Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions thread
OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,777
Re: There is a specific goal in all of this

primeshooter wrote:

Marianne Oelund wrote:

As there are other cues to determine which lens was used for each pane, it's difficult for me to determine whether your insistence on such differences is honest or not.

Sorry? Its your test! I gave my answers; you've even adjusted the images slightly too!

As I explained before, I am trying to rule out various contributors.  Removing the exposure discrepancy as well as I could, without spending an inordinate amount of time on it, was a necessary step.

Don't play that card here...If you seriously don't see one popping out the screen more than the other, it's your vision at fault, not mines which you allude to later in your post. I don't need cues or anything else to see the winner. This is exactly why most people have chosen the same answers, it's obvious.

Yet you still cannot objectively describe, in terms of any parameter that is measurable, what you are seeing.  That is what disturbs me.  If it's visible, it has to be quantifiable.

You have not even pointed to any specific areas of the images where you see the differences, and how they manifest to you.  You merely carry on using imprecise terminology.

I'm trying to study how that discrimination functions. Some of the initial steps in that study, are to rule out certain hypotheses.

What I can see, is one side of the image in both clearly pops out the screen at me. Does that help you?

Not in the least.

Looks like you just helped the Angry Photographers case. How does it feel? Not good I expect.

This is an experiment, from which I seek to learn how your visual perceptions differ. It wasn't very successful, however, because there were too many other cues remaining in the image.

Let's be real for a second. You wanted to prove the new lens was better and prove TAP wrong...its human instinct to want to be right isn't it.

I have already proven that the 105/1.4E is superior with regard to flare control, overall contrast, and color saturation, compared to several other old lens designs.  Those are qualities which matter much more to me, than any weak 3D impression that a single 2D image can impart.

What bothers me, is that TAP and others are trying to cast supposed inferior contrast and color depth as the explanation for what they are seeing, while all of the objective tests say the 105/1.4E is actually superior in those respects.  In other words, they are trying to infer that several different qualities of the lens are deficient, while it is simply not true.  It's frustrating because I know they're "barking up the wrong tree" while the real mechanism remains elusive.

With regard to feelings, I am always experimenting and researching to learn new things; when successful at that, regardless of whether or not discoveries agree with my former opinions, I am happy to have progressed in knowledge.

Good. So stop this nonsense about posting two tests now because you didnt get the answer you expected you admit there where too many cues and it somehow wasn't fair. Come on...give me a break.

You have no idea what answer I expected.  The objective was to remove the exposure discrepancy and see what remains.

The other reason for posting this, is simply that it struck me as quite humorous that Ken had inadvertently provided the material for a good stereogram, which shows depth in a vastly superior way.  Too bad you can't resolve it - you would be completely astonished at the information that's hidden, even at the small-detail level.  Viewing the 3D image, one almost expects a worm to pop out of one of the holes in the wood, at any moment; it is that realistic.

On the other hand, if no objective method of quantitative analysis can be found to model the peculiar sort of image perception that you and a few others supposedly possess, that would be a disappointment.

Look how many people are posting the same answer as myself...should tell you something. I asked a friend who is a non photographer and she immediately picked out the same images i did in both...used the expression "popping out the screen".

Tells me absolutely nothing about why.

This must be hard for you to take, granted.

Going off on a tangent again, about emotions.  This isn't about feelings, although you do seem to be gloating quite a bit.

I know you don't believe in POP. It's a term that wasn't coined by TAP. People have talked about Zeiss pop for decades...etc.

Perhaps I should create some examples with my Zeiss.  Then again, perhaps I shouldn't as too much time has already been spent on this low-value topic.

I don't personally care much about "pop."  It's profoundly inferior to the realism you can easily obtain with a simple stereogram, and I don't think the degree of "pop" available due to the specific character of a lens, which is an extremely subtle thing, should be cause to dismiss it as those in your "camp" have done.

You can achieve far more depth impression by altering lighting on your subject, than you can by changing the lens.

-- hide signature --

Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow