Nifty Fifty wrote:
You're not really serious, are you?
I think one should rather draw parallels to a placebo. ;-)
No I am serious. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot we don't know. That is my point, and yes, a placebo type effect is one of those possibilities. By the way, it would be totally possible to study these issues, but personally I don't think any of it is important enough to actually spend time and resources on studying it. There are people who do study similar issues, however, and if somebody was really interested they could dig into that literature. As I say, however, it just doesn't seem important enough to me to bother doing that.
ruthenium wrote:
It is possible that the sense of perspective can be enhanced by cropping the images from the top by about 1/2 of the gap between the top and the vanishing point(s). That upper 25% of the images is kind of useless and makes the composition slightly unbalanced to my eye.
I don't feel that way at all, I would even say that I have the exact opposite opinion.
here we have a combination of a painting a clinical lens with flat lighting, why does it look 3D ?
Camera Olympus m43. lens 25mm 1.8 prime f 5
Once again, I think this is because there is a well-defined vanishing point at the base of the column. This point is on the line of the horizon. Note the faint shadow cast by the dancer - you can trace this from her feet toward the vanishing point. The perspective is well-defined and we get the sense of space in the image.
I’m mildly encouraged to see the last few pages of this tedious thread starting to shift towards the actual visual and perceptual factors that underly our ability to “see” three-dimensional qualities in two-dimensional media.
ruthenium wrote:
Once again, I think this is because there is a well-defined vanishing point at the base of the column. This point is on the line of the horizon. Note the faint shadow cast by the dancer - you can trace this from her feet toward the vanishing point. The perspective is well-defined and we get the sense of space in the image.
when you look at the bottom portion of the image it shows the effect more than the top half, as you said there is perspective line on the floor and her feet/shadow position that show an oblique perspective. i get the same effect even when using a plainted mottled fabric backdrop as well. i also think that just the subject is sharp and the backdrop is naturally softly painted plays a part.
gdanmitchell wrote:
To be clear, NO ONE is saying that all lenses perform identically, or that choosing one lens or another makes no difference. What we are saying is that anyone looking to produce this elusive “3D POP” effect should do what artists have done for centuries and focus on understanding and using the many well-known elements/techniques of visual art that are used to create the effect. We are pointing to plentiful EVIDENCE of this from the world of visual arts.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m mildly encouraged to see the last few pages of this tedious thread starting to shift towards the actual visual and perceptual factors that underly our ability to “see” three-dimensional qualities in two-dimensional media.
Au contraire mon frère.
On the one hand, you make a tiny bit of space for the fact that lenses can make a difference in the production of said effect. But then the entirety of the rest of your posts in this thread have been to nay say other perspectives that place more focus on the role that the lenses play.
As stated previously, I don't disagree with you. The biggest contributing factor is definitively tied to visual cues/lighting that hold true across artistic mediums.
However, the point that you seem to keep missing is that you are in a thread where the OP's only question is centered around which lenses will contribute most to yielding this effect. If we are to stay on OP's topic, then your being encouraged to see this thread shift away from the discussion on the optical role in this effect only equates to a hijacking.
Yes, we all agree that other factors play the greatest role in the consistent production of this effect. Yes, lenses can have some effect. Yes, this conversation has been unnecessarily tedious. Knowing this, which lenses do it the most?
The OP did not ask whether lenses intrinsically hold the key to all dimensionality in 2D imagery.
I am not certain we are referring to the same effect based on the images you've shared.
Lastly, to answer the inquiry of a few other members since, my answer still remains. Sigma 20/1.4, Voigt 40/1.2 and Sigma 35/1.2. In that order.
^^^
I am unfamiliar with the rule stating that all posts in a thread must stick precisely to the scope of the OP’s question. (Ironically such a rule would logically disallow your own post…)
gdanmitchell wrote:
^^^
I am unfamiliar with the rule stating that all posts in a thread must stick precisely to the scope of the OP’s question. (Ironically such a rule would logically disallow your own post…)
Straw Man Dan strikes again.
