gdanmitchell wrote: JohnDizzo15 wrote:
@gdanmitchell@@ - any chance you could share some of those images you’re referring to? Specifically, ones that were made with lenses that are not known for having this theoretical character trait.
While I agree that the look isn’t necessarily dependent on a specific lens/camera setup, my belief is still that there are lenses that tend to aid in producing this dimensionality more so than others.
Regardless, I’m curious to see some samples of the types of images you’re referring to that clearly exhibit this where the dimensionality is of the same variety we’re discussing, but in your observation is produced without any help from the lens.
As a side note unrelated to what I’ve stated above, I’ve been meaning to point out that the viewing medium also plays a significant role in the perception of this trait. I find that it is usually much more difficult to see, the smaller the viewing platform. Not sure if you guys have found this to also be the case on your end, but did want to mention it before I forget again.
I’m going ot suggest an alternative — and in a moment I’ll explain why.
Spend some time looking at photographs — not samples posted by individuals in photogarphy forums, especially those pushing some brand or lens. Find photographs among the vast body of work created in the last nearly-200 years by photographers using essentially all of the photographic tools that have been and are currently available.
You will find tons of work that has the qualities you are looking for. You’ll certainly find it among great photographs form the past century or so when photographic tools became quite sophisticated and ideas about photography, how it works, and what it does became more established.
Or limit yourself to the past two, three, four decades if you prefer. There are tons and tons of photographs to look at, and some outstanding work by some of the acknowledged greatest photographers.
Then, consider the vast range of equipment and approaches used to make that work. It has been made on everything from 35mm handheld cameras (and even on smaller formats) to LF film.
Becoming familiar with prior photographic work is a great antidote to the unfortunate forumtography tendency to imagine that good photography is all about owning the latest, biggest, most impressive, most expensive lens from the company with the legacy name.
I’m not saying that such gear isn’t fine and even excellent. I am sayng that it doesn’t produce the results you are after — photographers do, through their vision and their skill at seeing and envisioning photographs.
Why don’t I respond by posting a few photographs of my own or by others that have the quality this thread purports to isolate and discuss? I’ve been doing this a long time and for part of that time (maybe two decades) I’ve been on photography forums.
There’s a familiar forum pattern where someone says “show us an example of this thing,” the participant shows an example, and the attack dogs in forum immediately diminish the posted work. I wont’ play that game.
And it is an unnecessary game when there’s so much work out there already — online, in books, in galleries, in museums, in personal collections — that folks can consider… if they’ll just start to look at the larger world of photography outside of forums.
Good luck!
Dan
I recognize that there is plenty of work out there to be viewed. However, the reason I ask for samples of what others perceive the trait to be is that it helps me understand whether we are 1. talking about the same thing, and/or 2. to see whether I see what you see. If we aren’t on the same page about this seemingly subjective thing that is highly based on personal perception, then the conversation at its core, is moot.
May 27, 2025 at 08:42 AM
Previous versions of JohnDizzo15's message #16822779 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
