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:

Not in the least.

What if 10,000 people choose the same sides of both images being more 3-D? They might not quantify why but it still proves something I think...

Go ahead and find 10,000 people if you like. But the absolute number isn't as important as the percentage of the population which they represent.

Even if you prove that a significant fraction of people can correctly identify it, no more light will be shed on the mechanism.

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.

Well in that case I will try and see it again then if it's that good. I've no doubt if I can get that to work it'll appear more 3-d than a difference between lenses.

If you succeed, you will be shocked at the depth detail.

But the point is the difference is there, between the lenses - already as I've said there is a pattern in this thread most people have made the same selections!

A blind test is needed, where no one can determine from other clues, which lens is associated with each sample.

Come on, you've posted at length talking about TAP and how the new lens is better, your dog in this fight it to hold that theory to the fire and prove it isn't it?

I know the new lens is better with respect to contrast, flare and color saturation. The mistake that Ken is making, is extrapolating the "3D-ness" he sees, to infer that the lens is deficient in those categories. It is not. He is also incorrect in his discussions insisting the lens produces more "lens milk," which he would realize if he used side-by-side samples from the new 105 and one of the older lenses, instead of just a single image from the 105/1.4E.

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

Now we are back tracking I you admit that you see a difference here, between these sides of the images,

No, I said You can achieve, not We can achieve. I'm still seeing a better image from the new lens (contrast, detail and color depth), as do many others, and in Ken's examples I do not see any suggestion of depth from either lens.

To me, the only 2D images which produce a feeling of depth, are those with high contrast (tone or hue) between subject and background, or effective use of deep shadows. Most images do not achieve that, and even the ones which do, only weakly impart the full depth of the original scene.

-- 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