tsdevine wrote:
If you guys could keep my photo out of this back and forth, I’d appreciate it.
For what it's worth, I think your photo is a great example of subtle (not like fake 3d cut out) but definite pop.
Interesting, because I remember we had different views on previous photos posted here .
jamesdak wrote:
For sure, but just to an extent. When I see folks totally change the photograph via post process then it loses me. Like mentioned several post back about how easy it is to remove the tree "growing" out of the boys head. Seems doing stuff like that to me is just a lie. But to each their own. My photography is for me and I play by my own misguided set of rules. !
A perfectly reasonable position to hold.
Back when I was actively racing I had many friends that refused to adapt to the new technologies as they became available and accepted by the sanctioning organizations. Yes, they remained true to their traditions but stopped winning races and so stopped getting seats in cars. Rac9ng and the World moved on from them.
1bwana1 wrote:
A perfectly reasonable position to hold.
Back when I was actively racing I had many friends that refused to adapt to the new technologies as they became available and accepted by the sanctioning organizations. Yes, they remained true to their traditions but stopped winning races and so stopped getting seats in cars. Rac9ng and the World moved on from them.
For the amateur who sees their photography as a race for online likes, this comparison may be just as apt as for the professional who has to deliver what the masses want if they want to stay in business. Those who pursue photography out of passion, for its own sake, don't need to worry about such things.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
For the amateur who sees their photography as a race for online likes, this comparison may be just as apt as for the professional who has to deliver what the masses want if they want to stay in business. Those who pursue photography out of passion, for its own sake, don't need to worry about such things.
I think growth and learning is almost always good in any pursuit. Especially those I am passionate about.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
For the amateur who sees their photography as a race for online likes, this comparison may be just as apt as for the professional who has to deliver what the masses want if they want to stay in business. Those who pursue photography out of passion, for its own sake, don't need to worry about such things.
Exactly! For the same reason I still shoot DSLRs since they get the job done for me still in a lot of circumstances. And my other passion is cycling were a majority of my bikes are rimmed braked steel bikes that are fairly old. I love them and enjoy riding them and have no real use for the latest and greatest carbon fiber, disc braked bikes like the pro's ride. I'm perfectly comfortable with my choices.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think growth and learning is almost always good in any pursuit. Especially those I am passionate about.
Absolutely! But photography isn't synonymous with digital image editing. And everyone decides for themselves what result he likes and aim for, or at least he should. Because that, too, is something that needs to be learned.
j4nu wrote:
For what it's worth, I think your photo is a great example of subtle (not like fake 3d cut out) but definite pop.
Interesting, because I remember we had different views on previous photos posted here .
Well, hopefully I wasn't argumentative. If we didn't seem 100% aligned, doesn't mean we were 0% aligned either I would assume. In the 3D cut out reference, I might say that has "pop", which in the right context I guess I might have said it's 3D pop. But the ones that look like they have dimensionality, like I thought the one I posted did, I wasn't sure that always counted as 3D pop (maybe just 3D.)
In any case, it's hard to be absolutely right, or wrong, in anything when it comes to this.
I remain convinced after all these years, and so many unconvincing examples later, that the lens has very little to do with inherent 3D-pop. I came across this photo from a few weeks back that was taken in the same type of lighting conditions that I routinely see the most 3D-ness...partly cloudy with a slight break in cloud cover that completely illuminates the subject while at the same time still being cloudy in the background...as if a spotlight or flash is on the subject.
Now, if a lens has better microcontrast than other, that's less editing you'd have to do to get to the same ending point, but the LENS ITSELF remains a rather meaningly piece of the puzzle. It's 95% light. I have gotten shots like this with every lens I own, and they are all in conditions just like this.
You can see that the edges of the statue even have a bit of shadow thanks to the directionality of the light, further separating the subject from the background. The more fully your subject is in focus the more pronounced the 3D effect can be, and of course the farther back your background is, the more the effect is enhanced.
RoamingScott wrote:
I remain convinced after all these years, and so many unconvincing examples later, that the lens has very little to do with inherent 3D-pop. I came across this photo from a few weeks back that was taken in the same type of lighting conditions that I routinely see the most 3D-ness...partly cloudy with a slight break in cloud cover that completely illuminates the subject while at the same time still being cloudy in the background...as if a spotlight or flash is on the subject.
Now, if a lens has better microcontrast than other, that's less editing you'd have to do to get to the same ending point, but the LENS ITSELF remains a rather meaningly piece of the puzzle. It's 95% light. I have gotten shots like this with every lens I own, and they are all in conditions just like this.
You can see that the edges of the statue even have a bit of shadow thanks to the directionality of the light, further separating the subject from the background. The more fully your subject is in focus the more pronounced the 3D effect can be, and of course the farther back your background is, the more the effect is enhanced.
I agree that light and framing are essential ingredients, as with any photographic effect, but I don't think a high degree of focus separation gets one to what (I guess maybe only) I consider 3d pop.
but this is a long thread, and I won't pretend to have read it. I'm sure this has all been hashed out ad nauseam.
I agree that light and framing are essential ingredients, as with any photographic effect, but I don't even think a high degree of focus separation gets one to what (I guess maybe only) I consider 3d pop.
but this is a long thread, and I won't pretend to have read it. I'm sure this has all been hashed out ad nauseam.
No, not to my eyes. It is too close to images where the subject looks like it has been pasted into the image on top of a background layer. Perhaps it also doesn't help with the OOF foreground hand. What I do see is some dimensionality in the statue but I don't get any 3D-kick.
