Makten wrote:
To me, the pop is somewhat reduced by whatever you did to the top of the roof. It should not be out of focus based on DOF in the rest of the image.
I don't understand your comment. Why should the rest of the picture be in focus? Here the picture is completely unprocessed and only converted from RAW to JPG. If you wish, I can also provide the RAW.
Schwarzlicht wrote:
Unfortunately, dark clouds covered the evening sun. The picture was also taken a little too dark. I edited the image in LR as follows:
Exposure increased slightly
Depths: +100
White: +45
Contrast slightly increased
Color dynamics slightly increased
Lights of the sky reduced.
Image was sharpened with default value
automatic lens correction deactivated
Slight vignette inserted
But as you can see, the unedited RAW already has a nice 3d pop. At least that's how I feel.
That version looks better and it was probably not DOF that created the effect I described, but the post processing doing something wonky in the transition between the very bright roof and the dark sky. Local contrast adjustments can often screw with the edges between bright and dark areas.
Edit: There is still something funky going on though. Look at the right hand edge of the car. It's sharp against the background. The roof is roughly at the same distance and that edge isn't nearly as sharp.
Edit 2: Or maybe it's just the JPG compression. Edit again: Yes, 725k is a very small file size for such a large image.
A lot of what makes 3D pop is the lighting, color, and contrast. In your photo, the van is brighter than most of the background, with vibrant colors that really stand out while the rest of the image is muted and dull. Even if converted to B&W, the van would still pop because of its bright, high-contrast lines juxtaposed against the muddy background.
Makten wrote:
That version looks better and it was probably not DOF that created the effect I described, but the post processing doing something wonky in the transition between the very bright roof and the dark sky. Local contrast adjustments can often screw with the edges between bright and dark areas.
Edit: There is still something funky going on though. Look at the right hand edge of the car. It's sharp against the background. The roof is roughly at the same distance and that edge isn't nearly as sharp.
Edit 2: Or maybe it's just the JPG compression. Edit again: Yes, 725k is a very small file size for such a large image. ...Show more →
It looks to me like the camera was not held perfectly vertical, and instead the lens was tilted up slightly. This results in a plane of focus that is closer to the photographer at the top and further away at the bottom.
CrazyLeicaFox wrote:
It looks to me like the camera was not held perfectly vertical, and instead the lens was tilted up slightly. This results in a plane of focus that is closer to the photographer at the top and further away at the bottom.
That is possible, but I can no longer remember 100%. I knelt when I took the picture.
Schwarzlicht wrote:
That is possible, but I can no longer remember 100%. I knelt when I took the picture.
I looked at the full size image and it looks better. My eyes were somewhat fooled to think the roof is more out of focus than it is because of the slight gradient going from bright to darker (the sky reflecting in the roof just at the edge). But it's still strangely soft just above the wind screen, especially when it's much sharper to the left where the tree branches sticks up behind it.
Maybe some unnecessarily crude NR that cannot discern a soft edge from background blur if the contrast is low enough?
Whatever, it's pretty "3D" but I think an even sharper lens with less LoCA could make it pop even more.
Whatever, it's pretty "3D" but I think an even sharper lens with less LoCA could make it pop even more.
Have you read reputable reviews on the lens?
"...It's clear that our opinion concerning Batis lenses, and expressed in the introduction chapter, has to be changed now. The Zeiss 2/40 CF already at the maximum relative aperture is able to provide images of good quality; on stopping down its quality improves in leaps and bounds. The process is so quick that already by f/4.0 you get MTFs which brush against record values, reaching a level of 77.1 lpmm. Officially it's still less than the maximum values of two Voigtlander devices, mentioned above, but you have to remember measuring error margin which, in this case, amounts to about 1-2 lpmm. After taking that into acocunt you find out that the results of the Batis and our two record-holders seem to interlock. Practically speaking, no matter whether you deal with 77 or 78 lpmm, images with such a resolution level are sensational all the same...To sum up, the Batis 40 mm f/2 CF practically has no weak points. Not only it provides good image quality up from the maximum realtive aperture but on stopping down it can reach even record-breaking resolution values. It is the very feature you expect from an expensive lens made by a renowned producer."
