RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.69 #6 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
JD07 wrote:
I'm definitely on the team which says that whether a photo conveys a sense of three dimensionality is primarily due to things such as light and composition and colour/contrast, not the lens. It is all about the image having things in it which prompt the brain to "see" where items in the scene are relative to other items (whether it is one person in front of another or a person's nose in front of their ear, or whatever).
To the exent the lens is relevant, I think shallow depth of field can sometimes be useful, as the blurring of objects at different distances from the camera can provide prompts to interpret where things are relative to other things in the scene. To be clear though, I am not saying that a shallow depth of field is necessary to create 3D "pop". And in fact, I think it can be counter productive at times, eg a sharp lens with a subject in focus and a shallow depth of field can, at least if the background is the "right" (wrong!) distance away and especially if the light on the background is also different from the light on the subject, can (I believe) make it look as though the subject is something like a sticker stuck on in front of an image of the background (almost the opposite of "3D pop"!)
Another lens factor which I think possibly might be relevant is that (it seems to me) lenses which are perceived as less "clinical" tend to have more abberations, and I speculate that some types of abberations, perhaps thinks like LoCA and halation, tend to give objects slightly less well defined edges, and that may help prompt our brains to "see" an object as extending away or towards us, encouraging us to see a 3D object and helping to avoid the sticker look. So, I do wonder if you need to be a touch more careful / thoughtful with other factors such as lighting and composition if using some of the newer lenses which are very sharp and well corrected.
I'm unsure if what I have said about the potential contributions of a lens to 3D pop is correct, but that is how it seems to me. However, I think any contribution from the lens is relatively minor. As I have said, I think 3D pop is primarily determined by other factors, not the lens.
My 2 cents....Show more →
I think your .02 is worth at least a nickel. 
Seriously, your perspective is pretty good, imo. You are NOT being dismissive of the differences that the optics bring to the table. Rather, you are bringing a willingness to understand the mechanisms of contribution that the lens brings to the table.
Imo, that's all you can ask for from folks. As to the "sticker" look ... yup, not my preference, either. Folks have different ideas about what the concept of 3D could / would / should be in the 2D realm, and for some folks they really dig on the "sticker" vibe as being 3D-ish. For me, when it has that "cutout" look to it ... it can look like someone took a cardboard cutout and stood it in the middle of the scene. Impressive separation from the BG, for some ... but, still lacking the modeling of the subject and the natural way the eye / brain processes the transitions.
Again, KUDO's to you for giving credence to the influence the optic has on its contribution. 
Your point about "contrast" is very salient. The term contrast meaning the degree of difference ... can be applied to a wide variety of things. The contrast levels of the lighting, the contrast between colors, shape / form / etc. Your point about aberrations is (within the context of the lens) is another aspect of rate of change / contrast from well corrected to aberration. This, along with the contrast (i.e. difference / rate of difference) in focus > oof ... yeah, all these different pieces of the changes in contrast combine for the physiological response of the eye / brain to process.
No single one element of this makes for the completeness of the visual cues for physiological response. The lens in / of itself cannot make the entirety of the draw. However, to dismiss the lens as having no impact on this, is equally errant. That would be akin to saying qualities of the lighting (think specular vs. diffuse) has no impact on it. Or, to say that one's chosen perspective has no impact on it. They all work in concert with each other. Get them all lined up really well, and it presents more strongly. Have some qualities present one way and some others being counteractive in nature, and it presents differently. Even, within the context of a given lens, it's "sweet spot" vs. its "weak spot" can yield a difference in contribution.
Again, I applaud you  for giving the modicum of credence that you have ... even, if you believe the contribution to be of less significance than other attributes. You still have presented an honest / objective / critical endeavor to understand the influence of contribution the optic brings to the table.
To that point, I offer "much respect" (vs. incessant gross dismissal by some).
|
