doc4x5 wrote:
Hi Fred, my post was slightly tongue in cheek. The entire subject of 3D on a screen or piece of paper makes me think of all the adjectives used in the world of stereo to argue for tubes, or a certain speaker, or special wire that works in only one direction. I guess I'm not sure that "3D" is a characteristic of a lens, beyond basic contrast. In the day, the 4x5 day, we worked hard to get everything in focus. All sharp, not much 3D. My suggestion of selecting the subject and making a layer for the subject and for the background was just an additional approach to separating the main subject from everything else. I have a nice photo of a huge rock on the Oregon coast. I wanted to make the rock stand out so I did what I described. The image after the manipulation of the layers is much more 3D, eg the rock stands out from the surrounding ocean. May be I'm entirely missing the point of the discussion, maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. In any case, thanks Fred for what you do for this forum and website.
As a long-standing audiophile I can tell you that I have a far easier time seeing "3D' in images than I did hearing magic in audio cables.
I commented earlier in the thread that I felt that all lenses can produce it under certain circumstances.
Those "certain circumstances" will exist far more often for some lenses then for others.
I have a copy of the Zeiss 35/2; once elected the "most 3D" on these forums and I can attest that that optic can produce the effect all day long.
I have others in which I rarely see it.
IMO - yeah; it exists but more so for some gear than others.
Incidentally - my wife has depth perception issues and cannot see "3D" in any of my images.
Sort of reminds me of the deaf old farts on audio sites that would argue with young men over the characteristics of speakers.
Now that I'm a deaf old fart I spend more time in "I'll take your word for it" mode.
doc4x5 wrote:
Hi Fred, my post was slightly tongue in cheek. The entire subject of 3D on a screen or piece of paper makes me think of all the adjectives used in the world of stereo to argue for tubes, or a certain speaker, or special wire that works in only one direction. I guess I'm not sure that "3D" is a characteristic of a lens, beyond basic contrast. In the day, the 4x5 day, we worked hard to get everything in focus. All sharp, not much 3D. My suggestion of selecting the subject and making a layer for the subject and for the background was just an additional approach to separating the main subject from everything else. I have a nice photo of a huge rock on the Oregon coast. I wanted to make the rock stand out so I did what I described. The image after the manipulation of the layers is much more 3D, eg the rock stands out from the surrounding ocean. May be I'm entirely missing the point of the discussion, maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. In any case, thanks Fred for what you do for this forum and website.
As a long-standing audiophile I can tell you that I have far easier time seeing "3D' in images than I did hearing magic in audio cables.
I commented earlier in the thread that I felt that all lenses can produce it under certain circumstances.
Those "certain circumstances" will exist far more often for some lenses then for others.
I have a copy of the Zeiss 35/2; once elected the "most 3D" on these forums and I can attest that that optic can produce the effect all day long.
I have others in which I rarely see it.
IMO - yeah; it exists but more so for some gear than others.
Incidentally - my wife has depth perception issues and cannot see "3D" in any of my images.
Sort of reminds me of the deaf old farts on audio sites that would argue with young men over the characteristics of speakers.
Now that I'm a deaf old fart I spend more time in "I'll take your word for it" mode.
doc4x5 wrote:
Hi Fred, my post was slightly tongue in cheek. The entire subject of 3D on a screen or piece of paper makes me think of all the adjectives used in the world of stereo to argue for tubes, or a certain speaker, or special wire that works in only one direction. I guess I'm not sure that "3D" is a characteristic of a lens, beyond basic contrast. In the day, the 4x5 day, we worked hard to get everything in focus. All sharp, not much 3D. My suggestion of selecting the subject and making a layer for the subject and for the background was just an additional approach to separating the main subject from everything else. I have a nice photo of a huge rock on the Oregon coast. I wanted to make the rock stand out so I did what I described. The image after the manipulation of the layers is much more 3D, eg the rock stands out from the surrounding ocean. May be I'm entirely missing the point of the discussion, maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. In any case, thanks Fred for what you do for this forum and website.
As a long-standing audiophile I can tell you that I have far easier time seeing "3D' in images than I did hearing magic in audio cables.
I commented earlier in the thread that I felt that all lenses can produce it under certain circumstances.
Those "certain circumstances" will exist far more often for some lenses then for others.
I have a copy of the Zeiss 35/2; once elected the "most 3D" on these forums and I can attest that that optic can produce the effect all day long.
I have others in which I rarely see it.
IMO - yeah; it exists but more for some gear than others.
Incidentally - my wife has depth perception issues and cannot see "3D" in any of my images.
Sort of reminds me of the deaf old farts on audio sites that would argue with young men over the characteristics of speakers.
Now that I'm a deaf old fart I spend more time in "I'll take your word for it" mode.
Apr 27, 2019 at 12:38 PM
Previous versions of DaveFP's message #14834162 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
