I enjoy the apparent depth of this 15mm prime. Three quite different compositions. All good WAs will have plenty of '3D'.
[hasenbein, are you all right?]
Ugh... I'm sorry but 99% of the images posted here are not ''3D pop.'' I came to see some amazing micro-contrast goodness and to hopefully discover some new glass to buy but was majorly disappointed to find only low aperture shots and with no 3D pop anywhere in sight.
Boys and girls... Listen. There's a difference between micro-contrast ''3D pop'' aka. actual ''3D pop'' and just the low aperture subject separation due to ''bokeh'' aka. foreground/background blur.
Very few newer lenses have that ''3D pop,'' because newer lenses have terrible micro-contrast, all at the cost of higher sharpness. The only newer lenses with super good micro-contrast are mostly Hasselblad, Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander lenses.
It's not a scientific rule, for example the Lumix S PRO 50mm f/1.4 has 13 glass elements but it still has some of the best micro-contrast renders... But in general, the ''rule'' is that the lower the glass element count, the better/cleaner the light will pass through to the sensor - and the better that is, the better the micro-contrast is - and micro-contrast equals to ''3D pop!''
Thank you to link some of my pics. The 25-50mm PL Summilux and the 50mm S Pro are two of my best lenses. The 10-25mm PL Summilux and the 24-70mm S Pro also have both pretty good micro-contrast.
The above is a lens that draws, while the below is a lens that paints.
Many people nowadays are drawn to lenses that draw. Because it looks sharper. They dont notice that natural environments dont look this "sharp" to our unaided eyes.
The above is a lens that draws, while the below is a lens that paints.
Many people nowadays are drawn to lenses that draw. Because it looks sharper. They dont notice that natural environments dont look this "sharp" to our unaided eyes.
Indeed and some lenses have both very high sharpness and micro-contrast like the Leica DG 25-50mm :
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.)
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.
I think it would be interesting to see some images that are taken with lenses that are widely thought to produce 3D pop but that clearly DON'T have 3D pop. I think that would be very illuminating and would help to separate compositional and post-processing effects from lens-based effects.
My sense of a key compositional element that often tends to create 3D pop is the presence of ordered multiple planes in an image with each plane being visually different from the others in a manner that is progressive, for example because each has a different degree of focus/blur, or hue or saturation or sharpening, etc. I think Ted's last image (of the boys and rocks) is a good example of this, with the progressiveness having to do with degree of focus/blur. I think painters have known this since the Renaissance.
I think the effect of the multiple planes is enhanced, sometimes even to the point of becoming cartoonish as in some pop[ular] art, but more usually in a very pleasing and desirable way when there is negative or empty space between the planes, again as in Ted's image of the boys.
ts--I like your categorization of types of images in regard to dimensionality and 3D.
I think, it's been a while so I may be wrong, that I started posting shots where I didn't list the lens used. To avoid any confirmation bias that a lens that people think have 3D pop would be predisposed to getting positive feedback that there is 3D pop. Are you saying take lenses that fall into this category, and then post samples where they don't seem to? I don't think it's always "just the lens", nor do I necessarily think the lens has nothing to do with it. So I guess that's sort of what you are trying to tease out in that suggestion?
-Tim
chiron wrote:
I think it would be interesting to see some images that are taken with lenses that are widely thought to produce 3D pop but that clearly DON'T have 3D pop. I think that would be very illuminating and would help to separate compositional and post-processing effects from lens-based effects.
My sense of a key compositional element that often tends to create 3D pop is the presence of ordered multiple planes in an image with each plane being visually different from the others in a manner that is progressive, for example because each has a different degree of focus/blur, or hue or saturation or sharpening, etc. I think Ted's last image (of the boys and rocks) is a good example of this, with the progressiveness having to do with degree of focus/blur. I think painters have known this since the Renaissance.
I think the effect of the multiple planes is enhanced, sometimes even to the point of becoming cartoonish as in some pop[ular] art, but more usually in a very pleasing and desirable way when there is negative or empty space between the planes, again as in Ted's image of the boys.
ts--I like your categorization of types of images in regard to dimensionality and 3D....Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
I think, it's been a while so I may be wrong, that I started posting shots where I didn't list the lens used. To avoid any confirmation bias that a lens that people think have 3D pop would be predisposed to getting positive feedback that there is 3D pop. Are you saying take lenses that fall into this category, and then post samples where they don't seem to? I don't think it's always "just the lens", nor do I necessarily think the lens has nothing to do with it. So I guess that's sort of what you are trying to tease out in that suggestion?
Yes, pretty much. If 3D pop is a quality of the lens, then it seems that most pictures taken with that lens should show those qualities. Are there pictures taken with those lenses that don't show those qualities? If so, pop is not a quality of the lens, or at least not solely a property of the lens.
That shouldn't be hard to test. Just identify those lenses and look in the Flickr group for that lens. I doubt ALL the pictures in that group will have 3D pop.
I do think it might be something that can happen more often with certain lenses, and I do think that certain conditions can also bring it out.
chiron wrote:
Yes, pretty much. If 3D pop is a quality of the lens, then it seems that most pictures taken with that lens should show those qualities. Are there pictures taken with those lenses that don't show those qualities? If so, pop is not a quality of the lens, or at least not solely a property of the lens.
3d pop (and contrast/micro contrast) is greatly affected by lighting conditions. Just look at the pics agreed to have good pop and you’ll start to notice what they have in common.
tsdevine wrote:
That shouldn't be hard to test. Just identify those lenses and look in the Flickr group for that lens. I doubt ALL the pictures in that group will have 3D pop.
I do think it might be something that can happen more often with certain lenses, and I do think that certain conditions can also bring it out.
Yes, I think that is a reasonable expectation. What do you think are the things that are more likely to make it happen?
i think the 35mm zeiss 2.8 does a great job at this. some amount of fall off/vignetting helps if the shot is composed and lit in a way where you don't really draw attention to it.
While I am one who does think he perceives "3D pop" it is so hard to quantify! When I shot film, it was easy. There was the lens and the film and you could easily see differences since the film was standard--always processed the same way (for color only, of course).
Of course, factors external to the camera could affect the degree of pop--such as lighting conditions--but even here differences in lenses could be perceived because film processing equalized all factors in the same lighting conditions and the lens would make the difference.
Now, so many things come to bear. The camera's default settings. The raw converter default settings. Manual settings like white balance, the photographer's subsequent processing choices, let alone the settings and compression of internet websites. The only way I look at it now is either to use the camera SOOC jpeg, or my converter's default settings with no alterations, coupled with completely manual exposure with a manually set white balance. This standardizes pretty much everything from the camera, and the lens then makes the difference.
That being said, I do perceive that my Zeiss Batis lenses have more of a "3D" feel than the Sony 24-105 which is a pretty decent zoom. This is consistent going back to my film days when I shot Contax and believed that the Zeiss lenses gave the most vibrant color rendition and detail in the scene.
So, what creates this "look"? There was an excellent post above on microcontrast, but I think color rendition has something to do with it as well. Particularly the vibrant rendering of colors with sharp delineation between shades and tones.
As for what lenses have this look? Zeiss always had the general reputation for this look (one reason I am shooting Sony is that they have some of the most recent modern Zeiss designs in native mount). Cosina/Voigtlander also have this reputation (no surprise as they actually manufacture Zeiss designed lenses).
Surprising, I have a Canon 16-35 L Mk iii in E Fmount and that lens gives the "3d look" as well.
I also find a similar rendering with my Panasonic S Pro lenses, even the zooms. perhaps this has to do with their collaboration with Leica on lens design.
That is all I have personal experience with. I am trying to figure out how to post images and will put a few up in a couple days, I hope.
guyharrison wrote:
While I am one who does think he perceives "3D pop" it is so hard to quantify! When I shot film, it was easy. There was the lens and the film and you could easily see differences since the film was standard--always processed the same way (for color only, of course).
Of course, factors external to the camera could affect the degree of pop--such as lighting conditions--but even here differences in lenses could be perceived because film processing equalized all factors in the same lighting conditions and the lens would make the difference.
