I personally think a Porsche 356 Cabriolet just has plenty of 3D pop built right in. This car is probably older than most photographers in this thread. If I'm not mistaken, it was the first series-produced Porsche ever. The engineers back then really put a lot of thought into it and apparently, they also threw in a little bit of 3D pop, which was still quite a new thing at the time.
A Shelby Cobra also has a bit of 3D pop built in, but not quite as much as the Porsche 356. I think it's because the engineers who developed the Shelby Cobra in the 1960s as a British-American project weren't quite as advanced as the German engineers at Porsche yet. They were still getting their first experiences with 3D pop, so to speak.
Schwarzlicht wrote:
I personally think a Porsche 356 Cabriolet just has plenty of 3D pop built right in. This car is probably older than most photographers in this thread. If I'm not mistaken, it was the first series-produced Porsche ever. The engineers back then really put a lot of thought into it and apparently, they also threw in a little bit of 3D pop, which was still quite a new thing at the time.
Definitely one of my favorite cars ever. Here is the car the belonged to my father-in-law before he passed away. It was a 356 C, with the four cam engine. One of only 30 that were made. He was the second owner and had it from the early 70s. It sold for over a million dollars at auction.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Definitely one of my favorite cars ever. Here is the car the belonged to my father-in-law before he passed away. It was a 356 C, with the four cam engine. One of only 30 that were made. He was the second owner and had it from the early 70s. It sold for over a million dollars at auction.
It's definitely a beautiful car. I actually came across the owners several times a day an older couple, late 60s, early 70s. She was dressed the way a worldly woman driving a convertible in the 1970s would be dressed: sunglasses and a nice headscarf.
Schwarzlicht wrote:
A Shelby Cobra also has a bit of 3D pop built in, but not quite as much as the Porsche 356. I think it's because the engineers who developed the Shelby Cobra in the 1960s as a British-American project weren't quite as advanced as the German engineers at Porsche yet. They were still getting their first experiences with 3D pop, so to speak.
I really like the Batis line. I have the 85/1.8 which is fantastic. I almost bought a second hand 40/2 but eventually settled on a brand new 40/2.5 G. I'm still missing a ~24mm prime for the A7V so I might check out the 25/2.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
I think I posted this before but decided to revisit it and process with my own profile. For cut out look, the voigtlander 40/1.2 is hard to beat...
I want to pick up a Zeiss 35mm f/1,4 again. Is there any consensus on whether the Contax or the Zeiss ZF/ZE/... yields the most 3D? Or maybe the Otus, or another one of these newer Zeiss sub-brands?
I want to pick up a Zeiss 35mm f/1,4 again. Is there any consensus on whether the Contax or the Zeiss ZF/ZE/... yields the most 3D? Or maybe the Otus, or another one of these newer Zeiss sub-brands?
Hi Carsten!
Great to see you here, back again, and in full swing!
I would go for the old C/Y version.
The ZE and ZF are newer designs, more "flawless" and less organic or coming with less flavour. So if it is the classic look you are after I think the C/Y is the right one. Less flare on the ZE and ZF.
All the above is what I read. My experience is limited to the C/Y version, a lens I liked a lot (weight aside) and we have all seen great samples of images taken with the C/Y. The ZE and ZF... surely better as more modern but I haven't seen the organic drawing style in the images I have stumbled upon.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
I think I posted this before but decided to revisit it and process with my own profile. For cut out look, the voigtlander 40/1.2 is hard to beat...
I think I'm just going to start copying and pasting my earlier reply, perhaps with change or two...
gdanmitchell wrote:
As usual, any "pop" here is the result of the things we've mentioned earlier:
1. Strong sense of perspective
2. ...most colorful subject in the foreground.. I removed "brightest," since the subjects are darker, which can also work.
q3. Background far less colorful and saturated, and with a very different range of colors and muted luminosity.*
4. A bit of vignetting (either by lens or post-processing) helps focus attention on the primary subject.
This photograph illustrates one other factor that can help make subjects stand out: The bright, warm (red!) colors on the subjects along with their skin tones contrast with and make them stand out from the much cooler (bluish) tones in the background.
*Speaking of #3, I'll bet you could make those central figures even a bit more "present" by doing something about the bright red spot on the building along the upper right margin. I'd consider way desaturating it or even cropping the image to remove it. I'll be you like the results. :-)
