It is not pointless if you like how a lens renders and look for something similar.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Thank you for revisiting this post, as it serves as a reminder that we've been arguing here for ages about something for which there's still no consensus on what it even is. There's no binding definition; everyone defines it for themselves. This discussion is therefore as pointless as any discussion can be. It hasn't yielded any new knowledge or results so far, and it won't in the future either.
OregonSun wrote:
I'm guessing most of the naysayers won't have anything to say about my examples, since that would require a reassessment of their loudly proclaimed belief that lenses have a negligable effect on 3D POP.
What can you say? Just take photos with any lens, open them in any image editing program, add a blur vignette to taste, and voila!
Nifty Fifty wrote:
What can you say? Just take photos with any lens, open them in any image editing program, add a blur vignette to taste, and voila!
Sure, 3D POP can be created/enhanced in post, but the differences in my examples are entirely due to the lenses. No blur or vignette added in post. You've been asking for an A B example for ages, now that one has been provided you could at least have the courtesy to engage with it constructively.
OregonSun wrote:
Sure, 3D POP can be created/enhanced in post, but the differences in my examples are entirely due to the lenses. No blur or vignette added in post. You've been asking for an A B example for ages, now that one has been provided you could at least have the courtesy to engage with it constructively.
Sure. In your example images, there's no difference in the spatial effect whatsoever, only a noticeably blurry edge area that suggests a kind of tunnel vision. It strongly resembles effect lenses like Lensbaby or similar.
There are a few months ago I did a test: the same (stupid) image taken under the same conditions with three different 35 mm lenses, one of which is known for producing a “pop‑in” 3D effect. But I’m not sure if I dare post the results here.
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 →
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Thank you for revisiting this post, as it serves as a reminder that we've been arguing here for ages about something for which there's still no consensus on what it even is. There's no binding definition; everyone defines it for themselves. This discussion is therefore as pointless as any discussion can be. It hasn't yielded any new knowledge or results so far, and it won't in the future either.
I hear ya ...
Although, there is a certain irony when folks continue to suggest a discussion is pointless, as they continue to say it is pointless, and continue to say it is pointless ...
Meanwhile folks that try to discuss points, are countered with the "discussion is pointless", thereby perpetuating the very discussion that is being suggested as pointless by those suggesting it is pointless.
RoamingScott wrote:
It would be SO nice if folks would exercise the literacy I know they possess. I explained in detail what the light source was, and said for ME, those conditions are what I find give me what I consider a "3d look" most consistently.
I never said it was authoritative in the broad sense, and how could it be, when Philip shows up to share a dozen more flat images that just EXPLODE off the screen
Thank you for the kind words of regard for your fellow FM members.
The light falloff didn't match (imo) the description you gave ... just checking to make sure that was really a "hole in the sky" providing the key light, as your description suggested.
Anything you can offer to explain the light falloff to make it seem congruous with your description?
Time of day, Time of year, direction of view (N / E / S / W), natural reflectors / buildings, etc. would be helpful info. It just seems that something "wasn't right" with what I'm seeing in the lighting and your "special situation" (yet, being suggested as being commonplace / similar to others) description.
Simply asking for clarification ... hopefully, that isn't too "dense".
Jonas B wrote:
The caption at the second image;
Is there a way to describe this tolerance in words?
I guess you aren't saying the light levels are are filtered in the lens. We should be able to say the light passes in a linear fashion, no highlight roll-off in the lens, right? If so, is the "highlight tolerance" possible thanks to good contrast (low micro flare), thanks to good coatings and possibly thanks to something else as well?
Or is it just a more conservative exposure these days? Or better DR in todays sensors?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am sorry, but I see this an another, now typical over claim by Phillip for Simera lenses.Simera lenses have their strengths, but handling bright light is not one of them. They are in fact quite prone to flare.
I haven't followed the Simera thread and didn't know about the flare problem. So, Phillip is again at it about the Simera cinematic and obviously magic rendering. I don't expect a reply from him; he has avoided my comments this far.
Thank you for clarifying!
Garmadon wrote:
It is not pointless if you like how a lens renders and look for something similar.
However, this doesn't require an endless discussion about which image depicts something when its exact subject matter remains unclear, and where 95% of the discussion consists of constant contradiction. A thread like "Post your pictures that create a sense of depth for yourself and mention the lens you used so everyone can decide for himself what suits his taste" would be more appropriate.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Sure. In your example images, there's no difference in the spatial effect whatsoever, only a noticeably blurry edge area that suggests a kind of tunnel vision. It strongly resembles effect lenses like Lensbaby or similar.
So you can see the lens differences in the examples, but you don't think those differences make one image look more 3D than the other?
I don't agree, but I'm not going to argue the point. Visual perception is a very subjective thing, if you don't see it, you don't see it.
OregonSun wrote:
So you can see the lens differences in the examples, but you don't think those differences make one image look more 3D than the other?
I don't agree, but I'm not going to argue the point. Visual perception is a very subjective thing, if you don't see it, you don't see it.
Imo, it is crystal clear that the two lenses presented different visual cues.
To your point, regarding how individuals process / interpret / perceive those visual cues ... variable.
Whether or not it gets called "3D" or "3D - Pop", spatial rendering, rates of transition ... or any other words we so choose to describe, the point that the optic was responsible for the variance in this A : B (and thus, it stands to reason that other optical designs vary in this regard, also) is (imo) well noted. Dissenters will dissent.
OregonSun wrote:
So you can see the lens differences in the examples, but you don't think those differences make one image look more 3D than the other?
