RustyBug wrote:
Not sure why folks are so ardent to continue to suggest the term can't be defined, or they don't understand what it conveys.
Perhaps they "continue to suggest that the term can't be defined" because there seems to be no agreed-upon definition of what it is. (Yes, I looked. Most of what I see is a sort of broad set of image characteristics that may or may not be found in al image. Also, quite a few don't mention lenses, though many do mention aperture as one factor in some cases.)
It most certainly is not as simple as a "sense of rapidity." (First time I've heard that term applied to a description of still images.)
And, of course, the main reason that many continue to engage this topic here is the implicit assumption of the thread from the first post that it, whatever it is, is something tied closely to using specific lenses (or, more precisely, a specific lens). There is no convincing evidence, all of these thousands of posts later, that this is the case.
There is plenty of visual evidence, including photographs presented in this thread (some quite recently), of a broad consensus around aspects of images that may lead viewers to say that they "pop" or "have pop." These include:
- a primary subject that stands out from a background in some way.
- effects of perspective that create a greater sense of depth.
- contrasts in luminosity, saturation, and more between a primary subject and its background (and sometimes foreground).
- lighting effects. Light of the subject from the front/side often enhances the effect. Brighter light on the subject with a darker background can help. (Though sometimes, if handled well, a darker subject with a bright background can work.)
- We have seen several examples on recent pages where a bit of rim light on a subject (particularly when the subject is against a darker background) sharpens the separation between subject and background.
- a background whose impact is reduced compared to the central subject by different toning (say bluish, suggesting low light compared warmer ight on the subject) or by means of decreased background saturation and luminosity.
- A narrow depth of field may contribute, as one way to focus attention on a primary subject and suggest that the background is further away.
- Compositional decisions can also create a sense of depth, especially in conjunction with light effects.
Almost (but not quite*) all of these are found in non-photographic depictions and even in graphic design, all oof which have nothing* to do with lenses.
- - -
*That's not quite the whole story. Early photographers often attempted to emulate painters, for various reasons. But later painters were influenced by the photographic way of seeing. You'll see this in multiple ways. For example, I recently saw a painting in which the viewpoint of the painter would have produced converging perspective lines on subjects high in the frame — but the painter produced what a camera with movements would "see," parallel vertical lines. I've also seen paintings in which the background has been, as if inspired by seeing the effect of narrow DOF apertures, made to appear out of focus.
Apr 05, 2026 at 10:10 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17016136 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
