ruthenium
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.127 #3 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
Nifty Fifty wrote:
For you it seems so simple, and perhaps it actually is, but I must confess that I personally feel differently, and quite a few posts here from other forum members make me believe that I am not the only one.
As I mentioned in my last post, the extreme cut-and-paste look, in my experience, tends to result in a flatter image, one with less depth. There's usually a very sharp subject and a very blurred background, but nothing in between. More precisely, there's no space between them. This effect is most pronounced with longer focal lengths and a more distant background, or when the subject is additionally lit (e.g., with fill flash). It then looks like a collage where a sharply cut-out subject is glued onto a plain background paper. While this certainly makes the subject stand out, it doesn't create a sense of depth. At least not for me. And this "problem" (for some it's a problem, for others a design goal) is something I, for one, want to avoid.
I'd like to illustrate this with two examples. In the image showing the tomb, the shallow depth of field does indeed help to isolate the subject from its surroundings to a certain extent, but the space surrounding it still exists and is perceptible as such, not just as a background backdrop. To me, it appears three-dimensional.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54864712752_20ebc82224_b.jpgDSC05250 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
Unfortunately, I don't have a sample image for a drastic cut-and-paste look (for reasons already mentioned), but the following photo, in which I underestimated the effect of the lack of depth of field, suffices to illustrate my point. I've already experimented with the contrast and reduced the sharpness, but the impression that the image, at least as far as the protagonist's upper body is concerned, consists of two overlapping layers, unfortunately remains. This simply makes the image unattractive to me, and I'm only keeping it for the sake of nostalgia. For me, even a subtle cut-and-paste effect makes the image lose its sense of depth. I'm sure I would have liked it much better if the main subject were less sharp, as that would have softened the effect.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55190971778_03af6213da_b.jpgDSC07554 (1) by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
The exact reasons for this and what contributes to the different effect of the two images are debatable, but that wasn't my point. I simply wanted to show what I perceive as spatial and what I don't, without referring to other people's photographs.
I hope I've been able to make my personal perspective a bit clearer and explain why, for me personally, the cut-and-paste look isn't the pinnacle, but rather the death of 3D illusion, or rather, the effect of depth. Of course, other people may have different opinions and feelings, as is the case in many other areas of life.
...Show more →
Thank you for posting the two examples - I find them interesting and educational. I mostly agree with your points.
Regarding "what contributes to the different effect of the two images" - I can share my impression. This is only a personal impression, of course.
To me, the critical visual element in the first picture is the cross in the background. It is critical for two reasons:
-it is a salient element that makes the viewer look at it , then go to the central subject, and again - back and forth. This adds to the sense of depth.
-the cross adds sense (meaning) to the background - it becomes identifiably a cemetery. With this realization, the viewer may establish an emotional connection with the place. This added emotional connection can enrich the visual impression left by the central subject.
The second photo is different. I cannot meaningfully link the subject and the background. The relationship between the two is ambiguous. The background can be related to the subject, but it is also possible that there is no relationship at all, and the subject happened to be photographed in that place for no special reason. If there is a relationship, the background is not identifiable. The functional role of the shed is difficult to tell. The overall feeling is that the background plays no role and can be ignored. If we ignore the background, then the spatial connection is lost. I fully understand that a photo may be very important emotionally to the photographer, while being less interesting to a chance viewer who has no connection with the subject. Thus, my comments should not be interpreted as disrespectful.
Related to the above, I find myself relatively disinterested in pictures of glamourous dames against a blurred background. While the photographic/technical quality of such pictures can be beyond reproach, the photos soon become repetitive, routine, and effectively meaningless. I have no more reason to stop and look at dame #3 than I may have to stop and look at dame #2 or #4. I am a heterosexual male, and I do find myself fascinated by female beauty; thus I am naturally inclined and more than capable of appreciating this genre of photography - thus, this isn't a problem. Once again, my critical comments are not meant to hurt anyone personally, and I make no claim to be a photography art connoisseur.
The final point is that, to me, 99% of "rendering" in a photo (other than the effect of varying aperture) is a product of post-processing. I challenge anyone who should disagree to post their best example of 3D pop as a linear uncorrected demosaiced raw image.
|
I have a couple of lenses that produce excellent depth, with top notch fall-off from sharp to unsharp, in a very natural looking way, but not sure that qualifies as "pop."
.