GMPhotography wrote:
Leica R 80 summilux 1.4 and it may end there.
Right. And since you aptly demonstrated this with your direct lens to lens image comparison, we can now finally close the case.
Exactly. Owned it loved it and could kick myself for selling it years ago.
The problem with this question is you need to try a lot if glass to figure it out but safe bet it’s usually the older glass as they did not make lens aberration corrections like the do today. You do see some lenses that stand out but it’s harder to find them. But it comes down to quality of light, distance subject distance to background plus subject itself and aperture. Not to mention glass quality and design
GMPhotography wrote:
Exactly. Owned it loved it and could kick myself for selling it years ago.
The problem with this question is you need to try a lot if glass to figure it out but save bet it’s usually the older glass as they did not make lens aberration corrections like the do today
Nah. The problem is that if there were such an effect, someone would have demonstrated it by now. Instead all we ever get is personal impressions with a statistic of N=1.
Would shadows be contributing 90% of 3D pop as 'pop' seems to be about contrast?
With that in mind, shots on a sunny day around water or snow would be flat due to all the reflections.
lensfan wrote:
Would shadows be contributing 90% of 3D pop as 'pop' seems to be about contrast?
With that in mind, shots on a sunny day around water or snow would be flat due to all the reflections.
Oh
ILCE-7RM3AFE 35mm F1.4 GM lens35mmf/1.41/8000s100 ISO-1.3 EV
No, dude. Don't you see that by lifting shadows / lowering highlights or by applying a local filter in Lightroom / Camera RAW there is this strange darker "halo" around the woman? That's always something to watch out for, and you didn't.
hasenbein wrote:
No, dude. Don't you see that by lifting shadows / lowering highlights or by applying a local filter in Lightroom / Camera RAW there is this strange darker "halo" around the woman? That's always something to watch out for, and you didn't.
hasenbein wrote:
The composition is unbalanced (too much weight on the right side).
And on the whole the image has no subject and looks messy and "unkempt".
I can imagine that it looked really interesting when you were there - but one always has to be careful whether it's possible to translate that to a working image.
I know that very well - I can't count anymore how often I thought "awww, that looks really nice", only to see at home on the monitor that the image doesn't work at all and is just messy or unbalanced or just plain conveys nothing.
hasenbein wrote:
Hello again, I have done some research on the net regarding that "lossless RAW processing" thing.
The image (and many of Mark's other images) is really great. There is no doubt.
His theories regarding optimal processing are very much to be doubted, though.
One question only: If his allegedly new or optimal way of processing a RAW file is so good and if it is "lossless" as opposed to all the other "lossy" ways - why is he apparently the ONLY one who has discovered this, and NO ONE else talks or writes about it?
I find that fishy, sorry.
Well I like how the image looks. Sorry I'm not as perfect as you and you see the faults. I've noticed lately you don't have many nice things to say. It must be exhausting to wake up and fault everyone you come across. Maybe it's just you or your culture. No wonder others and myself post less and less here. You won't mind if I block you dude okay?
I would rather see it as a chance and get better than to be offended. But obviously some people don't want that, they primarily want a warm fuzzy feeling in the tummy and to be told how awesome they are.
Just have some older samples but for me when I read this 3D pop question to me it's more about the light the composition and what feeling the viewer is left with. Pure definitions of this mean nothing to be honest. It's more about an artistic feeling or view that we see. I have to dig very deep to get to my Leica images but here I believe are mostly medium format digital. These are all on workshops that I put on with other attendees.
Lost some EXIF data with a few and even a Leica M8 shot there when it was not sitting in Germany for 6 months getting fixed. Why I pretty much got out of Leica at the time. Today reliability must be better but back than seriously I had 2 M8s sitting in Germany for repairs that took 6 months. Leica being a ambassador as we call it today they lent me 2 M8 to get by
Regardless but when viewing you can see the depth of the images , maybe the wrong wording here but hope you get my drift
hasenbein wrote:
I would rather see it as a chance and get better than to be offended. But obviously some people don't want that, they primarily want a warm fuzzy feeling in the tummy and to be told how awesome they are.
PAM?
No that's not true. They just don't want to constantly hear it from you.
Guess you can look at it this way, we record images in 2 dimension and what you are trying to do is try to get it to 3 dimensional view. Light is maybe the most important, than composition to draw you into the images and the perceived depth to it. Than of course subject will matter as well. But I think or I believe you have to have all those elements to achieve that. Now lens can also help with the sharp to out of sharp or bokeh as well. Lots of things are needed to create it and it's not just one things but a multitude of elements.That would be my definition if I was asked.
This image is close. Has nice composition and favorable subject but it lacks the nice light that creates nice shadows and highlights . Still a nice shot but it IMHO is not 3D. You need the light here