I don't agree, but I'm not going to argue the point. Visual perception is a very subjective thing, if you don't see it, you don't see it.
At first glance, it suggests something like spatial depth, but in a way that quickly becomes boring, as it's an extreme, repetitive, and immediately obvious effect that quickly loses its impact. It also only works in conjunction with appropriate image composition. In the last example (Bully), it already fails.
It's like with the Holga. It can be a lot of fun and produce great results. But in my opinion, it's better suited to a cohesive series that conveys a specific, consistent style and for which specially chosen subjects are selected. I find it rather unsuitable for general photography.
Mostly in the last pair. In the second one the van is more defined-just look near the front glass .
Also,bright areas are brighter ,and dark are darker . OregonSun wrote:
So you can see the lens differences in the examples, but you don't think those differences make one image look more 3D than the other?
I don't agree, but I'm not going to argue the point. Visual perception is a very subjective thing, if you don't see it, you don't see it.
I think it's pretty clear this is hopelessly subjective, but just for giggles, I asked Google's new frontier model (Gemini 3 Pro - just dropped yesterday) to analyze some of my photos that I thought exhibited 3D pop to some degree (there were only 7 over the past several years and a couple of them might be a stretch).
Here are the 7 images:
Here's the prompt:
I'm participating in an online discussion on the notion of so-called "3D pop" as a characteristic of photographs and the extent to which that characteristic derives from lens design, image settings, subject, and/or lighting. I've just searched my Flickr page and have identified the attached as exhibiting this effect to some degree. Can you analyze these images and summarize commonalities that might have led to me picking them?
And here is the analysis, which I think is pretty good:
Based on these seven images, I have identified specific commonalities that likely led you to select them. Your selection criteria seem to hinge on micro-contrast, lighting directionality, and chromatic separation.
Here is an analysis of why these specific images exhibit that "3D" quality:
1. Strong Micro-Contrast and Texture Rendering
"3D pop" is often described as the ability of a lens to retain high contrast at high spatial frequencies (fine detail).
The Evidence: Look at the orange AMC Eagle wagon and the "Haworth" headstone. The rust on the car fender and the grain in the granite headstone are rendered with such tactile sharpness that they feel distinct from the medium they are printed/displayed on.
The Factor: This is usually a result of lens design (high-quality glass like your Hasselblad or Sony GM lenses) rather than just sharpening in post. The lens resolves the texture so sharply that the brain perceives it as a physical surface.
2. Rapid, Smooth Focus Fall-off (The "Cut-out" Effect)
This is distinct from just having a blurry background. "Pop" occurs when the transition from the plane of focus to the out-of-focus area is rapid but smooth, creating a "cardboard cutout" effect where the subject feels layered over the background.
The Evidence: The yellow Dog Sign and the Rolex GMT. In both images, the subject is razor-sharp, but the background dissolves almost immediately.
The Factor: This suggests the use of larger formats (Medium Format) or fast apertures on Full Frame. The background isn't just blurry; it is rendered with lower contrast than the subject, which pushes the subject forward visually.
3. Directional "Modeling" Light
Flat light kills 3D pop. To see volume, the human brain needs shadows to define shape.
The Evidence:
The Newspaper Boxes: The hard side-light creates deep shadows on the left of the boxes and casts a shadow on the wall. This anchors the object in physical space.
The Gas Station: The low-angle sunlight hits the pumps and pillars, creating a distinct separation between the illuminated surfaces and the shadowed recesses.
The Factor: You consistently chose images with side lighting or ¾ lighting. This creates "modeling"—the gradation from highlight to shadow that defines a sphere or a cube (or a face) as a three-dimensional object.
4. Color and Luminance Separation
This is a psychovisual trick where warm/bright colors advance and cool/dark colors recede.
The Evidence:
The Orange Wagon: The warm, saturated orange of the car pushes forward against the cooler, muted blue/grey of the house and sky.
The Newspaper Boxes: The bright red box visually detaches itself from the beige wall.
The Factor: You are selecting images where the subject has a higher luminance or saturation than the background, reinforcing the depth cues provided by the optics.
5. Atmospheric Perspective (The "Haze" Factor)
The Evidence: The Portrait in the water.
The Factor: While the subject is crisp, the background has reduced contrast due to atmospheric haze/distance. By maintaining high contrast on the subject (the jacket/face) while the background contrast is lifted/faded, you create a sensation of significant distance between the two planes.
Summary for your discussion
If you are posting these to a forum, you might summarize your findings by noting that your "3D pop" images rely on a "Trinity of Contrast":
Focus Contrast: Sharp subject vs. creamy fall-off (optical).
Lighting Contrast: Highlights vs. deep shadows (modeling).
Detail Contrast: High micro-contrast on the subject vs. lower contrast in the background.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
At first glance, it suggests something like spatial depth, but in a way that quickly becomes boring, as it's an extreme, repetitive, and immediately obvious effect that quickly loses its impact. It also only works in conjunction with appropriate image composition. In the last example (Bully), it already fails.
It's like with the Holga. It can be a lot of fun and produce great results. But in my opinion, it's better suited to a cohesive series that conveys a specific, consistent style and for which specially chosen subjects are selected. I find it rather unsuitable for general photography.
Hmm, now it seems like you are saying the examples do convey some 3D effect, but you just don't like it.
The point of my examples was only to illustrate that some lenses can produce a stronger 3D effect/pop/spatiality than others.
I agree that how the effect is used in conjunction with subject choice, composition, etc. is critical to the success of the final image. And, of course, everyone has different tastes as far as that goes.
