keira007 wrote: anscochrome wrote:
I will risk getting tossed from this forum with a contrarian view. I believe the entire 3D \"phenomenon\" is placebo effect. I have as much obsession with it as I do with bokeh, which is not at all. And I have and regularly use some of the aforementioned Zeiss lenses.
Yes, there is no such thing as 3D in a 2D image.
What we\'re trying to create is a 2D image that gives people the feeling of \"3D\". If you don\'t have that feeling, well, it can\'t be helped.
It is indeed a fact that any sensation of 3D-ishness in a 2D medium image is an illusionary response ... but Trompe l\'Oeil has been a part of imagery for centuries, with photography only being another medium for which it to be applied.
While it is truly an illusionary response, it is not a placebo effect. For those aspiring to create a Trompe l\'Oeil sensation, soliciting or suggesting such is counterproductive, because people then begin \'looking\' for it ... and as such, might involve a placebo effect for them to say they \'see it\'.
Rather, it is the unsolicited response that yields the degree of success a Trompe l\'Oeil has achieved ... and the repetition of which the illusionary response sustains. Similar to other optical illusions where \'some people get it\' and \'some people don\'t\', the basis that all vision is a function of the brain, as presented by the eyes, give it an individual capacity to be realized.
I don\'t disagree that some people may apply the \'placebo effect\' in saying they \'see it\' ... but I do disagree with the notion that it is ONLY a placebo effect ... as it is an illusionary response that creates the sensation. The fact that some people may not \'see it\' while others do, in itself, does not negate its presence.
In studying other media, i.e. painting, sculpting, succeeding in Trompe l\'Oeil efforts ... it comes to my attention that one (not only) aspect is the degree of intricate detail that seems common to those which succeed on a more compelling level. In this regard, the issue of micro-contrast seems to play a corresponding part in the photographic medium. Again, it is not a singular issue, but it would seem that lenses that have a higher degree of micro-contrast hold a piece of the puzzle for generating the effect moreover than those lenses with a lesser degree of micro-contrast.
keira007 wrote: anscochrome wrote:
I will risk getting tossed from this forum with a contrarian view. I believe the entire 3D \"phenomenon\" is placebo effect. I have as much obsession with it as I do with bokeh, which is not at all. And I have and regularly use some of the aforementioned Zeiss lenses.
Yes, there is no such thing as 3D in a 2D image.
What we\'re trying to create is a 2D image that gives people the feeling of \"3D\". If you don\'t have that feeling, well, it can\'t be helped.
It is indeed a fact that any sensation of 3D-ishness in a 2D medium image is an illusionary response ... but Trompe l\'Oeil has been a part of imagery for centuries, with photography only being another medium for which it to be applied.
While it is truly an illusionary response, it is not a placebo effect. For those aspiring to create a Trompe l\'Oeil sensation, soliciting or suggesting such is counterproductive, because people then begin \'looking\' for it ... and as such, might involve a placebo effect for them to say they \'see it\'.
Rather, it is the unsolicited response that yields the degree of success a Trompe l\'Oeil has achieved ... and the repetition of which the illusionary response sustains. Similar to other optical illusions where \'some people get it\' and \'some people don\'t\', the basis that all vision is a function of the brain, as presented by the eyes, give it an individual capacity to be realized.
I don\'t disagree that some people may apply the \'placebo effect\' in saying they \'see it\' ... but I do disagree with the notion that it is ONLY a placebo effect ... as it is an illusionary response that creates the sensation. The fact that some people may not \'see it\' while others do, in itself, does not negate its presence.
In studying other mediums, i.e. painting, sculpting, succeeding in Trompe l\'Oeil efforts ... it comes to my attention that one (not only) aspect is the degree of intricate detail that seems common to those which succeed on a more compelling level. In this regard, the issue of micro-contrast seems to play a corresponding part in the photographic medium. Again, it is not a singular issue, but it would seem that lenses that have a higher degree of micro-contrast hold a piece of the puzzle for generating the effect moreover than those lenses with a lesser degree of micro-contrast.
keira007 wrote: anscochrome wrote:
I will risk getting tossed from this forum with a contrarian view. I believe the entire 3D \"phenomenon\" is placebo effect. I have as much obsession with it as I do with bokeh, which is not at all. And I have and regularly use some of the aforementioned Zeiss lenses.
Yes, there is no such thing as 3D in a 2D image.
What we\'re trying to create is a 2D image that gives people the feeling of \"3D\". If you don\'t have that feeling, well, it can\'t be helped.
It is indeed a fact that any sensation of 3D-ishness in a 2D medium image is an illusionary response ... but Trompe l\'Oeil has been a part of imagery for centuries, with photography only being another medium for which it to be applied.
While it is truly an illusionary response, it is not a placebo effect. For those aspiring to create a Trompe l\'Oeil sensation, soliciting or suggesting such is counterproductive, because people then begin \'looking\' for it ... and as such, might involve a placebo effect for them to say they \'see it\'.
Rather, it is the unsolicited response that yields the degree of success a Trompe l\'Oeil has achieved ... and the repetition of which the illusionary response sustains. Similar to other optical illusions where \'some people get it\' and \'some people don\'t\', the basis that all vision is a function of the brain, as presented by the eyes, give it an individual capacity to be realized.
I don\'t disagree that some people may apply the \'placebo effect\' in saying they \'see it\' ... but I do disagree with the notion that it is ONLY a placebo effect ... as it is an illusionary response that creates the sensation. The fact that some people may not \'see it\' while others do, in itself, does not negate its presence.
In studying other mediums, i.e. painting, sculpting succeeding in Trompe l\'Oeil efforts ... it comes to my attention that one (not only) aspect is the degree of intricate detail that seems common to those which succeed on a more compelling level. In this regard, the issue of micro-contrast seems to play a corresponding part in the photographic medium. Again, it is not a singular issue, but it would seem that lenses that have a higher degree of micro-contrast hold a piece of the puzzle for generating the effect moreover than those lenses with a lesser degree of micro-contrast.
Mar 19, 2011 at 09:07 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #9417242 « Lenses for "3D" look? »
