The thing about visual perception is, different people have very experiences. It's like arguing about which football team is best. Why argue? Everybody knows it's Arsenal.
I have not read the whole thread to see if someone else already said the obvious:
Unless the "3D POP" is defined by a set of parameters that are measurable, then any kind of consensus on the issue should not be expected.
jcolwell wrote:
The thing about visual perception is, different people have very experiences. It's like arguing about which football team is best. Why argue? Everybody knows it's Arsenal.
RustyBug wrote:
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
Has the "this lens has 3D pop"-crowd provided an apples to apples comparison (same subject, composition, light, camera, focal length, and aperture, only difference is Lens A vs Lens B, one with 3D pop, and one without) in this thread? If so, can someone share a link?
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but one doesn't have to take pictures to produce a three-dimensional look. There are paintings that create this illusion. Here is an instructive short video:
?feature=shared
Since no lens is involved (and no magic brush) I logically conclude that creating the illusion of three-dimentionality is a matter of technique. The difference being that the painter is free to create an illusion the way they like, while the photographer should have the skills of recognizing an opportunity for the illusion in an existing environment. In either way, the success is more likely when the creator of the illusion is technically skilled (knows the theory and the technique). I doubt the blur plays an important role. Lens distortion, e.g. a strong barrel distortion may help in some cases, but cannot be used all the time.
Ultimately, I am in the camp "it is not the lens, it is the person behind the camera who can take (and process) a 3D looking photo."
theHUN wrote:
Has the "this lens has 3D pop"-crowd provided an apples to apples comparison (same subject, composition, light, camera, focal length, and aperture, only difference is Lens A vs Lens B, one with 3D pop, and one without) in this thread? If so, can someone share a link?
We did that over a decade ago (2009+) ... but, many of those images are no longer available in the archives.
I mention this one, specifically ... because the shootout I did back in 2009-ish was the C/Y, Oly and Nikon 28's. I no longer have those lenses for comps, but I'm pretty sure that this new 28/2 APO from Voigtlander looks to have a vibe to it. Looking forward to seeing it hit the market, and then how it compares to other 28's in this regard.
This is one of the most interesting threads on this forum, I've scanned through my photos and found very few that seem to have that 'pop'. I found one that was taken at the same time as a number of similar photos that don't seem to show the same effect as this one below shot with a 50mm f1.2
The top one has more ‘pop’ in my eyes. The subject has a higher contrast than the background, while the ground that is in the same focal plane as the girls has a neutral color (grey), so it does not distract from the subject.
I think that is what contributes to the ‘pop’; A higher contrast subject (compared to the background), a narrow depth-of-focus, and a neutral color for non-subject, in-focus areas. In your 2nd photo, the water that is in-focus has a similar contrast to the boat so the ‘pop’ is less pronounced. At least to me.
In my photo the deep red of the car has more contrast than the surroundings and also has a neutral in-focus area (road) near the subject, so it seems to stand out more.
Yes, the subject is well isolated from the dark background. The shadows are in the right places. If you paint, you can paint these pictures and get the same visual effect - no lens involved. This is all about a professional use of light and composition.
ruthenium wrote:
Yes, the subject is well isolated from the dark background. The shadows are in the right places. If you paint, you can paint these pictures and get the same visual effect - no lens involved. This is all about a professional use of light and composition.
Does that mean you are of the opinion that all lenses of similar focal length / aperture (with exact same lighting) would have rendered it the exact same? As it turns out it is a 100mm lens ... not one of the four I previously mentioned. Do you think all five would look the same?
RustyBug wrote:
Does that mean you are of the opinion that all lenses of similar focal length / aperture (with exact same lighting) would have rendered it the exact same?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yur use of a straw man argument is noted.
Yes, a straw man argument is one of the variant forms of faulty logic ... that's kinda the point, that folks who continue to wholesale dismiss any contribution from the optic are often applying their own form of faulty logic as the rationale for the dismissal.
Kind of a "fight fire, with fire" thing, of sorts. Here's the broader context of logical fallacies for consideration.
Those who present the fact that painting / drawing, etc. can be done without a lens (to produce a Trompe Loeil effect) ... thereby inferring the lens does not contribute ... it is an errant / logical fallacy, that they are presenting for their argument. I called out faulty logic for such, previously ... but, it wasn't well received (kettle / black), so a bit of a reversal ... goose / gander. We digress, and are obviously not going to agree on this. My discussion has been rooted in developing an understanding of physiological cues, transition rates of change and other aspect of optical influence ... it gets met with a variety of faulty logic, incessantly from ardent dissenters.
