Define "Pop"?

Started May 2, 2014 | Discussions
InTheMist
InTheMist Veteran Member • Posts: 3,078
Define "Pop"?

Hi Guys,

Don't stop reading yet, but first off, I'm a Nikon user.

I've often heard of Leica users referring to 3D "pop" but I'm wondering how you define it? Is there a way that you test for that? What makes a lens pop?

I ask because Nikon has a new 35mm f/1.8 that is pretty small, and is actually in some cases sharper than the near-legendary Sigma 35mm f/1.4 but the Nikon is just missing that certain something!

This is a shot with the Sigma that I think kind of pops.  Agree, corrections to my misconception?  I've been trying to review these two side-by-side, but the words are failing me.

The Sigma "pops" in my opinion. Agree?

-- hide signature --

It's more important how an image looks as a thumbnail than how it looks at 100%.
http://inthemistphoto.com

 InTheMist's gear list:InTheMist's gear list
Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Nikon Df Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon D810 Nikon 1 J5 +18 more
user_name Veteran Member • Posts: 3,134
Re: Define "Pop"?

InTheMist wrote:

Hi Guys,

Don't stop reading yet, but first off, I'm a Nikon user.

I've often heard of Leica users referring to 3D "pop" but I'm wondering how you define it? Is there a way that you test for that? What makes a lens pop?

I ask because Nikon has a new 35mm f/1.8 that is pretty small, and is actually in some cases sharper than the near-legendary Sigma 35mm f/1.4 but the Nikon is just missing that certain something!

This is a shot with the Sigma that I think kind of pops. Agree, corrections to my misconception? I've been trying to review these two side-by-side, but the words are failing me.

The Sigma "pops" in my opinion. Agree?

-- hide signature --

It's more important how an image looks as a thumbnail than how it looks at 100%.
http://inthemistphoto.com

3D pop has to do more with subject isolation via depth of field and bokeh.

Bokeh is clearly subjective and DOF is easily quantified.

Where things get more difficult is with color rendition, microcontrast, and what the subject matter is and how it is photographed perspective wise.  All are contributors to the 3D effect, which is nothing more than the suspension of disbelief of a 2D image.

Basically, the brain uses those cues to create the 3D effect out of a 2D image.

So, I would not say that any one manufacture really has a corner on the market with 3D pop, but manufactures like Zeiss seem to have an edge and it probably has to do with its microcontrast, DOF bokeh, and color rendering properties.  The rest is up to the photographer.

 user_name's gear list:user_name's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Leica M8 Leica M Typ 240 +1 more
alohakid Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: Define "Pop"?
2

it's like pornography ; hard to define , but you know it when you see it .

 alohakid's gear list:alohakid's gear list
Sony RX1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
InTheMist
OP InTheMist Veteran Member • Posts: 3,078
Thanks! (More questions)

user_name wrote:

3D pop has to do more with subject isolation via depth of field and bokeh.

Bokeh is clearly subjective and DOF is easily quantified.

Where things get more difficult is with color rendition, microcontrast, and what the subject matter is and how it is photographed perspective wise. All are contributors to the 3D effect, which is nothing more than the suspension of disbelief of a 2D image.

Basically, the brain uses those cues to create the 3D effect out of a 2D image.

So, I would not say that any one manufacture really has a corner on the market with 3D pop, but manufactures like Zeiss seem to have an edge and it probably has to do with its microcontrast, DOF bokeh, and color rendering properties. The rest is up to the photographer.

Thanks so much for your feedback.

Would you say that a lens with more microcontrast towards the centre has more 3D feel than a lens that is sharper at the edges?

Have you experience two lenses, with the same aperture that have a different feel as they transition from sharp to unsharp?  What effects that, and is there something that makes this transition "good"?

