"3D Pop" & Microcontrast Lenses - Learning to See it.

If you've been shooting for a few years, you've probably heard someone talk about "3D pop" and microcontrast lenses. Sometimes this characteristic is attributed to older lenses with fewer elements, but I've also heard others refute that belief.

I've seen a couple of threads here in the past and watched a few YouTube videos trying to determine which lenses are known for this "special" quality, but I can't say that I fully understand what it is these people are seeing.

Some of the examples presented as "3D pop" to me seem nothing more than slightly heavier vignetting, which in some cases gives the illusion of better subject isolation and deeper color saturation. It appears that some light post-processing would lead to a similar result with many modern lenses.

I understand that the subject is supposed to look like they're 3-dimensional, practically popping out of the photo,... the OOF transitions happening smoothly/gradually from foreground to background. IMO focal length, distance from subject and aperture have more to do with that than anything else, but I suppose I could be wrong.

I want to understand! I want to be able to see it! Can every 3D-pop-initiated photog agree on one lens having it and another lacking it? Do they see what they want to see? Is this akin to expensive and rare wine tasting? Would they notice if the labels were switched? Is it like some paranormal experience that you know you've had, but can't prove??

I'm open-minded! I'd love to try at least one or two of these lenses so I can learn to see it, assuming it can be identified with any certainty. I see a lot of Leica praise in this regard, but there are other less expensive options that also have the it factor, I'm told.

If you can see it, if you own a "3D pop" lens, please post some examples and tell me what you see that separates it from the newer Nikon Z lenses. Is there a Nikon Z lens that has the -it- factor??

I guess I've reached that point in my amateur photography life where I start going off the deep end, beyond what 98.5% of the audiences would ever pay attention to. It's a little bit of a mystery that begs to be solved.

--
http://www.dreamsourcestudio.com

Achieving 3D Pop, doesn't seem to be as much about vintage lenses or particular lenses. As it does about crafting together several things to create 3D pop. Summarized below:

• Lenses which tend to compress depth of field (85mm / 135mm) and having wide aperture, small f-stop (f1.4 / f1.8).
• Setting up shot with subject well separated from background.
• Lighting resulting in highlights on subject and shadows around subject. In contrast to background's brightness and contrast.
• Different background colors and textures from subject is suggested.
• Lastly, post-processing to enhance an image which already has 3D-Pop.

In regard to lighting, I think a flash close to subject; whereby flash's light would be weakened by distance to background and lost in background would help with achieving effect.



To me, the above image has 3D-Pop. But it was not taken with 3D-Pop in mind. Wrong lens according to recommendations. Z 70-200mm f/2.8 set at 200mm & f2.8.

3D-Pop comes from lens being close to ground level. Along with focus being on red train car on right. With red train car and green switch flag making for contrast of entire scene?

TheSoaringSprite said:

3D Pop

Microcontrast

Click to expand...

YouTube was a mistake. Photo influencers poisoned the mind of a whole generation of photographers^H^H^H^H^H^H photo gear collectors.

I think I agree that 3D pop is as you describe, and I can see the depth in the image you shared. IMO it has more to do with aperture, distance from subject, composition and post-processing than the lens itself.

I acknowledge that some lenses have additional bokeh characteristics that can impact this to a small degree, but it likely comes down to personal taste, especially since the 3D pop is supposed to be visible even when the lens is stopped down.

jlsturbo said:

jlsturbo said:

3D Pop

Microcontrast

Click to expand...

YouTube was a mistake. Photo influencers poisoned the mind of a whole generation of photographers^H^H^H^H^H^H photo gear collectors.

Click to expand...

You know how these algorithms work,... they get you eventually!

How about these with the 400TC and the 14-28 f2.8.











--
Alan

Oh no, oh no, oh no…!

Having suffered through many discussions on the topic, “3D pop” is a combination of sharply focused subject (often in the centre), shallow DoF, and heavier-than-usual vignetting, IMO.

I think it's not just subject separation. Otherwise a black dot on a white paper would be 3D pop. That's where you need micro contrast. What makes our brain feel the three-dimensionality is the the change between shadowy and bright areas. Not just the subject needs to pop but the all the elements of the photo have to be built like that. Shallow depth of field can obviously help but also a landscape photos shot at f16 can have 3D pop in the right lights e.g. low angle sun creating shadows.

