What is Best Choice for 3D Pop in the 85-105 range

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop". It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Digiloyd has some examples, there are some on Flickr under Nikon 85 1.4D, Zeiss, and others I have seen some Samyang 135 2.0 from Dustin Abbott of his daughter and others. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I agree that the "POP" is definitely a result of what you describe with the bokeh a contributor. But there is some finer nuances in the rendering related to the optical characteristics that enhance a 3D appearance when the conditions are right. I believe Digiloyd explains this best but I take it there will be his detractors that might pipe up here.

wingster999 said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop". It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Digiloyd has some examples, there are some on Flickr under Nikon 85 1.4D, Zeiss, and others I have seen some Samyang 135 2.0 from Dustin Abbott of his daughter and others. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I agree that the "POP" is definitely a result of what you describe with the bokeh a contributor. But there is some finer nuances in the rendering related to the optical characteristics that enhance a 3D appearance when the conditions are right. I believe Digiloyd explains this best but I take it there will be his detractors that might pipe up here.

Click to expand...

He does, and the best pop comes from the most modern lenses with the best coatings and the most elements.

[No message]

Matsu said:

wingster999 said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop". It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Digiloyd has some examples, there are some on Flickr under Nikon 85 1.4D, Zeiss, and others I have seen some Samyang 135 2.0 from Dustin Abbott of his daughter and others. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I agree that the "POP" is definitely a result of what you describe with the bokeh a contributor. But there is some finer nuances in the rendering related to the optical characteristics that enhance a 3D appearance when the conditions are right. I believe Digiloyd explains this best but I take it there will be his detractors that might pipe up here.

Click to expand...

He does, and the best pop comes from the most modern lenses with the best coatings and the most elements.

Click to expand...

So what are your suggestions then for optimal 3D rendering?

wingster999 said:

Matsu said:

wingster999 said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop". It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Digiloyd has some examples, there are some on Flickr under Nikon 85 1.4D, Zeiss, and others I have seen some Samyang 135 2.0 from Dustin Abbott of his daughter and others. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I agree that the "POP" is definitely a result of what you describe with the bokeh a contributor. But there is some finer nuances in the rendering related to the optical characteristics that enhance a 3D appearance when the conditions are right. I believe Digiloyd explains this best but I take it there will be his detractors that might pipe up here.

Click to expand...

He does, and the best pop comes from the most modern lenses with the best coatings and the most elements.

Click to expand...

So what are your suggestions then for optimal 3D rendering?

Click to expand...

The newest most modern lens of your choice, and a book about lighting and exposure. You can start with Light,Science,Magic.

Matsu said:

wingster999 said:

Matsu said:

wingster999 said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop". It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Digiloyd has some examples, there are some on Flickr under Nikon 85 1.4D, Zeiss, and others I have seen some Samyang 135 2.0 from Dustin Abbott of his daughter and others. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I agree that the "POP" is definitely a result of what you describe with the bokeh a contributor. But there is some finer nuances in the rendering related to the optical characteristics that enhance a 3D appearance when the conditions are right. I believe Digiloyd explains this best but I take it there will be his detractors that might pipe up here.

Click to expand...

He does, and the best pop comes from the most modern lenses with the best coatings and the most elements.

Click to expand...

So what are your suggestions then for optimal 3D rendering?

Click to expand...

The newest most modern lens of your choice, and a book about lighting and exposure. You can start with Light,Science,Magic.

Click to expand...

Looks like a good book to be sure. I will put it on my reading list. As to which lens, this thread below from 2012 on this very subject on this very forum would confirm and contradict some of what you and others have stated. It is a really good discussion and what I have come to realize in researching this is that there is a large range of opinions on this. Funny how as time moves on some things never change.

What Nikkors have most 3D pop (microcontrast)?

wingster999 said:

Matsu said:

wingster999 said:

Matsu said:

wingster999 said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop". It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Digiloyd has some examples, there are some on Flickr under Nikon 85 1.4D, Zeiss, and others I have seen some Samyang 135 2.0 from Dustin Abbott of his daughter and others. But as I stated earlier in this thread, I agree that the "POP" is definitely a result of what you describe with the bokeh a contributor. But there is some finer nuances in the rendering related to the optical characteristics that enhance a 3D appearance when the conditions are right. I believe Digiloyd explains this best but I take it there will be his detractors that might pipe up here.

Click to expand...

He does, and the best pop comes from the most modern lenses with the best coatings and the most elements.

Click to expand...

So what are your suggestions then for optimal 3D rendering?

Click to expand...

The newest most modern lens of your choice, and a book about lighting and exposure. You can start with Light,Science,Magic.

Click to expand...

Looks like a good book to be sure. I will put it on my reading list. As to which lens, this thread below from 2012 on this very subject on this very forum would confirm and contradict some of what you and others have stated. It is a really good discussion and what I have come to realize in researching this is that there is a large range of opinions on this. Funny how as time moves on some things never change.

What Nikkors have most 3D pop (microcontrast)?

Click to expand...

Dude, 'PHOTGRAPHY' used to be 'painting with light'! What you try to do is change it to 'painting with glass', as in 'LENSOGRAPHY'. Maybe you're on to something but for the time being I'm staying with the classical definition.

wingster999 said:

Looks like a good book to be sure. I will put it on my reading list. As to which lens, this thread below from 2012 on this very subject on this very forum would confirm and contradict some of what you and others have stated. It is a really good discussion and what I have come to realize in researching this is that there is a large range of opinions on this. Funny how as time moves on some things never change.

What Nikkors have most 3D pop (microcontrast)?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41395112

Click to expand...

The thing is, everything about lens rendering and image quality can be described objectively. Terms like "3D pop" and especially "microcontrast" are loosely defined at best, and so become subjective. Instead of asking for 3D rendering, try to describe the attributes of the image that you are looking for. Things like high contrast, shallow depth of field, compressed perspective, low noise etc are much more useful ways to describe image quality.

And if you can't describe it easily, show some example pictures of what you mean. Or are you just going off other people's discussions without actually seeing the supposed effect?

I would say that "3D pop" needs a sharp lens with high contrast and a well-lit subject with a darker background, but the problem with that is that my idea of 3D pop might not align with yours, or other people's, because it's subjective.

At the end of the day, the same things that describe "3D pop" (to me) just describe good lenses in general.

You don't even need a prime. A Nikkor 24-70/2.8E VR will do it under the right conditions. Conversely, the most revered Zeiss or Nikkor D prime lens or whatever will completely fail to do it under the wrong conditions. The point it, any good lens, even some mediocre lenses will do it - it's more about the lighting, composition, your technique, etc.

If you still want lens recommendations, I would again say any good lens with an aperture wide enough to do shallow DoF - so Sigma Art primes, Nikon 105mm f/1.4E, Nikon pro zooms like 24-70 and 70-200, Zeiss Otus, etc. Those will do it the most easily, but it's probably possible to do it with almost anything, even certain DX kit lenses.

Robbo338 said:

wingster999 said:

Looks like a good book to be sure. I will put it on my reading list. As to which lens, this thread below from 2012 on this very subject on this very forum would confirm and contradict some of what you and others have stated. It is a really good discussion and what I have come to realize in researching this is that there is a large range of opinions on this. Funny how as time moves on some things never change.

What Nikkors have most 3D pop (microcontrast)?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41395112

Click to expand...

The thing is, everything about lens rendering and image quality can be described objectively. Terms like "3D pop" and especially "microcontrast" are loosely defined at best, and so become subjective. Instead of asking for 3D rendering, try to describe the attributes of the image that you are looking for. Things like high contrast, shallow depth of field, compressed perspective, low noise etc are much more useful ways to describe image quality.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Robbo338 said:

And if you can't describe it easily, show some example pictures of what you mean. Or are you just going off other people's discussions without actually seeing the supposed effect?

I would say that "3D pop" needs a sharp lens with high contrast and a well-lit subject with a darker background, but the problem with that is that my idea of 3D pop might not align with yours, or other people's, because it's subjective.

Click to expand...

At the least, what you describe creates POP. But not in my mind neccesarily the 3D look. I see that in the glass despite what others may say. I think when you combine the right optics with the right background and light you will get a great image. I have used parabolic softboxes that help. Background helps. Post tweaks help, and the lens helps. I am not advocating that the lens cover for poor setups though.

Robbo338 said:

At the end of the day, the same things that describe "3D pop" (to me) just describe good lenses in general.