-- hide signature --

It's more important how an image looks as a thumbnail than how it looks at 100%.
http://inthemistphoto.com

 InTheMist's gear list:InTheMist's gear list
Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Nikon Df Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon D810 Nikon 1 J5 +18 more
quadraticadder Regular Member • Posts: 377
Re: Define "Pop"?
1

Pepsi, Coke, Root Beer.... sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Best,

Steve

 quadraticadder's gear list:quadraticadder's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summarit-M 50mm f/2.5 Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH
magneto shot Senior Member • Posts: 1,609
Re: Define "Pop"?
1

whatever makes the main subject stands out.

Sharpness + contrast is the key ingredient here | alternatively its the play between white|black sliders.

This gets talks alot in Sigma cameras, due to the foveon sensor generating micro contrast and crazy sharpness.

I would define pop as merely, light favouring a particular subject.

-- hide signature --

www.marcuslowphotos.com

 magneto shot's gear list:magneto shot's gear list
Leica X Vario Canon G1 X II Panasonic FZ1000 Sigma DP1x Sigma DP2x +12 more
streeteyes Regular Member • Posts: 207
Re: Define "Pop"?

The "3D Pop" you refer to is generally a result of all the aspects others have mentioned like micro contrast, color rendering and that elusive quantity of focus falloff called bokeh. It's most pronounced when there are foreground and background elements in an image that are appropriately out of focus but gradually so and not suddenly so about a contrastingly sharp image or zone of sharpness in a subject. Also playing a major role here is a degree of vignetting along with superior center frame sharpness (which, ironically, many photographers feel are inferior qualities in a lens) both of which enhance the dream like quality and dimensionality people crave. Interestingly enough this concept of sandwiching a sharp image between noticeably less sharp fore- and background elements was used a lot by none other than Walt Disney when he introduced it (actually it was the Fleischer brothers of Popeye fame who were working for him at the time) in Pinnochio to give the illusion of greater depth in the scenes.

-- hide signature --

Life is an infinite series of moments called now. My job is to capture them.

 streeteyes's gear list:streeteyes's gear list
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art
user_name Veteran Member • Posts: 3,134
Re: Thanks! (More questions)

InTheMist wrote:

user_name wrote:

3D pop has to do more with subject isolation via depth of field and bokeh.

Bokeh is clearly subjective and DOF is easily quantified.

Where things get more difficult is with color rendition, microcontrast, and what the subject matter is and how it is photographed perspective wise. All are contributors to the 3D effect, which is nothing more than the suspension of disbelief of a 2D image.

Basically, the brain uses those cues to create the 3D effect out of a 2D image.

So, I would not say that any one manufacture really has a corner on the market with 3D pop, but manufactures like Zeiss seem to have an edge and it probably has to do with its microcontrast, DOF bokeh, and color rendering properties. The rest is up to the photographer.

Thanks so much for your feedback.

Would you say that a lens with more microcontrast towards the centre has more 3D feel than a lens that is sharper at the edges?

Possible.  It will give you better subject isolation, but lenses like that are more geared for portraiture than say landscape.  I am looking at/considering the Zeiss 50mm Sonnar f/1.5 right now for that kind of effect.

Have you experience two lenses, with the same aperture that have a different feel as they transition from sharp to unsharp? What effects that, and is there something that makes this transition "good"?

No, but I am seriously looking at both the Zeiss 50mm Planar and Sonnar, which each has unique rendering attributes.  The Planar is ultra sharp across the whole field.  The Sonnar is more defocused across the field, very sharp in the center, but has a shallower DOF at f/1.5.

However, each excels within its own domain and depends on what you want or need out of a lens.

-- hide signature --

It's more important how an image looks as a thumbnail than how it looks at 100%.
http://inthemistphoto.com

 user_name's gear list:user_name's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Leica M8 Leica M Typ 240 +1 more
Pi lover
Pi lover Contributing Member • Posts: 779
Re: Define "Pop"?

InTheMist wrote:

Hi Guys,

I've often heard of Leica users referring to 3D "pop" but I'm wondering how you define it? Is there a way that you test for that? What makes a lens pop?

