RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.72 #13 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
ruthenium wrote:
Dissent is welcome. Listening to different opinions helps to get a deeper appreciation and understanding. I am new to this discussion; thus, I might be repeating things that have been said before. I see a problem with the opening question "which lens has the most 3D POP?" This sounds like the classical "have you stopped beating your wife?" The question is loaded with the underlying idea that the "3D POP" is an attribute of a lens. Seriously responding to this question means accepting the idea that one needs one of the lenses that "has the most 3D POP" to obtain images that create a 3D illusion. This idea is unquestionably wrong. Creating the 3D illusion requires the person behind the camera to have the ability to pre-visualize the image, compose it in camera, and either judiciously use the natural light or deliberately add light. Meaning that this is a creative process where the lens is a tool that can contribute to the illusion but doesn't have to. Let me ask this question. Can an experienced and knowledgeable photographer produce an impressive image that looks three-dimentional while using one of the so-called "clinical" (lacking "character") lenses? My belief is yes, that is achieving this artistic illusion does not require a special lens. That is, the technique and knowledge and the vision trump the lens "character."
By no means I suggest that the glass in front of the sensor does not impact the image - naturally it does and the effect can be dramatic and it can be used. But, so is post-processing. Images can be hugely impacted by skilled processing.
The bottom line, we shouldn't be responding to the original question "which lens has the most 3D POP?" The right question might be, for example "what are the photographic techniques that help create the illusion of three-dimentionality in an image?" ...Show more →
My take on the "rewrite" of the OP question is how do different lenses contribute to the effect. That isn't to suggest that lighting / modeling / processing / etc. aren't possible contributors. They are. But, it does mean to suggest that you can't rule out the lens as a contributor and all lenses are not created equal in this regard.
I can make something sweet by adding cane sugar. I can make something sweet by adding carrots. Just because I can make something sweet without adding cane sugar, doesn't mean that cane sugar doesn't contribute sweetness, differently than molasses.
I was thinking about different lenses ... I'd be curious to compare the Hasselblad 90/3.2 vs. the revised design 90/2.5, to compare the influence / contribution. One thing that I noticed when comparing (the 2009 thread) the repeat lenses that folks were often presenting is that they had a relationship of a larger exit pupil compared to the entrance pupil. My own use of lenses roughly saw this relationship hold, as well. When I referenced the Oly lenses, they often had smallish exit elements (and thus pupils).
Without getting into the math of the optical projection ... it is reasonable to understand that the angles / distance of the projection from a rear element that is large is different from that of one that is small. Because of this, the rate of transition / change between these lenses will be different. In that regard, the lens that has a faster rate of change, will present the physiological (falloff) cues more aggressively than the slower rate of change lens.
Short / fat vs. long / narrow lens designs (way more to the optical design than just this) ... and the cadre of aberration issues ... along with their placement in the frame (Zone A / B / C) will render the transitions of physiological cues differently. I compared numerous Zeiss lenses datasheets to look for trends in these kinds of things. While it is true that the effect can be achieved from a variety of contributing factors, the lens optical projection is a piece of the puzzle. Different lenses contribute differently.
The comment about a need to add lighting ... lighting certainly is part of modeling. The physiological cue of shadows (rate of change in illumination) is part of how the human brain interprets dimensionality. There are other attributes for rate of change the brain keys in on, too. But, even where I shot (crowd with man in red shirt) under some of the flattest lighting possible (and in uncontrolled environment), there are other physiological, rate of change cues that are provided by the optical projection. That particular image ... had it been shot with something like the Oly 100/2 or EF 100/2 (same lighting) would appear much flatter. Had it been shot with my Series 1 100-400, I would have certainly expected even less (referencing back to the earlier point that when the Series 1 was shot in very acute / specular lighting, it would "come alive").
I don't mean to belabor the point (yet, I have), I just cannot escape the fact that different optical designs, deliver different rates of transitions, in different Zones of the image. Some are slower, some are faster with how they render the physiological cues (focus plane falloff, micro-contrast falloff, aberration increase, field curvature, etc.). Working in concert with other factors, different lenses do offer different amounts of contribution to the physiological cues for the rendering effect. Certainly, combining this with other aspects (such as lighting) can amplify / retard the combination. Kinda like using sugar, carrots and molasses ... rather than just sugar and molasses.
The conversation has always been a contentious one ... certainly, not only because of definitions of "what is", but also because of individual human variation. Not everyone has the same refinement in their sensory acuity, so it also comes with the territory. Folks who are more attuned, will "see" more than those who are less so. Not unlike how some folks can readily see a color cast, while others are oblivious to it. My goals for contributing to the conversation have not been to sway the ardent dissenters. Rather, to provide an understanding of the fact that different lens designs contribute differently. The most direct participants of the conversation may or may not take it into consideration. Lurkers and watchers ... also, may or may not take it into consideration. But, having been part of this conversation on / off for over a decade I've come to know that it is a very divided camp of the naysayers vs. the yeahsayers. This is nothing new to me. So, the best I can hope for is that for those who are interested (vs. the ardent naysayers), I've contributed something useful for them (many of which are lurkers, staying out of the fray).
Uncontrolled, soft light with an old Zeiss zoom. Shame I didn't have my Series 1 to shoot it for comp, back then ... and then compare it to the 100/2 (Oly vs. EF vs. C/Y). 
|
