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.
but... does that image have 3d pop?
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.
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.
but... does that image have 3d pop?
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.
Nov 18, 2025 at 02:08 PM
Previous versions of Fescue's message #16931338 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
