tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.58 #2 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
My involvement in this thread was based on inquisitiveness. To me whether it's a "good" thing to have a photo exhibit this vs a "bad" thing, doesn't have much to do with my inquisitive nature. And I tried to make the argument above that understanding it better would allow me to better make sure it doesn't happen, if/when it's undesirable (which could be all the time.)
It's fine to say this is unimportant, I spend time on unimportant things, just because I'm intrigued by it. And I wouldn't argue with the lack of importance of it. But I'm still intrigued by it.
If the argument is we shouldn't be having the discussion at all, it's one thing to say it's unimportant....which means that it's okay that it exists for those people who are interested in it....then I don't see what the harm is in having people contribute who are interested in the topic (however unimportant the majority feels it is.) Now if this thread is causing true harm (more than just a small number of people focusing on something that the collective is deemed as not important), of course I wouldn't want people to be harmed by it. I assume no one is saying this discussion is truly "harmful."
But it's tough to have a forum and then draw boundaries on what is deemed "okay' to discuss vs what is a waste of time and a distraction from those things that truly matter. So are we just having constructive comments that this is unimportant, which I probably wouldn't argue with, or are we saying this thread shouldn't exist? I personally don't spend THAT much time on this topic, other than occasionally seeing something in my photos that reminds me of this thread.
A good number of topics here would be candidates for thread locking based on that criteria, if we're saying this thread shouldn't exist (or should be removed.)
So I'm cool with saying that people shouldn't obsess over this, but I'm not cool with saying that no one should have a discussion on it. I don't thing you're saying that, just trying to make sure that no one is saying that.
I will have to look up texture gradients, as that is a tidbit worth pursuing, which probably was mentioned here but I missed it.
So net net....there are better things to focus on in photography. But for those who find this interesting, that's okay....have at it?
Steve Spencer wrote:
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 was 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. ...Show more →
|
...
.
