Ripolini wrote:
Absolutely not. A Nikkor AI 105/2.5 (5 lenses in 4 groups) doesn't have any additional pop compared to the Zeiss ZF.2 100/2 Makro Planar (9 elements in 8 groups). And it's just one of many examples.
Okay.
Either way, the cheap nifty fifty from Canon is turning out to have great 3D pop. I have been testing it head to head to the Sigma 40mm DG HSM in the last couple of days, and you can see the difference (in the Canon's favor) in a lot of the images.
jaygould wrote:
Either way, the cheap nifty fifty from Canon is turning out to have great 3D pop. I have been testing it head to head to the Sigma 40mm DG HSM in the last couple of days, and you can see the difference (in the Canon's favor) in a lot of the images.
Let's show examples. Obviously, same subject and same lighting.
It's hard to see in these pictures though (although I do think you can see a slightly higher contrast in the RF 50mm STM). I have seen it more clearly when out shooting cars in the street etc (but no tripod with me so the images weren't precisely comparable). If you have a suggestion on a picture to take, what settings to use etc I will do it.
RustyBug wrote:
Only 20 pages more to go ... to catch up to the "What is 3D" thread (2009) with 47 pages.
Kinda interesting to me, that I spent an enormous amount of time in that intense discussion, studies, examples, debate, etc. ... and now, it doesn't consume me as a technical endeavor, the way it once did.
Almost like learning a parlor trick ... once, you know the trick, it only has merit on the next batch of folks that don't know it ... and your interests move on to something else.
That said, if the goal of the image is merely to generate a "lifelike" recording and showcase the skillset of photographer's ability to generate the trompe l'oeil effect of 3D-ish effects ... it's kinda like a cook showing how sharp he can make his knife, or how perfect she can slice the entree'. Its fun and interesting, but it's not very filling, nor all that meaningful compared to what is actually in the meal.
I spent a ton of time on it ... yup. Do so at your own risk, that it might detour / delay you from other endeavors / growth.
The thing with such emphasis on 3D-ish is that it focuses the viewers attention on the technique. Nothing wrong with great technique, but if its mission is to bring attention to "look what I did" (technically) as a photographer, will it ever have the effect of "doing something" to the viewer. I enjoy the effect as much as another who appreciates technique. But, at some point, I think that the effect "runs out" of power or ability to do something to the viewer.
Again, I dig on it ... just like I dig on great bbq sauce. But, the sauce, ain't the meat.
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."-Edward Weston
And Ernst Haas
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."-Ernst Haas
I think part of this discussion is whether it's purely equipment, purely conditions (lighting, etc) or a mix of both. Which to me means IT IS endeavoring to master the medium, unless it it solely based on equipment, which I doubt it is. If it were solely based on equipment, mastering the medium would probably still involve wanting to be able to control this.....
This is part of the reason I've stopped saying what equipment I was using when posting a shot. Because I don't believe it's solely based on the equipment used.
Is lighting and composition part of mastering the medium?
While I agree that the endless chase after gear is detrimental to one's photography, I'm not sure how that is at all related to the topic of this thread
It's relevant because in the REAL world of making photographs it really doesn't matter. If you are relying on gimmicks like 3D in your photographs you have a lot more to worry about than if the lens you are using can create it.
So you are saying equipment is solely what drives someone perceiving "3D" in a shot? I think lighting and composition play a part, but maybe not solely that.
If it was solely equipment, every shot with that equipment would exhibit this. I doubt every shot take with a certain lens is perceived as showing 3D.
So if some of this is lighting and composition, isn't that something we as photographers might care about? Or is lighting and composition also a gimmick? What if we didn't want to see this quality in a shot, since it is a gimmick, wouldn't we want to understand how to make it not happen?
How do we learn if we're not inquisitive?
airfrogusmc wrote:
It's relivsnt becasue in the REAL world of making photographs it really doesn't matter. If you are relying on gimmicks like 3D in your photogrpahs you have a lot more to worry about than if the lens you are using can crreate it.
No thats not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that I have never judged a photograph on whether it is good or bad on if it has a 3D look. It's just not relevant. Time would be better spent leraning about the history of photography and spending time looking at paintings and other art.
No. It has a blurred background (and foreground).
That doesn't mean that the picture isn't good, that the subject isn't clearly visible and distinguishable, and so on.
This kind of pictures do not necessarily have a 3D look, or pop; these pictures utilize a property of the tool (the wide aperture of the lens) to create an image our eyes will never see. It's a form of creative use of our gear. Creativity is not necessarily linked to 3D illusion.
We know that three-dimensional art was seldom seen before the 14th century; according to Prof. Harper, the reason was that artists (in particular during the Middle Ages) didn't want to portray life in three dimensions. Harper explains: "In the medieval period artists lost the desire to make lifelike images. The job of art was not to reproduce the real world, but instead to show another world." [source: https://theweek.com/articles/459667/how-did-humans-learn-paint-3-dimensions].
Feb 27, 2023 at 11:28 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Let me remind people of some basic facts. First, almost all our photographs are actually 2D. Second, that means if we see the image as 3D it is an illusion. Third, this particular illusion--seeing a 2D object as 3D--has been studied for over a hundred years and over a dozen cues have been identified that help create the illusion. Fourth, this particular illusion can be created with many types of images and not just photographs.
These basic facts tell us that if the photographer wants to create the illusion, they can do so with basically any equipment if they know how to do so (i.e., use the cues that create the illusion) as artists who want to create the illusion can do so fairly easily with paintings.
This does not mean that composition, lighting, and yes equipment can and do not make it easier to create the illusion in some circumstances. I believe that composition, lighting, and equipment can make it easier to use certain cues to the illusion, but I also believe the strongest cues to the illusion have nothing to do with composition, lighting, or equipment.
IMO, as photographers we should ask ourselves why do we want to create this particular illusion for this particular image? My own answer is that I rarely want to do so. On rare occasions I do want to create the illusion (e.g., in certain landscapes I want to convey a depth to the image), but in these rare occasions I rarely rely on the equipment but mostly rely on well established cues (look up texture gradients if you want one of the strongest and most interesting cues, IMO) to create it.
IMO, we would be much better served to ask ourselves why we would want this illusion and only strive to create it when we have a good reason to do so. I find it interesting that Allan (airfrogusmc) makes the argument he does above. I think his images fairly often have the 3D illusion, but I also think it rarely is what makes his fantastic images stand out. In my view it is the intimacy with which he captures his subjects and the strong emotion that he evokes that makes his images so special. He can certainly get the 3D illusion, but I suspect from what he has said that is rarely his goal. I think we would almost all be better served by focussing on other aspects of almost our photos than whether this 3D illusion has been created, much in the way Allan has done.
