MARKFER wrote:
Great photo and excellent sharpness and 3d quality. Shadows are there and contribute, they are subtle, but she is looking into the light.
I like the image also. But on my screen (Macbook Pro 16), I am not seeing a halo of shadows on the woman. Can somebody who sees them point them out to me by specifying what and where they are or perhaps what I should be looking for?
Mar 15, 2023 at 04:49 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
chiron wrote:
I like the image also. But on my screen (Macbook Pro 16), I am not seeing a halo of shadows on the woman. Can somebody who sees them point them out to me by specifying what and where they are or perhaps what I should be looking for?
I like the shot too, but can see the halos around the edge of her coat and especially around the hood. The halos are purplish on my screen and a little jagged if you magnify. Note I am not dissing the image. I like it and in such harsh light it is hard to do better, but I can see the what I think of as an aberrations that isn't totally control by post-processing.
PS - note I am not talking about the photo directly above but the one on the previous page.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I like the shot too, but can see the halos around the edge of her coat and especially around the hood. The halos are purplish on my screen and a little jagged if you magnify. Note I am not dissing the image. I like it and in such harsh light it is hard to do better, but I can see the what I think of as an aberrations that isn't totally control by post-processing.
PS - note I am not talking about the photo directly above but the one on the previous page.
Thanks, Steve, for the good help.
Just to be sure, we are talking about the image of the redhead looking at the ocean.
I see the edging on top of her hood, but to me it appears as a shadowed part of her hood and not a "shadow" or halo--it doesn't extend down the side of her hood or onto her jacket. There are two other spots where I see something if I look carefully: at her back, between the strap of her bag and her jacket, I see a faint halo of the strap; and, under her hands, along the lower edge of her gloves, I see a bit of purple edging or halo. That is all I can see, and I have my glasses on.
I do like the image and whatever may be there by way of artifacts doesn't draw my eye or interfere with my enjoyment of the image.
Mar 15, 2023 at 05:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Just to be sure, we are talking about the image of the redhead looking at the ocean.
I see the edging on top of her hood, but to me it appears as a shadowed part of her hood and not a "shadow" or halo--it doesn't extend down the side of her hood or onto her jacket. There are two other spots where I see something if I look carefully: at her back, between the strap of her bag and her jacket, I see a faint halo of the strap; and, under her hands, along the lower edge of her gloves, I see a bit of purple edging or halo. That is all I can see, and I have my glasses on.
I do like the image and whatever may be there by way of artifacts doesn't draw my eye or interfere with my enjoyment of the image.
chiron wrote:
I like the shot too, but can see the halos around the edge of her coat and especially around the hood. The halos are purplish on my screen and a little jagged if you magnify. Note I am not dissing the image. I like it and in such harsh light it is hard to do better, but I can see the what I think of as an aberrations that isn't totally control by post-processing.
PS - note I am not talking about the photo directly above but the one on the previous page.
I can see halo legs up. It is much more prominent on my Eve Spectrum 4K than on Macbook Pro 14 M1 Max 2021. Both factory-calibrated.
Can see it clearly on Spectrum right away but on Macbook with their latest screen technology I have to carefully look for it.
lensfan wrote:
I can see halo legs up. It is much more prominent on my Eve Spectrum 4K than on Macbook Pro 14 M1 Max 2021. Both factory-calibrated.
Can see it clearly on Spectrum right away but on Macbook with their latest screen technology I have to carefully look for it.three
Yes, if I hold the Macbook screen about three inches from my eyes I can see faint halos along the coat, etc. They don't appear to me when the Macbook is on my lap at normal viewing distance. They don't affect my enjoyment of the image. Also, I like shapely redheads in trim jackets and tight jeans. (One of the reasons I like Titian, though he often dispenses with the jacket and the jeans.) But I also like the composition, mood, and emotional tone and meaning of the photograph.
+1 the artifacts are there. Guessing they are a sharpening or clarity artifact, since they seem most prominent between the extreme tonal values. Lower, where the tonal values between the legs / ground are not as extreme, they don't appear evident in the same regard the do up top.
Not a significant detractor, by any means. But, if you do go to do something with it ... you might need to adjust your sharpening or a kiss, depending on size / output, etc. Could just be that your sharpening is setup for a larger size than what you've posted here (sans re-adjustment for the smaller output).
Again, no biggie ... but, it's there.
Imo, the point for mentioning it ... is that in the quest for that maximal 3D-ishness ... achieving that "cutting edge" acuity is part of the equation, and it's not a far jump from the razor's edge to go just a bit more into artifacts. Just an awareness thing ... not a criticsm.
After doing more experiments with different lenses, I think the following theory is the true one:
All of 3d pop is contrast preservation, that's what your eye uses to estimate depth. Too many glass elements, especially with low quality coatings, will always introduce some amount of veiling glare, perceptible as a slight gray/white color cast, that quickly reaches a point where very fine shadow gradients - you could call them micro-contrasts - are lightened into oblivion so that they cease to exist, the shadow appears to cut off sooner, and you lose these important depth cues.
Hence pictures from these massive zoom and prime lenses look flat, while the old (or new but cheap) primes with fewer elements tend to have pop. Here are some examples:
Sigma 105mm Art (left) vs Yongnuo 85mm (right), cropped to same FOV. Notice how much more depth there is in the right picture.
I don't know the secret sauce for making 3D images, let alone willing them into existence. But I took this with my newly acquired Rokinon 135/1.8 AF @ f1.8 and the bee seems popping to me.
saaketham wrote:
"Which lens has the most 4D pop?"
Contax 35/1.4 and 100/2. They had 3D pop, 30-40 years before anybody thought to ask about it. Integrating over the Time dimension, that is a lot of pop…or is it soda?
After looking through my portfolio of images from over 15 years with many dozens of different lenses, I'd say the 50mm GM 1.2 can produce some of the strongest 3D pop from a single image, based on my experience. For even stronger 3D pop, I have also dabbled with some bokeh panoramas, but I guess that would be cheating on this thread
a kiss, depending on size / output, etc. Could just be that your sharpening is setup for a larger size than what you've posted here (sans re-adjustment for the smaller output).
)