You don't even need a prime. A Nikkor 24-70/2.8E VR will do it under the right conditions. Conversely, the most revered Zeiss or Nikkor D prime lens or whatever will completely fail to do it under the wrong conditions. The point it, any good lens, even some mediocre lenses will do it - it's more about the lighting, composition, your technique, etc.

Click to expand...

I believe some lenses do it easier but as you state you need other conditions to make it work.

Robbo338 said:

If you still want lens recommendations, I would again say any good lens with an aperture wide enough to do shallow DoF - so Sigma Art primes, Nikon 105mm f/1.4E, Nikon pro zooms like 24-70 and 70-200, Zeiss Otus, etc. Those will do it the most easily, but it's probably possible to do it with almost anything, even certain DX kit lenses.

Click to expand...

I have been most impressed by the Zeiss Makros, and the Samyang 135. I am thinking that the Nikons are good for POP but not always the 3D look that I see in these lenses and some others in the thread I posted. Just my opinions.

wingster999 said:

I have been most impressed by the Zeiss Makros, and the Samyang 135. I am thinking that the Nikons are good for POP but not always the 3D look that I see in these lenses and some others in the thread I posted. Just my opinions.

Click to expand...

You're seeing what you want to see. You're believing myths and chasing fantasies.

Do you also use "Monster cables" to connect your audio equipment to your speakers?

It. Is. All. About. The. Light.

Rich

Rich42 said:

wingster999 said:

I have been most impressed by the Zeiss Makros, and the Samyang 135. I am thinking that the Nikons are good for POP but not always the 3D look that I see in these lenses and some others in the thread I posted. Just my opinions.

Click to expand...

You're seeing what you want to see. You're believing myths and chasing fantasies.

Do you also use "Monster cables" to connect your audio equipment to your speakers?

It. Is. All. About. The. Light.

Rich

Click to expand...

Sounds too good to be true and yes if you really understood the reason why people do that on high wattage HIFI's you would not make that comment. You should study this entire thread below before you sound off like that.

Nikkor 105mm f1.4 remarks by Mr Haruo Sato

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4045614

You should also read this:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0059/index.htm

Be sure to read the last paragraph

wingster999 said:

Rich42 said:

wingster999 said:

I have been most impressed by the Zeiss Makros, and the Samyang 135. I am thinking that the Nikons are good for POP but not always the 3D look that I see in these lenses and some others in the thread I posted. Just my opinions.

Click to expand...

You're seeing what you want to see. You're believing myths and chasing fantasies.

Do you also use "Monster cables" to connect your audio equipment to your speakers?

It. Is. All. About. The. Light.

Rich

Click to expand...

Sounds too good to be true and yes if you really understood the reason why people do that on high wattage HIFI's you would not make that comment. You should study this entire thread below before you sound off like that.

Nikkor 105mm f1.4 remarks by Mr Haruo Sato

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4045614

You should also read this:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0059/index.htm

Be sure to read the last paragraph

Click to expand...

Sorry,

The kind of belief system you are engaging in is called a cult. You are choosing to misunderstand simple facts and ascribing magical qualities to things, ignoring basic physical laws.

From Monster Cables to 3D Pop and micro-contrast, you live in a fantasy world of delusion and willful distortion of reality.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've been professionally involved in just about every aspect of commercial photography for 60 years. Nonsense like the stuff you believe in comes and goes.

As to Monster cables. In another career, I was working as an audio engineer designing power stages of class AB and B amplifiers based on operational amplifier design when the nonsense first came out in the mid 1960s. I remember having an unsuccessful discussion with a HiFi store salesman who insisted he could hear a difference "at any volume level" by using his product rather than "inferior" 18 ga speaker wires. No amount of explaining that the difference in current, about 0.000,000,000 mA was essentially unmeasurable, was a thousand times below the (inaudible) distortion levels of the output stage, even at full output, nothing would dissuade him.

Like you he chose to believe that which he wanted.

Me, I made a living producing and using beautiful imagery. You'll just continue to argue about angels dancing on pin heads.

Bye.

Rich42 said:

Do you also use "Monster cables" to connect your audio equipment to your speakers?

Click to expand...