BasilG said:

Oh no, oh no, oh no…!

Having suffered through many discussions on the topic, “3D pop” is a combination of sharply focused subject (often in the centre), shallow DoF, and heavier-than-usual vignetting, IMO.

Click to expand...

But I think it’s not just what it is as much as how well it’s done. Like bokeh. Some lenses seem to produce bokeh in a way we find more pleasing than others.









--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

I can’t ever see 3D pop, micro-contrast or any special rendering beyond the well understood qualities you’ve already described.

Being an engineer, if it can’t be measured, I’m doubtful. Empirically speaking, it seems to apply to very expensive primes and the act of spending the money seems to help you see it.

TheSoaringSprite said:

I think I agree that 3D pop is as you describe, and I can see the depth in the image you shared. IMO it has more to do with aperture, distance from subject, composition and post-processing than the lens itself.

I acknowledge that some lenses have additional bokeh characteristics that can impact this to a small degree, but it likely comes down to personal taste, especially since the 3D pop is supposed to be visible even when the lens is stopped down.

Click to expand...

Yep. It's a lazy encompassing term coined up to mean a lot of different things. It's also a sum or any combination of all those different things.

But personally I can see it when I compare it from an image taken with my phone and an image taken from my cameras. As good as phones get these days, there's still the difference.

Smooth, graduated transitions in the OOF areas add to the sense of 3D depth.

My "idea" of 3D pop is that you have a sense of depth in the frame, in a way that your brain makes it 3D.

So it's not an image with very minimal background blur, as otherwise there's no depth, but it's not a super shallow DoF image where the background is obliterated either, as this also eliminates depth by making the background indiscernable.

To me 3D pop need to be an in-between. An image that allows you to see the depth in the frame through depth of field, but also with a background blur that isn't so heavy that you can't see it.

The bokeh characteristics of old vintage lenses with swirly bokeh, really heavy field curvature, soap bubble effects and any kind of "busy" bokeh are pretty good at achieving "3D pop" because they allow to keep the background away without obliterating it.

example below taken with a Helios 44 58mm f/2 lens (not my pic, but I think it qualifies what "3D pop" is in my mind) :







--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

MJ_Photo38 said:

My "idea" of 3D pop is that you have a sense of depth in the frame, in a way that your brain makes it 3D.

So it's not an image with very minimal background blur, as otherwise there's no depth, but it's not a super shallow DoF image where the background is obliterated either, as this also eliminates depth by making the background indiscernable.

To me 3D pop need to be an in-between. An image that allows you to see the depth in the frame through depth of field, but also with a background blur that isn't so heavy that you can't see it.

The bokeh characteristics of old vintage lenses with swirly bokeh, really heavy field curvature, soap bubble effects and any kind of "busy" bokeh are pretty good at achieving "3D pop" because they allow to keep the background away without obliterating it.

example below taken with a Helios 44 58mm f/2 lens (not my pic, but I think it qualifies what "3D pop" is in my mind) :

Click to expand...

That background/foreground rendering is wildly distracting.

BasilG said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

My "idea" of 3D pop is that you have a sense of depth in the frame, in a way that your brain makes it 3D.

So it's not an image with very minimal background blur, as otherwise there's no depth, but it's not a super shallow DoF image where the background is obliterated either, as this also eliminates depth by making the background indiscernable.

To me 3D pop need to be an in-between. An image that allows you to see the depth in the frame through depth of field, but also with a background blur that isn't so heavy that you can't see it.

The bokeh characteristics of old vintage lenses with swirly bokeh, really heavy field curvature, soap bubble effects and any kind of "busy" bokeh are pretty good at achieving "3D pop" because they allow to keep the background away without obliterating it.

example below taken with a Helios 44 58mm f/2 lens (not my pic, but I think it qualifies what "3D pop" is in my mind) :

Click to expand...

That background/foreground rendering is wildly distracting.

Click to expand...

That's the point of such a lens...

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

George 68 said:

I can’t ever see 3D pop, micro-contrast or any special rendering beyond the well understood qualities you’ve already described.

