At 9/12/2020 09:32 PM, Moose wrote:
>...
>One thing about the term "3D" as used here is that it's not actually about 3D
>subjects so much as the kind of subject background separation you get with 3D
>glasses for movies.
>
>When I think 3D, I'm usually thinking about subjects that are quite deep, and
>thus impossible to capture all in focus with normal lenses and techniques, let
>alone use shallow DoF to separate them from separate background.
>
>Here's a deep subject, with 3D/separation effect created in post.
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Focus%20Stacking/SpideyStack.htm>
>
>I think that "Pops"!
My understanding is that there is a lens characteristic that cannot be
reproduced in post that creates the so-called 3D-Pop. Not saying your photo,
processed, is not good. This is more the criteria for 3Dish, for which longer
lenses will tend to isolate the subject from the background just as well. Here
is a shot with minimal post processing (ACR + auto) in PS.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/NGY8rzeSfVQMpwBC8
a7r3 with Canon 180mm/3.5 macro at F4.5 and Metabones adapter, Sept 4, 2020.
Simply by framing the shot relative to the background and using a longer lens,
subject is isolated well. This probably qualifies as 3Dish, but not 3D-Popish?
Ken started this line of discussion with his comment on the 14-35/2. Due to his
overly developed discipline of budgetary gas self-denial, he does not have the
lens in hand to help us work this out. So we suffer from anecdotal-ness.
Ken wrote:
>...
>However, there is one lens that I tried and immediately had to remove
>because of EXTREME Lens Envy: The 14-35/2. The 14-35/2 is to the
>14-54, what the 14-54 is to a plastic lens on a Holga.
>
>Our Iowa friend who had the full set of SHD lenses hid the purchase of
>the 14-35/2 from his wife for almost two years. He used it to
>photograph a wedding for one of her nieces, but when she saw the
>results, she knew something was amiss. Busted! She was none too happy
>about how much the lens cost, and the fact that he hid it from her,
>but all was forgiven when she saw how amazing the images were. Having
>seen some of those images, I would agree with that assessment.
>
>An F-stop is an F-stop is an F-stop, except when it comes to the
>14-35/2 lens. F4 on that lens renders an image completely differently
>than F4 on the 14-54 or 12-60.
I assume that is the Oly 12-60 kit lens, not the PL 12-60?
In my mind, a really sharp lens with good bokeh are the characteristics that
create the 'Pop". Just as different sensor color filters can create images that
cannot be reproduced in post, such as the E-1. Similarly, micro-contrast
coupled with the nature of near OOF optics cannot be reproduced in post.
4th D - WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|