saaketham wrote:
Just because someone keeps repeating that \"I\'ve never seen or read about this 3-D effect\". doesn\'t change the fact that this term is bandied about by many pro body users and especially by alt lens users. There are things in the world that many of us don\'t know about. Doesn\'t mean they don\'t exist. Like honest politicians .. true .. we don\'t know any politician who is honest. But, doesn\'t mean there aren\'t 1 or 2 in the country somewhere. So .. why waste time trying to convince someone who\'s already convinced otherwise and refuses to understand that \"3D effect\" is not to be taken literally.
That\'s not quite what everyone is saying. The points is not that \"Photos never have a quality or qualities that some people might describe using a term like \'3D effect\'.\" The real points might include:
no one can really define what a \"3D effect\" is in a consistent way.
whatever it is, it seems to be the result of a whole range of things that can be described separately.
whatever it is, it is not fundamentally caused by which sensor you use or which body you use.
To me, the term falls into a category of words that have a sort of diffuse meaning but if we are both looking at a photo that has \"it\" we might not disagree about the term\'s use. There are a lot of terms like this that are not easily quantified but which work this way - and which also are not describing some technical attribute of the equipment.
Imagine that you and I are standing in front of a print and talking about what we see. You or I might offer descriptions using terms like \"pop,\" \" atmosphere,\" \"clarity,\" \"3D effect,\" \"uncluttered,\" \"balanced,\" and so forth. These are all important things to think about when looking at a photograph and important things to think about when making one - but in no case are they the direct results of a single, particular equipment choice nor can they be attributed to one objective characteristic in all cases.
I believe strongly that when people use the term \"3D effect\" to describe a photograph that they are using a shorthand way of referring to a collection of attributes of the photograph that affect their perception of the photo - and very definitely not referring to any one quantifiable objective feature of the photo than can be connected back to things like the particular sensor or particular body used.
Dan
Nov 27, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #7824856 « 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies? »
Doesn\'t mean they don\'t exist. Like honest politicians .. true .. we don\'t know any politician who is honest. But, doesn\'t mean there aren\'t 1 or 2 in the country somewhere. So .. why waste time trying to convince someone who\'s already convinced otherwise and refuses to understand that \"3D effect\" is not to be taken literally. 