Dave Sanders
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.56 #6 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
philip_pj wrote:
I'm being a little cynical, we want to shoot what we shoot, and fine. It's clearly a complex matter, with great variations depending on aperture used, lighting, etc. as well as genre (street, portrait, close subjects, traditional landscape). I also like that gentle fade character as in yours above, but I see it more as an aesthetic outcome than one that delivers traditional 3D. I'm always impressed by images shot in flat light that have no obvious shape that shows along the axis, which can force the eye to register 'depth' - it's the acid test. I often 'aperture bracket' when uncertain what looks best.
Shot taking distances over a certain threshold with appropriately small apertures are what I call 'full DOF' images, with little focus fade. Lenses that achieve that 3D look at small apertures and moderate to long taking distances get high marks from me. I dislike having to go Ansel Adams and get into PS to brush tone changes in the image when the lens should do it pretty well out of camera.
Maybe as a reaction to the 'sharp subject painted on bokeh' look, I enjoy full DOF images as well as the in-between look such as yours here. Here is a full DOF image from a lens I have criticised in the past, the FE 55. What happened to change my mind about it was simply that I discovered I prefer to work from the neutral OOC image outwards to the finished product, which helps greatly - the Adobe profile was crushing colour tonality and (I believe) colour is ultra important to 3D. Another thing that happens is that we, as photographers, recall with accuracy how the scene actually looked, and it shapes our later perception of its '3D'.
I'm sure this subject irritates some people who have rather different predilections about their work, but we have barely scratched the surface, considering the variables. For example, the role of infinity focus and how it interacts with visual distance in our images. And why photographers throw away valuable camera-side DOF when they shoot at infinity. Why so few are interested in 'informative bokeh' - slightly blurred material that adds meaning to the main subject, and makes the image more interesting as a result. What is the maximum distance in their work. And so on and so forth. cheers....Show more →
There are some great points in here, but I like your idea of 'informative bokeh'...I have have always described the 100 STF (and the Minolta 135 STF before it) as lenses of 'context', both the context in which you shoot it and the fact that the bokeh is discernible, and provides context. The 100 STF is certainly not for everyone, but the way it renders bokeh means that backgrounds aren't blown out, but rather blurry and recognizable. When it works, it really works, to my eye at least.
I like fast lenses, but for me my enjoyment is usually in backing way up and getting more of a person in the frame (even full body) while retaining some background separation. Stopping down when you're closer to the subject, I think the transition from in to out of focus at f/4 an f/5.6 is an underrated aspect of lens performance. In the old Yahoo Minolta User's Group there was a portrait photographer who would wax on about lenses like the Minolta 85 at f/4 and f/5.6 because for his work, a lot of senior portraits if memory serves, he was interested in getting most of the person in focus and then a gentle transition to background that was identifiable, as many seniors choose locations that have meaning to them.
Anyways, 'informative bokeh', I'm a fan.
|
