ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.113 #7 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
RustyBug wrote:
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'śil (French for 'deceive the eye'; /trɒmpˈlɔɪ/ tromp-LOY; French: [tʁɔ̃p lśj] ⓘ 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.
Steve Robinson Pictures...Show more →
Thank you for the reference! I am broadly familiar with the fundamentals, including Trompe L'oeil.
The article that you mentioned is reasonably balanced. The author does have a preference for some lenses, but the other important aspects are properly mentioned as well. There are one or two minor points that I don't necessarily agree with (e.g., the idea that faces should be smooth in portraits - I don't like the synthetic, baby-doll plasticky faces in model/wedding photography).
There is, however, something in the approach that is presented by the author that I find mildly disturbing. To oversimplify the ideas, to produce the "3-D pop" one need
1) A certain lens that has the right focal length (not too wide, not too long)
2) Position a subject (often a human subject) at an appropriate distance
3) Close (or open) the aperture to create a natural transition of sharpness from the subject toward a moderately blurred (but recognizable) background
4) Incorporate directional elements in the composition, such as lines converging to a vanishing point, or related elements that create the sense of depth.
My concern about the above is that this is what E. H. Gombrich calls a "schema" in Art and Illusion.
I see this schema applied in a number of examples of 3-D pop in this thread, some recent examples.
The problem with this (no doubt, successful) schema is the same as, e.g., with with the threads populated by highly successful bird photographers: at some point, after seeing more and more, e.g., raptors doing their usual raptoring, or swallows in flight, etc., these pictures become less interesting, less original. They become repetitive and predictable.
I see a challenge in breaking away from the above schema, particularly in creating the sense of 3-D space and image depth in a landscape, without an obvious central subject and without classical directional elements such as converging lines.
My personal challenge in this regard is that I see the world like my camera - through a single lens; I have no vision in the other eye. I am not sure if the normal (binocular) vision provides a superior depth perception. I do experience the illusion of three-dimensionality when looking at the classical examples, though - no problem with that.
Here are two photos I took while walking in a nearby park.
I wonder if these create a sense of image depth (this is not exactly the same as 3-D pop).
The lens is Fujifilm GF20-35mm F4
|
