RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.81 #20 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
ruthenium wrote:
There are books on this subject, e.g., one I just reached near my bed is The Photographer's Eye: composition and design for better digital photos. There the autor, Michael Freeman, states that "Intuitive composition is the only practical approach for the majority of photographs" and gives a quote from Cartier-Bresson: "...any reducing picture to a schema can be done only (because of its very nature) after the photograph has been taken, developed and printed- and then it can be used only for a post-mortem examination of the picture."
Thus, it makes sense to be aware, in general, of certain ideas of photographic composition (and this is a major subject in itself, as Steve Spencer said earlier), but this doesn't and wouldn't make one a good photographer, the same as being a lens connoisseur and lens collector doesn't help, I believe (although there's no harm in that unless when lens connoisseurs make others believe that the path to better photography lies through collecting lenses)....Show more →
Understood.
Just to be clear ... I'm not advocating that these components of the entire "3D" realm are the constituents of good photography. Simply that when / where the topic is regarding the influencing factors associated with Trompe' Loeil of a depth perception cues in a 2D medium to emulate a "3D" physiological response ... there are a variety of aspects that go into play with how people perceive depth. The topic was of significant interest to me and my studies were long, deep and wide (back when).
From that, if others DO HAVE an interest in those things, I gladly contribute my inputs to the topic (for the benefit of fellow members that have genuine interest in the topic). For my personal shooting, I have chosen glass that generally contributes a moderate level (i.e. NOT in search of MOST POP). The days of the 3D quest for greatest effect are behind me. But, I did learn a lot from it.
But, to your point (and others), the effect in and of itself does not make for good photography, Neither is the lens SOLELY responsible. But, neither is the optic entirely dismissive in regard to its contribution. At the end of the day, we pick glass on the rendering (ideal or acceptable) and/or performance (i.e. AF performance / Macro, etc.) for our desires / needs. While some folks want the lens to contribute a LOT to the matter. Others don't care at all.
Me personally, I like my glass to be around 2/3 or 3/4 of what other "max" lenses are. I can "bridge" the difference with PP if I need to do so. In that regard, I tend to prefer some of the Leica glass vs. the Zeiss glass (yeah, that age old debate thing), where I once was leaning hard into Zeiss. Voigtlander's offerings that range between their Vintage line and the Lanthar APO lines provide a nice range of how the optical influence exists by design. I still find their VM 40/1.2 to be an excellent producer of the effect. The new 28 also appears to be strong in this area. If I had access to all of Voigtlander's lineup, it would provide a cadre of opportunity to develop an A:B comp. While there are indeed a variety of options in glass (Sigma 65/2 comes to mind at the moment) that are standouts from different manufacturers, there are also a cadre of nominal glass in this regard, too.
Again, if someone has no interest in the subject ... I get that, just fine. Just that for those who do have an interest in it ... it's kinda like folks that want to talk about engine building, while others just want to step on the gas and go. Don't rain on the discussion about bore and stroke, compression ratios, vector forces of inline vs. slant vs. V configurations, etc.
Simply stated, some folks are die-hard V-Twin fans. Others are high RPM inline four fans. If you're not a fan of torque monster engines, leave the folks who want to talk low end torque design to have their conversation among those who have a genuine interest in the topic. If you like both, great. If you don't care, then go do something else, rather than butt into the conversation about how much their conversation is of no real value. Even, if it is only academic to them, and not pragmatic to you ... leave them to have their conversation. That's just good manners. I digress.
To come back to your point ... +1 that 3D-ishness is not the high water mark of photography. Some appreciate it more than others. I've written elsewhere (2009 -2011 era likely) that in some regard it might even be considered a parlor trick, if that's all that you are interested in, sans the other aspects of our beloved craft. I had my time going through the "look how much 3D-ishness I produced". I still appreciate the understanding of things involved and like rendering imagery that retains / conveys a modest amount of such cues. But, (carriage picture for instance) weak images are weak images, no matter if the "effect" is present or not. Strong images are strong images, no matter if the "effect" is present or not.
But, when asked the question of whether or not optics can have influential contribution toward the effect ... I'll always answer "yes".
Ask a different question of if it is the most important thing toward good photography ... I'll always answer "no". 
Two different questions. Two different answers.
Where things get all wonky is when someone asks one question, and then folks try to insert an answer to it with the an answer suited to a different question ... and then the dialogue goes south, from there.
YMMV
|