Monster cables are so 20th century. Don't you know that you need "Diamond" HDMI cables these days at $1000+ per meter?






(This post includes a sarcasm warning for the humor impaired.)

Michael Benveniste said:

Rich42 said:

Do you also use "Monster cables" to connect your audio equipment to your speakers?

Click to expand...

Monster cables are so 20th century. Don't you know that you need "Diamond" HDMI cables these days at $1000+ per meter?

https://www.headphones.com/products/audioquest-diamond-4k-hdmi?variant=1326472429589

(This post includes a sarcasm warning for the humor impaired.)

Click to expand...

Yes, the hype and hucksterism shall never cease and there shall be new suckers born every minute. P.T. Barnum was a genius.

It's laughable. The silver application is a vacuum deposit of literally a few molecules thickness. The silver quickly tarnishes, degrading its conductivity to about the same as copper - not that the infinitesimal and irrelevantly "increased" current flow provided by an untarnished contact surface would have made an iota of difference compared to the electrical impedance of the earphones.

I demand solid 24k gold conductors and contacts from the beginning of the audio chain right through to the windings in the headphones or nothing at all!

Rich

wingster999 said:

anotherMike said:

I know you said you are "old school" and don't like resolution (which makes me wonder why on earth you'd consider the 100 makro planar, which has gobs of it), but before you swing the credit card out, if at all possible, I humbly suggest Nikons best portrait lens ever (and I've shot them all over 40 years), the 105/1.4E.

Click to expand...

Yeah I figured it was a matter of time before that was pointed out. I just see the Zeiss glass has a lot of that 3D look I like how it catches the eye but I would have to do some post to soften some things a bit. I just am not into the flat look that some lenses produce regardless of the technical reasons for it. I can definitely see the depth differences in some lenses but I realize the subject is complex.

wingster999 said:

In the closer distance/portrait ranges, you get wonderful bokeh, it's not as flat (contrast wise) as the 105/2 DC and focuses a hell of a lot more accurately/consistently, and it has a subjective warmth and a bit of character too - it's anything but a "clinical" lens (and I hate that term). At longer distances and stopped down a bit, it turns into a very high resolution lens that basically can match the 100 makro planar, except it's better corrected for lateral color. Nikon has never made a better 105 for portraits, and they've never made a better 105 for landscape. Trust me when I say I was downright shocked at how good this thing is, because I've been somewhat negative towards Nikons lenses over the past 6 years (although to be fair, I'm the opposite of you - I prefer well corrected lenses that are extremely honest to the scene that lies in front of the camera, and don't consider such a lens, or such an approach, indicating I'm less of an artist than a technician at all)

It may not be the lens for your tastes, and you may be down on it because you read some nonsense about it somewhere, but I'd seriously think you should try renting one before pulling the trigger on anything. It's one of those rare times where Nikon made a lens that excels at both the "character" and the "technical" at the same time, and is one of the finest lenses they've ever made. IMO

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The more I look at this on Flickr and other places I agree. Its the only lens I need for what I want to do. It will also help me from staying away from manual focus. Put this on a Z6 and this may be the deal for me. Thx

wingster999 said:

wingster999 said:

-m

Click to expand...

A little above my budget right now but definitely is a great lens. Its on my wish list. Thanks for making the case. I may get fed up with the autofocus on the 105 and start saving faster.

Click to expand...

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop".

Click to expand...

Here you go...


Nikon D700 SOOC JPEG

Robbo338 said:

It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

Click to expand...

It’s simply the illusion of three dimensional depth in 2D media. No need to overthink it. I has existed in painted art as well as photography for a long, long time.

Robbo338 said:

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

The truth is that almost everything you mentioned above can serve as a depth cue. Add to that converging lines, occlusion, and a myriad of other scene-dependent cues.

Lenses, however, add their own depth cues like shallow DOF, high subject microcontrast, and natural-looking OOF transitions. Powerful 3D Pop illusions are triggered when the scene and lens depth cues are both numerous and concordant with each other.

Regardless of Rich42’s incredulity towards the subject, the truth is that some lenses are just better than others with regard to this capacity. None of the lenses he owns have the sort of 3D Pop mojo that shooters in this specialty regard highly so maybe it’s not entirely surprising that he feels this way.

fPrime

--
Half of my heart is a shotgun wedding to a bride with a paper ring,
And half of my heart is the part of a man who's never truly loved anything.

fPrime said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop".

Click to expand...

Here you go...


Nikon D700 SOOC JPEG

Click to expand...

Is that the best example you can find? And what is it about that image that the lens (whatever it is) has contributed, that another lens of similar aperture and focal length could not...?

fPrime said:

fPrime said:

It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

Click to expand...

It’s simply the illusion of three dimensional depth in 2D media. No need to overthink it. I has existed in painted art as well as photography for a long, long time.

fPrime said:

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

The truth is that almost everything you mentioned above can serve as a depth cue. Add to that converging lines, occlusion, and a myriad of other scene-dependent cues.

Lenses, however, add their own depth cues like shallow DOF, high subject microcontrast, and natural-looking OOF transitions. Powerful 3D Pop illusions are triggered when the scene and lens depth cues are both numerous and concordant with each other.

Regardless of Rich42’s incredulity towards the subject, the truth is that some lenses are just better than others with regard to this capacity. None of the lenses he owns have the sort of 3D Pop mojo that shooters in this specialty regard highly so maybe it’s not entirely surprising that he feels this way.

Click to expand...

Could you get any more condescending?

briantilley said:

fPrime said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop".

Click to expand...

Here you go...


Nikon D700 SOOC JPEG

Click to expand...

Is that the best example you can find?

Click to expand...

It’s a clear example, nothing more and nothing less. The importance it has to this discussion is that it is an SOOC JPEG which underscores the the fact that no Photoshop trickery is required to produce the 3D Pop effect with the right lens.

briantilley said:

And what is it about that image that the lens (whatever it is) has contributed, that another lens of similar aperture and focal length could not...?

Click to expand...

A strong illusion of physical depth and space. ;-)

briantilley said:

briantilley said:

briantilley said:

It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

Click to expand...

It’s simply the illusion of three dimensional depth in 2D media. No need to overthink it. I has existed in painted art as well as photography for a long, long time.

briantilley said:

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

The truth is that almost everything you mentioned above can serve as a depth cue. Add to that converging lines, occlusion, and a myriad of other scene-dependent cues.

Lenses, however, add their own depth cues like shallow DOF, high subject microcontrast, and natural-looking OOF transitions. Powerful 3D Pop illusions are triggered when the scene and lens depth cues are both numerous and concordant with each other.

Regardless of Rich42’s incredulity towards the subject, the truth is that some lenses are just better than others with regard to this capacity. None of the lenses he owns have the sort of 3D Pop mojo that shooters in this specialty regard highly so maybe it’s not entirely surprising that he feels this way.

Click to expand...

Could you get any more condescending?

Click to expand...

Actually I’m not trying to be condescending at all here. I simply saw the lens list that Rich42 posted and noticed that while many are sharp none are one’s I’d personally use to shoot 3D Pop with. As such I’m somewhat surprised he’s positioning himself as an authority in this area.

If you really want to call out condescension please do so for Rich42 as well who wrote above:

”The kind of belief system you are engaging in is called a cult. You are choosing to misunderstand simple facts and ascribing magical qualities to things, ignoring basic physical laws.

From Monster Cables to 3D Pop and micro-contrast, you live in a fantasy world of delusion and willful distortion of reality.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've been professionally involved in just about every aspect of commercial photography for 60 years. Nonsense like the stuff you believe in comes and goes.”

Now there’s your condesencion, haha.

fPrime

--
Half of my heart is a shotgun wedding to a bride with a paper ring,
And half of my heart is the part of a man who's never truly loved anything.

fPrime said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop".

Click to expand...

Here you go...


Nikon D700 SOOC JPEG

fPrime said:

It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

Click to expand...

It’s simply the illusion of three dimensional depth in 2D media. No need to overthink it. I has existed in painted art as well as photography for a long, long time.

fPrime said:

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

The truth is that almost everything you mentioned above can serve as a depth cue. Add to that converging lines, occlusion, and a myriad of other scene-dependent cues.

Lenses, however, add their own depth cues like shallow DOF, high subject microcontrast, and natural-looking OOF transitions. Powerful 3D Pop illusions are triggered when the scene and lens depth cues are both numerous and concordant with each other.

