I just finished skimming through most of what you just posted. Assuming you have read it all yourself, I am really lost why you say that imaginary feelings come into play in this discussion.
Mmm, I think it\'s because the discussion is convoluted and no one can agree on anything where it breaks down into comments like \"There must be some magic ingredient.\" Or \"Lens X does it better.\" . The \"3D\" in traditional art that had been so kindly explained and explained fairly well just above - has already been defined. There are various techniques that can be used by themselves or in combination including but are not limited to: Micro Contrast, Local Contrast, Color Contrast, Perspective, Convergence, Lighting, and DOF Blur. Each of these can be used as depth cues and all of these always affect depth. Each group of links I pasted offers an explanation or tutorial on each of those. I did this to show that we already have the terms needed to discuss and comment on photographs that contain those attributes.
From reading the rest of your post and the posts below we are essentially saying the same things but from opposite points of view. I\'m saying we already have the terms for the attributes. And it seems like this thread is saying let\'s create a term that describes those attributes - and here\'s the part that bugs me - but only when I personally can recognize them. This is so subjective that it\'s influenced by feelings about gear, feelings about the person posting, feelings about the subject matter, individual memory, the seating position in relation to the monitor, the size of the monitor, the individual\'s color IQ, individual\'s ability to recognize shapes and patterns, and literally even \"magic\".
Oh my goodness, why?
Anyway, it\'s all good fun. I\'m not actually suggesting that anyone stop doing this. It\'s kind of interesting after all. I\'m just trying to express how I feel as I read on. It\'s like reading someone say \"wow because of the colors that REALLY pops off the page!!\" and I\'m sitting here going: Yes, that\'s known as color contrast. And then watching the discussion mature about \"pop\" as each element that is brought into the discussion in an attempt to try and describe how a person feels about \"pop\" is really something that\'s already been defined whether it be lens contrast, or what have you.
The discussion isn\'t evil or anything, I just have a tendency to use established and definable terms with a solid usage history in the scientific community. That way everyone knows what I\'m talking about or can look it up - unlike \"pop\" or \"3D\" is when describing a photograph.
I just finished skimming through most of what you just posted. Assuming you have read it all yourself, I am really lost why you say that imaginary feelings come into play in this discussion.
Mmm, I think it\'s because the discussion is convoluted and no one can agree on anything where it breaks down into comments like \"There must be some magic ingredient.\" Or \"Lens X does it better.\" . The \"3D\" in traditional art that had been so kindly explained and explained fairly well just above - has already been defined. There are various techniques that can be used by themselves or in combination including but are not limited to: Micro Contrast, Local Contrast, Color Contrast, Perspective, Convergence, Lighting, and DOF Blur. Each of these can be used as depth cues and all of these always affect depth. Each group of links I pasted offers an explanation or tutorial on each of those. I did this to show that we already have the terms needed to discuss and comment on photographs that contain those attributes.
From reading the rest of your post and the posts below we are essentially saying the same things but from opposite points of view. I\'m saying we already have the terms for the attributes. And it seems like this thread is saying let\'s create a term that describes those attributes - and here\'s the part that bugs me - but only when I personally can recognize them. This is so subjective that it\'s influenced by feelings about gear, feelings about the person posting, feelings about the subject matter, individual memory, the seating position in relation to the monitor, the size of the monitor, the individual\'s color IQ, individual\'s ability to recognize shapes and patterns, and literally even \"magic\".
Oh my goodness, why?
Anyway, it\'s all good fun. I\'m not actually suggesting that anyone stop doing this. It\'s kind of interesting after all. I\'m just trying to express how I feel as I read on. It\'s like reading someone say \"wow because of the colors that REALLY pops off the page!!\" and I\'m sitting here going: Yes, that\'s known as color contrast. And then watching the discussion mature about \"pop\" as each element that is brought into the discussion in an attempt to try and describe how a person feels about \"pop\" is really something that\'s already been defined whether it be lens contrast, or what have you.
The discussion isn\'t evil or anything, I just have a tendency to use established and definable terms with a solid usage history in the scientific community. That way everyone knows what I\'m talking about or can look it up when - unlike \"pop\" or \"3D\" is when describing a photograph.
I just finished skimming through most of what you just posted. Assuming you have read it all yourself, I am really lost why you say that imaginary feelings come into play in this discussion.
Mmm, I think it\'s because the discussion is convoluted and no one can agree on anything where it breaks down into comments like \"There must be some magic ingredient.\" Or \"Lens X does it better.\" . The \"3D\" in traditional art that had been so kindly explained and explained fairly well just above - has already been defined. There are various techniques that can be used by themselves or in combination including but are not limited to: Micro Contrast, Local Contrast, Color Contrast, Perspective, Convergence, Lighting, Pop, and DOF Blur. Each of these can be used as depth cues and all of these always affect depth. Each group of links I pasted offers an explanation or tutorial on each of those. I did this to show that we already have the terms needed to discuss and comment on photographs that contain those attributes.
From reading the rest of your post and the posts below we are essentially saying the same things but from opposite points of view. I\'m saying we already have the terms for the attributes. And it seems like this thread is saying let\'s create a term that describes those attributes - and here\'s the part that bugs me - but only when I personally can recognize them. This is so subjective that it\'s influenced by feelings about gear, feelings about the person posting, feelings about the subject matter, individual memory, the seating position in relation to the monitor, the size of the monitor, the individual\'s color IQ, individual\'s ability to recognize shapes and patterns, and literally even \"magic\".
Oh my goodness, why?
Anyway, it\'s all good fun. I\'m not actually suggesting that anyone stop doing this. It\'s kind of interesting after all. I\'m just trying to express how I feel as I read on. It\'s like reading someone say \"wow because of the colors that REALLY pops off the page!!\" and I\'m sitting here going: Yes, that\'s known as color contrast. And then watching the discussion mature about \"pop\" as each element that is brought into the discussion in an attempt to try and describe how a person feels about \"pop\" is really something that\'s already been defined whether it be lens contrast, or what have you.
The discussion isn\'t evil or anything, I just have a tendency to use established and definable terms with a solid usage history in the scientific community. That way everyone knows what I\'m talking about or can look it up when - unlike \"pop\" or \"3D\" is when describing a photograph.
I just finished skimming through most of what you just posted. Assuming you have read it all yourself, I am really lost why you say that imaginary feelings come into play in this discussion.
Mmm, I think it\'s because the discussion is convoluted and no one can agree on anything where it breaks down into comments like \"There must be some magic ingredient.\" Or \"Lens X does it better.\" . The \"3D\" in traditional art that had been so kindly explained and explained fairly well just above - has already been defined. There are various techniques that can be used by themselves or in combination including but are not limited to: Micro Contrast, Local Contrast, Color Contrast, Perspective, Convergence, Lighting, Pop, and DOF Blur. Each of these can be used as depth cues and all of these always affect depth. Each group of links I pasted offers an explanation or tutorial on each of those. I did this to show that we already have the terms needed to discuss and comment on photographs that contain those attributes.
From reading the rest of your post and the posts below we are essentially saying the same things but from opposite points of view. I\'m saying we already have the terms for the attributes. And it seems like this thread is saying let\'s create a term that describes those attributes - and here\'s the part that bugs me - but only when I personally can recognize them. This is so subjective that it\'s influenced by feelings about gear, feelings about the person posting, feelings about the subject matter, individual memory, the seating position in relation to the monitor, the size of the monitor, the individual\'s color IQ, individual\'s ability to recognize shapes and patterns, and literally even \"magic\".
Oh my goodness, why?
Anyway, it\'s all good fun. I\'m not actually suggesting that anyone stop doing this. It\'s kind of interesting after all. I\'m just trying to express how I feel as I read on. It\'s like reading someone say \"wow because of the colors that REALLY pops off the page!!\" and I\'m sitting here going: Yes, that\'s known as color contrast. And then watching the discussion mature about \"pop\" as each element that is brought into the discussion in an attempt to try and describe how a person feels about \"pop\" is really something that\'s already been defined whether it be lens contrast, or what have you.
The discussion isn\'t evil or anything, I just have a tendency to use established and definable terms with a solid usage history in the scientific community. That way everyone knows what I\'m talking about or can look it up when - unlike \"pop\" or \"3D\".
Jan 16, 2010 at 06:26 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #8013716 « what is '3d' ? »
. The \"3D\" in traditional art that had been so kindly explained and explained fairly well just above - has already been defined. There are various techniques that can be used by themselves or in combination including but are not limited to: Micro Contrast, Local Contrast, Color Contrast, Perspective, Convergence, Lighting, and DOF Blur. Each of these can be used as depth cues and all of these always affect depth. Each group of links I pasted offers an explanation or tutorial on each of those. I did this to show that we already have the terms needed to discuss and comment on photographs that contain those attributes.