"...5. Chromatic and spherical aberration
Chromatic aberration
Photos below show clearly that the Batis doesn't have any problems with longitudinal chromatic aberration. Out-of-focus areas feature not especially visible colouring, no matter what aperture you employ...Equally good results you can notice in the case of lateral chromatic aberration – its performance depending on the used detector and aperture values presents a graph below. As you can see, the level of that aberration decreases slightly on stopping down the aperture. Still, even the maximum values never exceed 0.03-0.05% so a level considered by us as very low. It means photographs taken with the Batis should be free of any traces of chromatic aberration..."
Schwarzlicht wrote:
Have you read reputable reviews on the lens?
No, but I have looked at your image at full size. That says a lot more than "reputable reviews".
"Photos below show clearly that the Batis doesn't have any problems with longitudinal chromatic aberration."
Strange, because there is a good amount of LoCA in the image you posted. So much that I would not want that particular lens. Others might not mind though, but it clearly shows how reviews are not telling the whole story.
Makten wrote:
No, but I have looked at your image at full size. That says a lot more than "reputable reviews".
"Photos below show clearly that the Batis doesn't have any problems with longitudinal chromatic aberration."
Strange, because there is a good amount of LoCA in the image you posted. So much that I would not want that particular lens. Others might not mind though, but it clearly shows how reviews are not telling the whole story.
It is not a problem if we have different opinions. :-)
Neurad1 wrote:
Well the photographylife article left me a little angry in the end. Only speaking for myself, but it was a waste of time.
I like to call that effect the "wrath towards Khong" when reading such nonsense, as here's where it all started: https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses. Though as I re-read the article again, I do notice the noses are looking a bit flat...
Clearly some lenses give a 3d quality better than others, and I get it, point out the one that does, but even if you can rule out all sorts of other variables, which is nearly impossible, you have the big problem of individual interpretations that vary. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the prettiest of them all? Well your gonna get different answers, and guess what we have a lot of different answers and nothing close to a conclusion.
Yeah agree, how many "buckets" are there? Flat and 3D pop? To me there is AT LEAST flat, exhibits dimensionality, vs full out 3D pop. Only going to give two of my prior posts as examples, since I know why I posted them and what buckets I put them in.
I think this first shot falls in the 2nd bucket (shows a level of dimensionality.)
And this one to me (just me...) seems to fall into the 3rd bucket (has 3D pop.)
So this is sort of a frame of reference as to the though process when I'm looking at shots here.
But I think some people may not differentiate between bucket 2 (dimensionality) vs bucket 3 (3D pop).......and that would cause someone to say "I don't see any 3D pop in those shots", because the person who posted doesn't really differentiate between bucket 2 and bucket 3.
And there is no objective measure of whether it's 1 bucket or 10 buckets, nor an agreement of what each bucket is. So everyone just kind of has to give each other latitude.
MARKFER wrote:
Clearly some lenses give a 3d quality better than others, and I get it, point out the one that does, but even if you can rule out all sorts of other variables, which is nearly impossible, you have the big problem of individual interpretations that vary. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the prettiest of them all? Well your gonna get different answers, and guess what we have a lot of different answers and nothing close to a conclusion.
IMHO the biggest variable in "3D pop" is the 3 dimensionality of the subject. The other variables (also significant) fall in line somewhere behind that. As in all photography:
Subject > composition > light > separation (when this is desired) > everything else (including gear quality). Just my opinion, man.
Light, focal distance, color, contrast, subject. Al of these are factors in 3d pop. Take a picture of a dark brick wall from 10 feet away. See how the 3d pop is.
Local contrast adjustments can often screw with the edges between bright and dark areas. 