Regardless of Rich42’s incredulity towards the subject, the truth is that some lenses are just better than others with regard to this capacity. None of the lenses he owns have the sort of 3D Pop mojo that shooters in this specialty regard highly so maybe it’s not entirely surprising that he feels this way.

fPrime

Click to expand...

Well stated. I ran across this thread that may speak to some differences in opinion on the 3D POP Term


I still believe the term 3D POP is a construct, a comingling of 2 different characteristics. 1 being the POP and the other being a 3D look. You can have POP without the 3D. On the other hand, when the 3D look is strong, it will add to the POP factor. I think it is affected by clarity, contrast, resolution, and the curvature amoung others. So many variables. I think the problems come up in these discussions because there are 2 different sources combined to produce this phenomenon, 1 being the lens, the other being the setup conditions. The resistance by some to the qualities of the lens design having an influence on this is puzzling to me in light of the overwhelming evidence on this very forum. I suspect that in the end, photographers come to see things a certain way and then shape their craft to meet their style. I actually believe some people cannot see the 3D look as well as others. I would agree that this is a cul-de-sac in photographic arts. I find it appealing as it is something you cannot create with a phone camera.

fPrime said:

briantilley said:

fPrime said:

Robbo338 said:

I would love to see some examples of images that people consider to exhibit "3D pop".

Click to expand...

Here you go...


Nikon D700 SOOC JPEG

Click to expand...

Is that the best example you can find?

Click to expand...

It’s a clear example, nothing more and nothing less. The importance it has to this discussion is that it is an SOOC JPEG which underscores the the fact that no Photoshop trickery is required to produce the 3D Pop effect with the right lens.

fPrime said:

And what is it about that image that the lens (whatever it is) has contributed, that another lens of similar aperture and focal length could not...?

Click to expand...

A strong illusion of physical depth and space.

Click to expand...

Looks pretty weak to me. But I must keep reminding myself that I'm one of those who haven't "seen the light" on 3D Pop.

fPrime said:

fPrime said:

fPrime said:

fPrime said:

It's a term that get's thrown around a lot, and while it may have some meaning, it's not well defined.

Click to expand...

It’s simply the illusion of three dimensional depth in 2D media. No need to overthink it. I has existed in painted art as well as photography for a long, long time.

fPrime said:

To me, that "3D pop" effect comes more from the lighting, composition and overall image quality, than from some specific property of the lens. A lot of lenses can do that high contrast, realistic "almost jumps out of the screen" look. But they don't do it all the time. Hence lighting, composition, image quality etc.

Click to expand...

The truth is that almost everything you mentioned above can serve as a depth cue. Add to that converging lines, occlusion, and a myriad of other scene-dependent cues.

Lenses, however, add their own depth cues like shallow DOF, high subject microcontrast, and natural-looking OOF transitions. Powerful 3D Pop illusions are triggered when the scene and lens depth cues are both numerous and concordant with each other.

Regardless of Rich42’s incredulity towards the subject, the truth is that some lenses are just better than others with regard to this capacity. None of the lenses he owns have the sort of 3D Pop mojo that shooters in this specialty regard highly so maybe it’s not entirely surprising that he feels this way.

Click to expand...

Could you get any more condescending?

Click to expand...

Actually I’m not trying to be condescending at all here. I simply saw the lens list that Rich42 posted and noticed that while many are sharp none are one’s I’d personally use to shoot 3D Pop with.

Click to expand...

And what does that prove?

fPrime said:

As such I’m somewhat surprised he’s positioning himself as an authority in this area.

Click to expand...

All that surprises me is that you continue to jump in to any thread that mentions "3D" or "Pop" as if you are the authority on it (whatever it is).

fPrime said:

If you really want to call out condescension please do so for Rich42 as well who wrote above:

”The kind of belief system you are engaging in is called a cult. You are choosing to misunderstand simple facts and ascribing magical qualities to things, ignoring basic physical laws.

From Monster Cables to 3D Pop and micro-contrast, you live in a fantasy world of delusion and willful distortion of reality.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've been professionally involved in just about every aspect of commercial photography for 60 years. Nonsense like the stuff you believe in comes and goes.”

Now there’s your condesencion

Click to expand...

That's not a word. Not in English, at any rate.