A74me wrote:
No lens has 3d pop its all about the light and framing.
So, if the lighting and framing were the exact same ... then ALL lenses would have the EXACT SAME amount of 3D-ish rendering transitions, if this ^ statement is true.
Are you suggesting that NO lens contributes ANYTHING to the rendering in this regard for physiological, rate of transition, cues ... regardless of the optical design differences in the lenses?
Would you suggest that a Rokkor 40/2 and a Voigt 40/1.2 (shot at f/2) would have the same rate of transition, and would look identical (in terms of 3D-ish physiological, rate of transition cues), because it is ALL about the light and framing (i.e. none about the lens)?
Nikon 105/2.5 AIS
Oly OM 100/2
Zeiss 100/2
Canon 100/2
Exact Same
I think not.
I'm not sure that the blanket statements (such as the one from this OP), serve well to advance an understanding of the optical influence. To say that "no lens" has any influence on this ... well, if folks are truly in that camp, that the optics don't / won't / can't contribute any influence in this regard ... it begs certain other questions
A) Strong field curvature that recedes toward the BG
B) Neutral / flat field curvature
C) Strong field curvature that advances toward the FG
Will the physiological cues be the exact same from all three lenses ... even with the exact same lighting / framing?
Same three lens variations, but some that are well corrected / APO vs. some that are strong SA presenters. Will all six lenses present identical physiological cues?
Same three lenses, that are well corrected to mid-frame, then have the dip, or aberrations that get stronger in the field. Will all these lens variants render the physiological cues the same?
If folks are unwilling to consider the influence of the optic ... the conversation will never advance anyone's understanding, through bold dismissal / refuting of optical considerations. Those who are ardent to dissent will remain to do so. Those who desire to advance their understanding of optics and the influence on the physiological response cues, I'd recommend a study of lens design (Leica vs. Zeiss is classic) choices, but also a study of the physiological response cues associated with Trompe Loeil, particularly as it pertains to "fooling the eye" in a 2D medium > 3D-ish physiological response. The intersection of understanding how the human physiological response functions and lens design efforts to harness that understanding are where the optimized effect will be realized.
The study of Trompe Loeil will indeed include matters other than lens design. I've never dismissed these other factors. But, I also recognize that optical design is a contributing factor, too. I won't blanket dismiss the optic contribution anymore than I'll blanket dismiss the other contributing factors.
It would indeed be a brave person to say that the lens makes no contribution to “pop.” The point, as demonstrated I think by the 70 pages of this discussion, is that there is no satisfactory, commonly held view, of which lenses show unequivocally lots of pop. Nor even whether shots that are meant to demonstrate actual pop actually show it. I’m not sure where it gets us.
There is no one ingredient that makes a great stew, but each ingredient can be important in a recipe for a great stew. That's what I think.....not that it matters.
Robin Smith wrote:
It would indeed be a brave person to say that the lens makes no contribution to “pop.”
In fact, the “no contribution” point is a straw man argument. I don’t think that anyone is saying that all lenses perform identically.
What we are saying, consistently and repeatedly, is that the production of a sense of depth in two-dimensional visual media comes from other things that are well-understood and obvious, that there is no particular lens that produces so-called “3D POP,” and that throw who wish to produce the effect (or range of effects) should focus on understand the visual elements that create the effect, not on buying some particular lens.
The point, as demonstrated I think by the 70 pages of this discussion, is that there is no satisfactory, commonly held view, of which lenses show unequivocally lots of pop. Nor even whether shots that are meant to demonstrate actual pop actually show it. I’m not sure where it gets us.
Indeed.
- - -
tsdevine wrote:
There is no one ingredient that makes a great stew, but each ingredient can be important in a recipe for a great stew. That's what I think.....not that it matters.
To expand on your stew analogy, to many of us this notion that some mystical perfect lens is the thing that makes the “3D POP” effect is sort of like imagining that the World’s Best Stew is the result of using the Best STew brand of salt, while ignoring the contribution of all of the other ingredients and the chef’s skill in assembling and preparing them. (It also seems to ignore the reality that there is no one best stew, but I digress… ;-) )
I think you get the gist of my point. What people call 3D pop....some people call depth, or dimensionality, is most likely the result of multiple things contributing to the effect that we believe we see. There doesn't have to be one cause that is the only thing that contributes to the end result. You can't use rancid meat and fresh spices and expect a great stew. But you might have a great strew that is using fresh spices and choice meat....or kobe beef with dried spices. There maybe some lenses that can contribute a bit more with the right other ingredients, but it alone can create it on it's own. Maybe a certain lens will help the effect when conditions are favorable, while maybe another lens won't contribute as much....but if other aspects are absolutely perfect, you can still see the effect.
In other words, there is no simple answer to this, but there seldom is.
gdanmitchell wrote:
In fact, the “no contribution” point is a straw man argument. I don’t think that anyone is saying that all lenses perform identically.
What we are saying, consistently and repeatedly, is that the production of a sense of depth in two-dimensional visual media comes from other things that are well-understood and obvious, that there is no particular lens that produces so-called “3D POP,” and that throw who wish to produce the effect (or range of effects) should focus on understand the visual elements that create the effect, not on buying some particular lens.
Indeed.
- - -
To expand on your stew analogy, to many of us this notion that some mystical perfect lens is the thing that makes the “3D POP” effect is sort of like imagining that the World’s Best Stew is the result of using the Best STew brand of salt, while ignoring the contribution of all of the other ingredients and the chef’s skill in assembling and preparing them. (It also seems to ignore the reality that there is no one best stew, but I digress… ;-) ) ...Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
I think you get the gist of my point. What people call 3D pop....some people call depth, or dimensionality, is most likely the result of multiple things contributing to the effect that we believe we see.
In my mind I like to separate those two out. 3D pop to me is when it looks like the subject pops out from the background as if it is a backdrop. This is easily achieved by using a flash. This can also occur with the correct natural lighting. Dimensionality is when looking at the photo am I able to judge distance accurately between all elements. It is more than that because it should have a depth similar to what I would see with my vision. With 3D pop it comes down to the subject appearing to be on a different plane than the background, but not other elements. It is more binary: foreground and background are separate but not much between.
I think this is a combination of factors with the most important being light. I do think that certain defects or technical limitations of lenses can contribute. For example, I find barrel distortion helps with depth especially of human faces. I think curvature can contribute as well. Then there are other factors such as focus/contrast falloff: fast or gradual.
In the end it's the sum of all parts and how they interact and not a single property. This is true of great lenses as well. It's not being excellent in a single area, but the sum of the parts and how they come together.
Desmolicious wrote:
Holga’s secret sauce is the lens is only sharp in the middle, then rapidly blurs out going away from center.
So it is the lens.
This is how human vision works. We an only focus on a region and then the rest is out of focus. If you have a shelf full of boxes and are searching for a particular box you can't see them all at once. You focus on an area and outside that area it's blurred.
cbass wrote:
This is how human vision works. We an only focus on a region and then the rest is out of focus. If you have a shelf full of boxes and are searching for a particular box you can't see them all at once. You focus on an area and outside that area it's blurred.
Above all, human vision is characterized by the fact that it occurs with two eyes, which ensures that we see in three dimensions. This has absolutely nothing to do with blurred edges. A stereo photograph, for example, appears more three-dimensional the greater the depth of field and, in general, the sharper the entire image field.
