I have to admit, my eyes are unable to distinguish what some people describe and I think it's imaginary; though, I do see images that clearly look 3D-ish. Here are 3 pictures of the same tulips . . . different years, perhaps and certainly different days, so not apples to apples, but whatever.
First, the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8:
Then, the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8:
And finally, the Rokinon 135/2:
I don't necessarily think any of these would qualify, but I think the Batis capture comes closest to how I'd see 3D pop. I can't explain it, though (e.g., sort of I know it when I see it like some of Olaf's car image above or
smpetty's white horse/person image) The Rokinon 135 here has the most shallow DoF, obviously, but it looks like shallow depth of field and shallow depth of field is it.
I shoot a lot of stereo pairs. I have looked at all the images, including the archived ones, Not one of them appears to me to have any special characteristic outside of normal differential focus and/or perspective.
I still think the Zeiss Distagon 35 f/2 for CaNikon is the cream of the crop for 3D pop. It actually messes with my head a little bit, it's hard to look at shots with it and not see it as a 3D image.
jwhatts wrote:
I still think the Zeiss Distagon 35 f/2 for CaNikon is the cream of the crop for 3D pop. It actually messes with my head a little bit, it's hard to look at shots with it and not see it as a 3D image.
Olaf G wrote:
Yes, these are multi-row-panoramas. Unfortunately I don't know any wide angle lens where the entrance pupil is large enough to create a similar look with a single exposure...
Not that these are close to the effect of the Brenizer method/multi-row panos, but they do have what I would consider some of that pop for being a fairly wide angle lens.
Want 3D pop? Use a side or backlit subject and Photoshop's "select subject." Make a layer, duplicate it, reverse it, and play around. You'll have all the 3D pop you want even with the bottom of a Coke bottle as a lens.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Not that these are close to the effect of the Brenizer method/multi-row panos, but they do have what I would consider some of that pop for being a fairly wide angle lens.
doc4x5 wrote:
Want 3D pop? Use a side or backlit subject and Photoshop's "select subject." Make a layer, duplicate it, reverse it, and play around. You'll have all the 3D pop you want even with the bottom of a Coke bottle as a lens.
What would you do with the background? Lower contrast/clarity?
terencepatrick wrote:
Among 35mm-format lenses I've used, the Canon 200mm 1.8 was impressive.
I too liked the Canon 200 (bit the f2 IS version) for pop. Only thing is, it’s a fast telephoto lens so it isn’t difficult to do. It’s much more impressive when a wide angle lens creates that look.
---------------------------------------------
smpetty wrote:
These are great examples of 3D “pop”
Thank you, @smpetty.
It’s the only reason the Sigma 20 is still around since I’ve had the GM 24 for a while. Just has a different look.
smpetty wrote:
@AGeoJO@ had posted about creating a PS brush that he used for changing the background...
Hi Scott, yes but in LR. Three factors control the smoothness of an image or background for that matter; contrast, clarity and sharpness. In my experience, contrast plays the most significant role, If you lower just the contrast in the background only, you will notice the difference right away. Clarity and sharpness play a lesser role. All this based on my experience but I realize that opinions may vary here.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
For me, it varies depending on what focal length range and look we are talking about.
On the wide end, the Sigma 20 Art does a really good job of it. For normal-ish FL, the Voigt 40/1.2 is the one that yields the most for me. Lastly, the Sigma 105 Art on the longer end also does a pretty goofy d job of creating that look in certain scenarios.
More often that not, the lens is only a part of the equation. I think it is equal parts lighting and post processing as well.
I think that 3D “pop” is provided by any lens which allows for subject and background separation, often with a rich color palette and/or areas of strong contrast. This effect is easier for me to appreciate in wide angle environmental images. But I have images from my Sony 100-400 that meet these criteria:
Sony 100-400 GM
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2ftiWhr]Apr 26, 2019 at 10:34 PM
AGeoJO wrote:
smpetty wrote:
@AGeoJO@ had posted about creating a PS brush that he used for changing the background...
Hi Scott, yes but in LR. Three factors control the smoothness of an image or background for that matter; contrast, clarity and sharpness. In my experience, contrast plays the most significant role, If you lower just the contrast in the background only, you will notice the difference right away. Clarity and sharpness play a lesser role. All this based on my experience but I realize that opinions may vary here.
That makes sense. The “bokeh king”, the Sony 85 GM with well-documented pop, excels at reduced background contrast. Excellent bokeh usually means soft, low contrast bokeh.
Bushwacker wrote:
I think most modern lenses manufactured lately... are getting less of this effect.
Really? I see it more all the time. It used to be less common for me, and most often came from Zeiss lenses, but I'm getting the effect from some of the newer lenses from Sony, Canon, Sigma, Voigtlander, etc.
Also, for me, it has little to do with separation from the BG, but rather the sharpness and contrast of the in-focus bits. In the above pic, the tires and the ground (cobbles, pavers, drainage grate) within the plane of focus exhibit more of a sense of depth than seat and handlebars in front of the OOF BG, IMO.
edit: sorry about the odd 'highlighter' but the quote function doesn't seem to be working for me.
Apr 26, 2019 at 10:34 PM