast also serve to enhance the graphic qualities of an image. This combo is likely what people refer to when they state the lens has a lot of "pop". Thus, this "pop" would over dramatize the effect of, for instance, warm colors coming towards us, particularly when combined with intensified graphic overlaps (microcontrast and acutance at work) and atmospheric backgrounds (atmosphere including out of focus backgrounds and weather conditions such as haze). Toss in a dark background combined with side lighting to emphasize volume and texture in your subject and you have some pretty compelling 3D....Show more →
I agree with this, but also with what Carsten and sebboh have said. Because the amount of perceived depth varies quite a lot from person to person, this suggests to me that the (subconcious) evocation of memories of previous experiences is a big factor.
@Bif: I think most Zeiss owners will agree that the lighting/contrast and the nature of the subject are much more important than the effect of lens, but the question from the OP is which lenses will do best in emphasizing the factors that may suggest depth. Most Zeiss owners will agree that Zeiss lenses are best at doing this, on average. They usually deliver the effect in a more convincing way than lenses that have a flatter rendering, less microcontrast etc.