It's more important how an image looks as a thumbnail than how it looks at 100%.
http://inthemistphoto.com

Contrast, sharpness, saturation and brightness all have something to do with pop. It's partly lens, partly sensor, partly subject matter as required. With todays software it's also partly processing after the camera has produced something to work with.

A picture of my almost Panasonic taken with a Sony 5r which is almost a Leica :-).

Grant.

bosjohn21
bosjohn21 Forum Pro • Posts: 17,760
Re: Define "Pop"?

pop means different things to different folks. "pop" and "the leica look" are often interchangeable.

the so called pop or leica look are also a bit vague, but I will give it a try. the pop you men I think is a result of the LEitz and leica lenses ability to gain a high degree of micro contrast which helps the brain imagine the image is almost three d. the leica look I attribute to the fast 35mm primes so favored by M shooters from the late fifties on. put together it does sometimes have a unique look.

-- hide signature --

John aka bosjohn21

Vinylly Contributing Member • Posts: 800
Re: Define "Pop"?

This is where I fear the writer has gone wrong.  He focused on the cluster of flowers in back while it would have been better with the flowers in front, with the soft out of focus flowers in back.  Then he would have a nice 'pop' to his pic.

Daedalus2000
Daedalus2000 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,528
Just for fun, does this "pop"?

Ok,  boring image, but if you see this in big size, does it pop?

What about this? Does this pop?

If you think they "pop", then it is all down to the lens and processing and not just a Leica thing.

Best, D

Charles2 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,667
Re: Thanks! (More questions)
1

user_name wrote:

I am seriously looking at both the Zeiss 50mm Planar and Sonnar, which each has unique rendering attributes.

Does this one pop? Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 at f/5.6

https://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/13491424324/

AnakChan
AnakChan Regular Member • Posts: 177
Re: Define "Pop"?

I think these pop??

intruder61
intruder61 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,064
Re: Define "Pop"?

........................pop

selimseval
selimseval Junior Member • Posts: 43
Re: Define "Pop"?

I think this is the "pop". Leica M9 with Voigtlander 50mm 1.1. Indoors, natural light. Background washed away with a nice bokeh.

This is the Leica "pop"

 selimseval's gear list:selimseval's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6300 Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH +4 more
LeicaBOSS
LeicaBOSS Regular Member • Posts: 432
Re: Define "Pop"?

Subject selection, focal length, lighting, a "swirly bokeh", and a number of contrast characteristics of a lens really contribute to this effect. I get it a lot with a Zeiss 18mm f/4 actually.

The image below has a pretty characteristics 3-D look - but it's lighting, subject, blur, and contrast that make it happen. And it's a Sigma 180mm lens.

-- hide signature --

From time to time, I point my camera at the right things. This is generally when I forget everything I've learned.

 LeicaBOSS's gear list:LeicaBOSS's gear list
Leica M9 Sony SLT-A77 Canon EOS M Sony Alpha 7R Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +17 more
km25
km25 Contributing Member • Posts: 650
Re: Define "Pop"?

No camera system, no brand gives you pop and 3D. It is how you photograph the image. A Hassi SWC @ F/11 is not going to give you pop, just a nice picture with very thing in focus. Even Fuji can pop

-- hide signature --

kam

 km25's gear list:km25's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Leica Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH +3 more
Wetzlarkid
Wetzlarkid Contributing Member • Posts: 614
Re: Define "Pop"?

Maybe this is "POP"!!

E N J O Y...

 Wetzlarkid's gear list:Wetzlarkid's gear list
Leica V-Lux 40 Leica X1 Leica X Vario Leica V-Lux 4 Nikon D90 +4 more
groucho
groucho Regular Member • Posts: 106
Re: Define "Pop"?
1

Yup, they do indeed pop. I like the lakeside bench a lot. Mostly the photographer, though, even though your equipment is 1st rate.

 groucho's gear list:groucho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Leica X Vario Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads