gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.105 #2 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
rsrsrs wrote:
Slight OOF in the background adds “subjective sharpness” to the front group.
and this is the secret of 3D Pop
Can we close my thread?
It is A “secret,” but not THE secret. There are a variety of techniques that are found in images that are thought to exhibit whatever “3D pop” is, and the image I commented on (including that quote) uses quite a few of them.
- - -
tuxounet wrote:
Also the vignetting helps a lot (does it come from the lens or add in post)
That was my first observation in the post you quote!
- - -
jamesdak wrote:
I don't get all the complaining to close the thread. A lot of people are having fun with it. If you don't want to play, just don't participate. Why is this so hard to understand? 
Two reasons, perhaps.
1. There is a fair amount of misinformation in this thread, of the sort that can mislead less-experienced photographers looking for panaceas to go down an expensive dead-end road.
2. Perhaps more to the point, after well over 2000 posts, it is clear that there is no answer to the question posed in the original post and the tread title… and no further light is going to be produced by another 2000 posts.
- - -
Bacalhau wrote:
there are also two people that can't perceive it, and not just as not seeing but also by over-seeing it
The same might be said about… leprechauns. Bigfoot. Yeti. ;-)
- - -
gyoung143 wrote:
It's a great thread. Proves no one can quantify Pop, amazing what some people think has it, even some 'dogs'!
I’m also amazed at the inconsistency among supposed examples of “pop.” Several do seem to exhibit something that might be termed “pop,” typically attributable to identifiable characteristics of the images, often linked to particular techniques and approaches. But others posted to, I suppose, “prove” the “pop” quality of certain specific lenses are really pedestrian images that reside in point-and-shoot country.
Since I am against attacking anyone’s photographic skills in so-called technical threads (that’s often a nasty technique of distraction), i’m not going to call out any specific photographic examples…
- - -
RustyBug wrote:
there has been no consensus on what the term "pop" means ...
This is one of the fundamental problems: trying to deduce the thing (lens) that best produces an outcome, the definition of which no one can agree on, is a fool’s errand.
An interesting game for someone (not me) to play would be to answer the question: “If the term “3D pop” did not exist, what equally succinct term would apply to whatever this thing is?”
- - -
In the end, imagine that you are a person who has seen photographs with this quality that you think is attractive and appealing, and that you would like to get that quality in your own photographs and better understand how it is obtained.
You would be FAR better off looking at the visual features of those photographs, understanding what visual qualities produce this effect that you like, and then setting about applying those techniques to your own photography. These include effects of lighting, color, contrasts, selective highlighting, selective focus, composition, use of perspective, posing subjects, and more.
Any decent lens will get you there.
|
