Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Started Jul 23, 2014 | Discussions thread
richard stone Senior Member • Posts: 2,851
Re: what's 3-D?

TTLstalker wrote:

No, I don't think it is in peoples brains. I have always been able to see the effect in many photos from Merrills. Recently I purchased a DP3 Merrill because it was such a bargain and takes great photos but before I purchased I was looking at reviews online. I recall one in which the photographer was comparing a Quatro and Merrill and showed a shot of a western landscape with both cameras for comparison. There was a rock outcropping in one portion of the photo and the reviewer commented that in the Merrill photo the outcropping looked more 3D. And in my view it surely did. I would say the effect would be visible to anyone who looked. So it is not a fake or a fraud. I will look for that review because this issue has come up before and people have tried to say it is just in the imagination..

It wasn't a well known reviewer or anything but it was a photographer who had a business and a website. I will try to find it.

I agree with your comment in general.

My "issue" is that saying "3d" is just annoying to some people, and very difficult to define or measure. Clearly any image on paper or on a screen is 2d, which is why they call it an "effect."

I agree that certain Foveon images can be quite striking and different from what we think a Bayer camera could do. I am not sure how well a q compares to a Merrill, based purely on the sensor, considering the variables in SPP and firmware.

Given all that, the "3d" conversation ends up more sounding like yapping dogs than anything very thoughtful. Insults abound. Theories are advanced. People are left not much, if any, better off than at the beginning. Occasionally something of value is proposed.

Personally, I do not think there is any shame, or any error, in simply saying that one likes one type of sensor, and images from that sensor, more than from another. It seems no less honest, or useful, or good, than saying you prefer the company of one person compared to another. If one were to look at past relationships with people, do we address such matters scientifically?

Just as with the Foveon sensors, the effect is real enough. We find some people attractive and charming, and others make us want to run away. Do we make a list of attributes? Do we weigh and measure? Um, generally not? Do we have to justify our feelings on the matter? Why? To whom?


-- hide signature --
 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma SD10 Sigma sd Quattro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow