RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.112 #6 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
ruthenium wrote:
Some of the recent posts in this thread have called attention to the composition, and I find this useful.
There are reasonably well-established techniques that create the illusion of 3-dimentionality in painted art.
These techniques are about proper composition and use of light and color. The same technical principles apply in photography.
I don't support attempts to sell some lenses and "what we might call 'Chinese bokeh'" as a substitute to compositional skills and to skillful post-processing.
This thread may become more interesting and more useful if it disconnects from lenses and develops into a discussion of how those photos that look 3-dimentional might have achieved this effect due to a particular interplay of composition-light-color....Show more →
Yes, the matter of Trompe L'oeil is in play. Lens contribution is but one aspect of it. Understanding the physiological response of human perception is the root of how humans perceive such 3-D dimensionality in a 2D medium. It is that understanding that affords artists the ability to generate the perception. I'll not recant all that I've written on the matter throughout this thread ... but, that is the basis.
My main point is that the basis for physiological response is rooted in rates of change / transitions to yield the dimensional perception. Where those transitions are compositional, lighting, hue, contrast, focus, modeling, etc. ... they all have the ability to contribute to faster / slower rates of change. Imo, if you are truly desiring to study this ... you are willing to study ALL of it. And, while that includes non-lens considerations, it also includes lens considerations. Simply stated, some lenses have faster transitions, while others have slower transitions (designers choice).
Study it all (and give credence to various aspects) ... which if one is being genuine, will allow it to include the optical contribution along with the other contributions. It cuts both ways, as the pieces all work together in concert.
Being ardently dismissive (not speaking of anyone specifically) of different pieces ... is being disingenuous (imo) to truly desiring to understand how it manifests.
From Wiki:
Trompe-l'œil (French for 'deceive the eye'; /trɒmpˈlɔɪ/ tromp-LOY; French: [tʁɔ̃p lœj] ⓘ is an artistic technique that creates a highly realistic optical illusion of three-dimensional space and objects on a two-dimensional surface.
Here's an interesting site that also mentions Trompe L'oeil ... and the point regarding "concordant" depth cues. So, while the author does have his favorites, he also acknowledges the interaction with other attributes, as well as a degree of dependency on the viewer's physiological response, is in play, too. The author seems to have a "full package" understanding of the pieces ... moreover than folks who want to be dismissive of optical contribution, or folks who refute the contribution of non-optical aspects.
Notice his use of the word "concordant". Pitting different cues against each other will minimize the effect. Combing cues will enhance the effect. Trying to argue a point that will reduce or eliminate the contribution(s) to a single thing (all lens vs. none lens, all lighting vs. none lighting, comp, subject distance, bg sep, dof, field curvature, flat, fast transition, slow transition, etc.) is a game that will never conclude. So does trying to dismiss a single (i.e. dismiss the lens) point, result in perpetuity of dissention.
Don’t see it sometimes, or any of the time? That's the observer dependency part of this phenomena. The more concordant depth cues that there are, the more powerful the 3D Pop effect becomes and the more people will agree that the illusion is tripped in them. If a photo has just a few depth cues, expect that it will still trigger the illusion in a few people but not many. Steve Robinson Pictures
|