Which, btw ... no takers regarding the influence of field curvature on transitions, and the impact on the physiological cues it might afford differently. Hmmm, imagine that. Instead, the response is the faulty logic of Trompe Loeil can be produced with non-photographic methods. Big Deal ... the discussion is (supposed to be) about the influence of optics on the effect. My salient point has been that varying optics do have varying degrees of contributory influence, while others are ardently saying / suggesting / inferring there is no influence at all, rather than even try to consider what / why / how / how much influence can be attributed to the optics associated with lens design decisions.
Sadly, I can't call up folks like Mandler and Karbe (even with video presented, etc.) or other master optical designers to explain it to folks better. But, I am absolutely certain that all lenses are NOT created equal in this regard.
Faulty Logic ... P's & Q's, for those who are so inclined.
RustyBug wrote:
Does that mean you are of the opinion that all lenses of similar focal length / aperture (with exact same lighting) would have rendered it the exact same? As it turns out it is a 100mm lens ... not one of the four I previously mentioned. Do you think all five would look the same?
It makes sense to consider the art of painting before lenses because painters explored the techniques of creating the illusion of three-dimentionality on a plane long before photographers. Since your two examples above are "still life" (nature morte), consider the paintings of the American painter Emil Carlsen, https://www.wikiart.org/en/emil-carlsen
Aren't many of these powerful examples of 3D pop? My point is that there is an existing knowledge of the principles and techniques of creating 3D illusions. These apply in photography the same as they apply in painting or computer graphics.
Having said the above, I don't think there are hard rules, and there is much creative freedom. For example, the background can be dark or light; it can be out of focus or in focus. Thus, the choice of a lens (that should at the very minimum allow the intended framing) and setting the aperture to achieve a certain DoF depend on the artistic intent of the photographer. How do you want to isolate and emphasize the subject? More important, I think should be the consideration of light that falls on the scene.
I don't mean to lecture on the subject. I simply state my belief that a photographer who can (on purpose rather than by chance) produce the illusion of three-dimentional space in an image is most likely familiar with the principles and techniques of painting, and may not necessarily use some unique lens. The "know-how" takes priority, and it would be misleading to "put the cart before the horse" by suggesting that without much knowledge and given the right tools (lenses) one can reasonably confidently produce the "3D pop."
ruthenium wrote:
It makes sense to consider the art of painting before lenses because painters explored the techniques of creating the illusion of three-dimentionality on a plane long before photographers. Since your two examples above are "still life" (nature morte), consider the paintings of the American painter Emil Carlsen, https://www.wikiart.org/en/emil-carlsen
Aren't many of these powerful examples of 3D pop? My point is that there is an existing knowledge of the principles and techniques of creating 3D illusions. These apply in photography the same as they apply in painting or computer graphics.
Having said the above, I don't think there are hard rules, and there is much creative freedom. For example, the background can be dark or light; it can be out of focus or in focus. Thus, the choice of a lens (that should at the very minimum allow the intended framing) and setting the aperture to achieve a certain DoF depend on the artistic intent of the photographer. How do you want to isolate and emphasize the subject? More important, I think should be the consideration of light that falls on the scene.
I don't mean to lecture on the subject. I simply state my belief that a photographer who can (on purpose rather than by chance) produce the illusion of three-dimentional space in an image is most likely familiar with the principles and techniques of painting, and may not necessarily use some unique lens. The "know-how" takes priority, and it would be misleading to "put the cart before the horse" by suggesting that without much knowledge and given the right tools (lenses) one can reasonably confidently produce the "3D pop." ...Show more →
I agree with your points, which mirror things I’ve been saying since much earlier in this thread.
I also believe that there is no singular approach to producing a three-dimensional sense in two-dimensional media, be that photography, painting, or (as you added) computer-generated imagery. Instead there is a whole “bag of tricks” that can be applied in various ways by skillful visual artists — use of strong perspective lines (or other ways of suggesting them), lighting, composition, posiing (in the case of living subjects), color relationships, atmospheric recession, separation between foreground/background/subject, and more.