I never stated anything about sticking to such a rule or even referencing the existence of one. My point was that you’ve already repetitively made yours regarding the greater role of other factors in creating this effect than the role a lens plays. We’ve all conceded this point and concur with you.
Yet, you continue to not answer the OP’s question in any meaningful way other than to rehash your original point ad nauseam, which has essentially amounted to the generally condescending dismissal of the discussion others are having to answer the OP.
If your last post above is what you got from my post, then I can see that there’s not much left for me to say to you.
I never stated anything about sticking to such a rule or even referencing the existence of one. My point was that you’ve already repetitively made yours regarding the greater role of other factors in creating this effect than the role a lens plays. We’ve all conceded this point and concur with you.
Yet, you continue to not answer the OP’s question in any meaningful way other than to rehash your original point ad nauseam, which has essentially amounted to the generally condescending dismissal of the discussion others are having to answer the OP.
If your last post above is what you got from my post, then I can see that there’s not much left for me to say to you. ...Show more →
That’s gdans signature. In the GFX100rf thread on the Fuji forum Dan posted over 50 times telling members the short comings of the camera and why it was not for them. There definitely is a trend here.
I never stated anything about sticking to such a rule or even referencing the existence of one. My point was that you’ve already repetitively made yours regarding the greater role of other factors in creating this effect than the role a lens plays. We’ve all conceded this point and concur with you.
To quote from the post I replied to: ”However, the point that you seem to keep missing is that you are in a thread where the OP's only question is centered around which lenses will contribute most to yielding this effect. If we are to stay on OP's topic, then your being encouraged to see this thread shift away from the discussion on the optical role in this effect only equates to a hijacking.”
I know what a straw man argument is, and my reply to your words ain’t it.
As to your notion that, at least this time, one must stick religiously to the exact question in the first post in a thread, let’s look at that a bit more closely.
In photography forums it is not unusual for questions to be based on a misconception. After all, people are asking quests because… they don’t understand the thing yet and want to learn
Here the misconceptions — which we’ve been struggling with ever since in this thread — are the notions that:
- There is a singular lens characteristic called “3D POP,” and that…
- Some specific brand/model of “lens has the most 3D POP.”
It is reasonable to assume that our OP is interested in how to achieve this “3D POP,” or dimensionality or whatever you want to call it.
Explaining why (as I and many others in this thread have) that there is no objective answer to the question of ” which lens has the most 3D POP? is directly relevant to the OP’s question, as is the ensuing discussion of the well-understood techniques/qualities that visual artists DO use to produce a 3-dimensional quality in2-dimensional art.
gdanmitchell wrote:
To quote from the post I replied to:
I know what a straw man argument is, and my reply to your words ain’t it.
As to your notion that, at least this time, one must stick religiously to the exact question in the first post in a thread, let’s look at that a bit more closely.
In photography forums it is not unusual for questions to be based on a misconception. After all, people are asking quests because… they don’t understand the thing yet and want to learn
Here the misconceptions — which we’ve been struggling with ever since in this thread — are the notions that:
- There is a singular lens characteristic called “3D POP,” and that…
- Some specific brand/model of “lens has the most 3D POP.”
It is reasonable to assume that our OP is interested in how to achieve this “3D POP,” or dimensionality or whatever you want to call it.
Explaining why (as I and many others in this thread have) that there is no objective answer to the question of is directly relevant to the OP’s question, as is the ensuing discussion of the well-understood techniques/qualities that visual artists DO use to produce a 3-dimensional quality in2-dimensional art....Show more →
In my little collection, the following consistently offer the most in-camera contrast, saturation, separation, even closed down: Zeiss ZM 25/2.8, Zeiss 24/2 A mount, Zeiss Batis 85/1.8, Voigtlander 65/2 APO Macro, Minolta 80-200 G APO.
Can the use of a diffusion filter such as Glimmerglass increase or decrease some of the effects described in this thread? I am guessing it would mostly decrease pop or 3D pop, but I don't have enough experience to speculate well.