Now, so many things come to bear. The camera's default settings. The raw converter default settings. Manual settings like white balance, the photographer's subsequent processing choices, let alone the settings and compression of internet websites. The only way I look at it now is either to use the camera SOOC jpeg, or my converter's default settings with no alterations, coupled with completely manual exposure with a manually set white balance. This standardizes pretty much everything from the camera, and the lens then makes the difference.
That being said, I do perceive that my Zeiss Batis lenses have more of a "3D" feel than the Sony 24-105 which is a pretty decent zoom. This is consistent going back to my film days when I shot Contax and believed that the Zeiss lenses gave the most vibrant color rendition and detail in the scene.
So, what creates this "look"? There was an excellent post above on microcontrast, but I think color rendition has something to do with it as well. Particularly the vibrant rendering of colors with sharp delineation between shades and tones.
As for what lenses have this look? Zeiss always had the general reputation for this look (one reason I am shooting Sony is that they have some of the most recent modern Zeiss designs in native mount). Cosina/Voigtlander also have this reputation (no surprise as they actually manufacture Zeiss designed lenses).
Surprising, I have a Canon 16-35 L Mk iii in E Fmount and that lens gives the "3d look" as well.
I also find a similar rendering with my Panasonic S Pro lenses, even the zooms. perhaps this has to do with their collaboration with Leica on lens design.
That is all I have personal experience with. I am trying to figure out how to post images and will put a few up in a couple days, I hope.
I agree with you about Zeiss lenses being designed to be more likely to produce these effects than many other brands, Same for CV lenses. It seems both companies have quite a lot of confidence in image quality taking priority over fancier electronic and mechanical issues like AF.
I also agree with the majority opinion that it is very hard to pin down what factors confer this 3D Pop. The old, "I'll know it when I see it," is hard to quantify, but also hard to deny. Contrast in color and value seems one of the biggest qualifiers. Focus isolation vs. OOF rendering. Sharp vs. soft details . . . the list goes on, but I think we all get the general idea.
On this Sony forum it seems the general consensus is that besides Zeiss and Voigtlander, very good results are being found in many of Sony's newer GM line of primes and zooms, as well as some Sigma products. I'm sure there are many on the Canon and Nikon forums that would have candidates to offer there as well.
Computer software bias and post-processing also plays an important role, but it is often hard to avoid going down a rabbit hole by adding too much false looking "pop" for believability. Personally, I mostly PP for publication on this forum platform and find it works well for others (sometimes skewed slightly for best results on others like FB). PP is essential to get the most out of lens attributes, but I try to achieve a believable look rather than "over-produced". Again, much of this is a matter of opinion or style for each to find comfortable or realistic.
I appreciate all the photographers and their examples who take the effort to find good quality products and show us their results. I look forward to continued discussion and examples.
Is there any truth to the argument of limited or low element count in lenses and 3d pop. There was an article years ago regarding this. Some thought it was nonsense and went on to debunk it but I believe there was some partial merit to it. Most of these lenses are old or modern manual focus. Clearly not GM complicated.
I think there may be an argument for "level of correction" coming into play...which loosely is aligned to "number of elements"....but I think that is more coincidental than objective. I mean up to 8 elements gives 3D and more than that doesn't? It doesn't pass the smell test for me.
MARKFER wrote:
Is there any truth to the argument of limited or low element count in lenses and 3d pop. There was an article years ago regarding this. Some thought it was nonsense and went on to debunk it but I believe there was some partial merit to it. Most of these lenses are old or modern manual focus. Clearly not GM complicated.
Lots of beautiful images in this thread .. several seem to have 3D pop (in my eyes).
One of the strongest in this thread is one of the guy holding the binoculars, taken with a Sony 50 GM.
It's startlingly 3D in my eyes, and I wonder if it has to do with the foreground person who is blurred,
and the middle layer (guy with the bino) and the background layer of people, grass, etc.
There are several others in here that I can see mild to moderate 3D pop as well.
Like the one with the 35 GM of the lady on the beach, the one of the woman in white on the beach, etc.
Which makes me wonder if lack of distracting background elements is key to making it look 3D?