Being an engineer, if it can’t be measured, I’m doubtful. Empirically speaking, it seems to apply to very expensive primes and the act of spending the money seems to help you see it.

Click to expand...

One of the issues here is that these terms mean different things for different people. The original 3D pop/micro-contrast proponents suggested (as far as I recall) that lenses with fewer elements, i.e. older, less expensive designs, had more of these desirable characteristics than the newer, super sharp, "clinical" lenses.

MJ_Photo38 said:

BasilG said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

My "idea" of 3D pop is that you have a sense of depth in the frame, in a way that your brain makes it 3D.

So it's not an image with very minimal background blur, as otherwise there's no depth, but it's not a super shallow DoF image where the background is obliterated either, as this also eliminates depth by making the background indiscernable.

To me 3D pop need to be an in-between. An image that allows you to see the depth in the frame through depth of field, but also with a background blur that isn't so heavy that you can't see it.

The bokeh characteristics of old vintage lenses with swirly bokeh, really heavy field curvature, soap bubble effects and any kind of "busy" bokeh are pretty good at achieving "3D pop" because they allow to keep the background away without obliterating it.

example below taken with a Helios 44 58mm f/2 lens (not my pic, but I think it qualifies what "3D pop" is in my mind) :

Click to expand...

That background/foreground rendering is wildly distracting.

Click to expand...

That's the point of such a lens...

Click to expand...

Yeah but distracting backgrounds are not really what you want for "3D pop".

I've started to see 3D pop, and sometimes it catches me off guard and blows me away when i've been looking at DX images and come back to FF ones. Casey on Camera Conspiracies talks about it a lot and refers to more simple optical formulas.

Where I see it most for me is on Full Frame Z6 with my 1.8 G primes. Sometimes with my Z 70-200/2.8 but that thing mostly has a 2.0x TC on it for wildlife so I haven't shot any 2.8 on it in a long time.

Couple of lenses that has me really interested are the Z 35/1.2 and 35/1.4. I'm not really a 50mm fan so I think 35mm is next step for me. The 1.4 is interesting being a more simple design like older lenses. Some have mentioned these newer super complex primes don't pop as much. I can't really comment on that much but they have seemed a lil flat to me at times.

Some lenses like Ziess really pop apparently.

BasilG said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

BasilG said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

My "idea" of 3D pop is that you have a sense of depth in the frame, in a way that your brain makes it 3D.

So it's not an image with very minimal background blur, as otherwise there's no depth, but it's not a super shallow DoF image where the background is obliterated either, as this also eliminates depth by making the background indiscernable.

To me 3D pop need to be an in-between. An image that allows you to see the depth in the frame through depth of field, but also with a background blur that isn't so heavy that you can't see it.

The bokeh characteristics of old vintage lenses with swirly bokeh, really heavy field curvature, soap bubble effects and any kind of "busy" bokeh are pretty good at achieving "3D pop" because they allow to keep the background away without obliterating it.

example below taken with a Helios 44 58mm f/2 lens (not my pic, but I think it qualifies what "3D pop" is in my mind) :

Click to expand...

That background/foreground rendering is wildly distracting.

Click to expand...

That's the point of such a lens...

Click to expand...

Yeah but distracting backgrounds are not really what you want for "3D pop".

Click to expand...

That's generally what you get with low element count older lenses though.

If you want a smooth perfect bokeh for the background, you generally have to go with a modern design and more complicated optical formula to better control out of focus areas.

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

Oh so it has a name other than micro contrast. My daughter would be aghast if I told her I was going to do 3D Pop.

Seriously I am not sure of the your desire but I will tell you that both my 105 MC and 135 Plena produce what I have called micro contrast which makes for excellent SSOC images that need little processing to find that pop.

I first noticed it with shots taken in an open market of cheese. If you look full size you see depth to the holes, but not just depth, the shading and contrast that makes it feel real.

Just my opinion, and I only really see it with those two lens consistently. I see it sometimes with wildlife on my 600PF but less often maybe due to conditions.

The 105 used to be my must carry travel lens, but now I go with the Plena. Have even used in larger museums as shown below.













--
Thanks for your help, Michael