I also think the "3D-conditions" are described in a too simplified way here: quoting RoamingScott: You can see that the edges of the statue even have a bit of shadow thanks to the directionality of the light, further separating the subject from the background. The more fully your subject is in focus the more pronounced the 3D effect can be, and of course the farther back your background is, the more the effect is enhanced.
Then again, we all probably see the world in slightly different ways so the above is based on my experience and my body functions.
This is going to get discussed for another year and we will be in exactly the same spot - still wondering what 3D in a 2D medium really means and if your 3D is the same as my 3D.
RoamingScott wrote:
I remain convinced after all these years, and so many unconvincing examples later, that the lens has very little to do with inherent 3D-pop. I came across this photo from a few weeks back that was taken in the same type of lighting conditions that I routinely see the most 3D-ness...partly cloudy with a slight break in cloud cover that completely illuminates the subject while at the same time still being cloudy in the background...as if a spotlight or flash is on the subject.
Now, if a lens has better microcontrast than other, that's less editing you'd have to do to get to the same ending point, but the LENS ITSELF remains a rather meaningly piece of the puzzle. It's 95% light. I have gotten shots like this with every lens I own, and they are all in conditions just like this. ...Show more →
Of course it's the light. Without dimensional light there is no way a lens will make something out of nothing. A lens is responsible to collect, bend, and focus the light. That is a given and yes without light a lens does nothing so it is 95% the light. But...lenses bend and focus the light differently and the transition from in focus to out of focus is affected by compromises made in aberration correction. So then the question becomes does that contribute any to 3D rendering and if so then how much.
Look at this link, particularly the three balls with different lighting: high contrast, mid tones, and flat.
You can't change the light and you need the right light to make a dimensional image. However, lenses do not process light equally and there are differences. How much does this bring to the image if anything is the question all else being equal.
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice.
RustyBug wrote:
Subject separation from the BG and modeling provided by the light are well understood ... Scott's statue references those, not necessarily the dimensionality of z axis depth into the scene. Scott presents the statue as though it is an authoritative example ... and it's not even remotely close (imo) to what others are referencing / displaying in terms of spatial depth of a scene.
But, Scott thinks it is wonderful that everyone has been using lighting with a "natural spotlight" situation as he's indicated, so there's that. Curious what his actual light source is, because it doesn't look anything like what I've seen others presenting ... although, he alludes to it being presumptuously representative.
The fact of the matter is that there are numerous images that have been presented in all manner of lighting ... specular, diffuse, frontal, oblique, side, back, interior, mixed, etc. Scotts indication that his lighting example is the "magic sauce" everyone has been using is (imo) ... insert word of choice....Show more →
That depth into a scene is what I'm often drawn to. It doesn't even need a singular subject, like my son sitting on the bench. And maybe that isn't 3D pop then, but some shots just cause something to click in my brain and it truly seems like I'm not looking at a 2 dimensional screen showing an image.
And I'm sure we see things differently, so what I see here may just be an ordinary shot to others, since it won't trigger the same perception of the scene as I have.
RoamingScott wrote:
I remain convinced after all these years, and so many unconvincing examples later, that the lens has very little to do with inherent 3D-pop.g
Every so often you forego the drama and simply say something that is correct. Examples of this are what I think of as “Good Scott.”
This is one of those times.
No one can really even define “pop” as a singular, objective thing, so there’s no way we’ll ever agree that some particular lens creates the best version of it.
We all have subjective notions of what it is, a sort of “I know it when I see it” leavened by a dose of “now that I see it and analyze what I’m seeing I can identify several things in the image that create this subjective response.”
They aren’t lenses. They are lighting, perspective, selective focus (and lighting) , composition, color and luminosity relationships and more. It can be created in painting, for God’s sake. I’ve seen it in photos made with film and digital technology, from iPhones, from expensive and cheap cameras, and from expensive and cheap lenses. How can it be the result of using that SuperMegaOpticon 37.5mm f/1.003 Whackagon Popicron (1945 version) lens and no other?
i swear that if I posted a pop-filled photograph from the SuperMegaOpticon 37.5mm f/1.003 Whackagon Popicron (1945 version) lens in this thread and said that it was from a kit zoom… that no one would see it. And if I posted a well composed and executed photograph made with the kit lens and falsely claimed it was made with the SuperMegaOpticon 37.5mm f/1.003 Whackagon Popicron (1945 version) lens that others would gush about how obviously superior the image was…
I'm seeing two camps here in general based on opinions and pictures - the cut out camp, and the dimensionality camp.
To me, it's both, particularly more towards the dimensionality, contributed by tonality and micro contrast. Cut out look may or may not be desirable even if they look 3D to some people, sometimes they just looked like photographing a signboard over a blurred background.
Lenses can enhance the effect, some to a surprising amount.
I shot each of the pairs below with different 28mm M42 lenses a few seconds apart with the same aperture, shutter speed and focus point.
I stood in the same place for each shot. One lens is obviously wider than the other despite their both being labeled as 28mm. Other slight framing differences are due to handholding. None are cropped.
Shot on Fuji Neopan Acros II B&W film, developed by my local lab.
Some exposure adjustments during negative conversion to correct the fact that one of them lets in about a half stop more light at the 'same' aperture. Aside from that, they all got the same additional processing in LR (minor adjustment to black point, straighten) and dust removal/output sharpening in PS.
1st in each pair: Bushnell Automatic 28mm f/2.8
2nd: MC Macro Revuenon 28mm f/3.5 - my copy, at least, is a clear contender for the MOST POP
.
! 
