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

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions
fishy wishy
fishy wishy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,335
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
1

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Nikkor 105/1.4E (with 105 DC) creates real 3D!

Of course, to make the stereo effect work well, I had to adjust the exposure to match as closely as I could. With that done, I would like to have some feedback about the microcontrast in each pane: Have a careful look, and post your opinion as to whether the left pane or the right pane has better microcontrast - or if you think they look about even.

I don't know what microcontrast even is. It sounds like one of those things most assume they know the meaning of, but never look up in a dictionary.

I like the photo above on the left because it has a bit more real detail in focus, but what is out of focus is smoother. Just what I would want shooting wide open with a very fast lens. For the same reason I prefer the version on the right below:

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Same question as before - do you think the left pane has better microcontrast, or the right pane?

By the way, in my experience people are easily led by contrast and saturation, which is simple to manipulate on the computer.

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,176
Right lens is the 105mm f/2 DC nikkor
6

Marianne Oelund wrote:

After all his bluster decrying the failings of the new Nikon 105/1.4E, Ken has unwittingly given us the best evidence ever, that it can produce gorgeous 3D pop.

All it takes is a smart aleck like me to come along, and notice how to use his resurrection-plant example to put the "flatness" issue to rest.

Here you go - Ken's stereogram created with the 105/1.4E (and a little help from the 105 DC as well; I wouldn't want to leave that out). Arranged by yours truly, for cross-eye mode viewing.

Nikkor 105/1.4E (with 105 DC) creates real 3D!

Of course, to make the stereo effect work well, I had to adjust the exposure to match as closely as I could. With that done, I would like to have some feedback about the microcontrast in each pane: Have a careful look, and post your opinion as to whether the left pane or the right pane has better microcontrast - or if you think they look about even.

Thanks for looking!

Okay so you have nicked his images, processed them (obviously from jpgs as you don't have raws, which would incur a quality loss), then uploaded them here (further compression and quality loss - dpreview compression is quite noticable). There is at least one quality loss in uploading them just here isn't there...

With these caveats:

The right side of the image is the 105mm DC lens. Pops more (this is 3-d pop Marianne), has better microcontrast on the wood - and check out the rendering of the pencil behind the dof compared to the left.

I actually prefer the colour versions - you can see the 105mm f/1.4E lens a mile off with it's yellower rendering, which I don't like. You can clearly see in the black and white rendering, that the left image in colour would be yellower.

Re your famous stereo thing, my eyes cannot do it, but what they can see is the 3-d pop on the right side of the picture that yourself and others have said doesn't exist or whatever, it certainly jumps out at you a lot more than the left side of the image.

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

semaphore Regular Member • Posts: 123
Re: Right lens is the 105mm f/2 DC nikkor
1

primeshooter wrote:

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Nikkor 105/1.4E (with 105 DC) creates real 3D!

The right side of the image is the 105mm DC lens. Pops more (this is 3-d pop Marianne), has better microcontrast on the wood - and check out the rendering of the pencil behind the dof compared to the left.

I think the 105/1.4E is on the right.

 semaphore's gear list:semaphore's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon 35mm F1.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR
WillemB
WillemB Senior Member • Posts: 1,189
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Sorry Marianne, I only see a good stereo picture when right and left picture are switched!. As it is, I see a hole instead of an 'outbutting'.

-- hide signature --

WillemB

 WillemB's gear list:WillemB's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Nikon D750 Fujifilm X-T1 +1 more
postulant New Member • Posts: 2
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Believe the right side is the version with more MC, however I think we are down in the weeds at this point. Images are pretty much indistinguishable.

Cheers

Just Tim New Member • Posts: 11
Funny thing perception
2

Thanks to Marianne for showing it.

We do not see in absolute values, only relative ones. So when you present two images together you see the differences between them and not the absolute qualities of either. This is a very important point when comparing things, you have to compare them against a reference and not each other.

So, going back to first principles I've taken the original colour image and equalised the exposure because the 105DC has less exposure (I don't know if this indicates less light through the lens?? No it indicates differences in calibration of the aperture).

Here's the original, note that TAP has deliberately used yellow text. This has the effect of you being the differences between the text and the images presented (crossed out in blue as well??). You see the one on the right as being more similar to the text and the one on the right as contrasting better against it.

In the first sample I've taken the corrected exposures and placed them against a pale blue instead of the yellow text so you can see how this changes your perception. See which one now appears to have the best colour:

In the last sample I've taken the corrected exposures and placed them directly next to each other. On the left it's 105DC/left 105 f1.4/right, and on the right it's 105 f1.4/left 105 DC/right. Again which has the better colour?

The conclusions drawn are not only erroneous but the images themselves are deliberately arranged to enhance the difference so the bluer side of the image is contrasted directly against the yellower side. Again the effect is you see the difference at the boundary. To illustrate this better I have simply swapped the images around with making any other change:

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,176
Re: Funny thing perception

Just Tim wrote:

Thanks to Marianne for showing it.

We do not see in absolute values, only relative ones. So when you present two images together you see the differences between them and not the absolute qualities of either. This is a very important point when comparing things, you have to compare them against a reference and not each other.

So, going back to first principles I've taken the original colour image and equalised the exposure because the 105DC has less exposure (I don't know if this indicates less light through the lens?? No it indicates differences in calibration of the aperture).

Here's the original, note that TAP has deliberately used yellow text. This has the effect of you being the differences between the text and the images presented (crossed out in blue as well??). You see the one on the right as being more similar to the text and the one on the right as contrasting better against it.

In the first sample I've taken the corrected exposures and placed them against a pale blue instead of the yellow text so you can see how this changes your perception. See which one now appears to have the best colour:

In the last sample I've taken the corrected exposures and placed them directly next to each other. On the left it's 105DC/left 105 f1.4/right, and on the right it's 105 f1.4/left 105 DC/right. Again which has the better colour?

The conclusions drawn are not only erroneous but the images themselves are deliberately arranged to enhance the difference so the bluer side of the image is contrasted directly against the yellower side. Again the effect is you see the difference at the boundary. To illustrate this better I have simply swapped the images around with making any other change:

Bottom image, left side is magenta shifted.

fishy wishy
fishy wishy Veteran Member • Posts: 9,335
Re: Funny thing perception
6

You are living in your own world as if post-processing for color doesn't happen. You're trying to lay claim to subtle differences in a test that is not properly controlled for lighting, and the colour differences are well within the scope of post-processing adjustments anyway. I have wasted hours trying to bring into line artificial lighting in post, and someone can't cope with a little difference in lens cast. We're not having to shoot slides with filters anymore.

If that photographer had left the tripod where it was, removed the body with the plate attached, changed the lens and put the body back on the tripod, he could have got exactly the same perspective on a solid tripod. The fact that he didn't and that there is a little more fill light on the more modern lens side suggests he was fiddling or incompetent.

Besides, the childishness is plain to see from the overlaid text on the photo. IT BOTHERS HIM MORE THAT THE NEW LENS IS IN PLASTIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE

Just Tim New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Funny thing perception
4

fishy wishy wrote:

You are living in your own world as if post-processing for color doesn't happen. You're trying to lay claim to subtle differences in a test that is not properly controlled for lighting,

No, not at all (though I agree the test is rubbish). The point I'm making that it is totally incorrect to think that we see colour in an absolute sense and that we can judge between two examples on a computer screen as to which is correct, because we can't. I'm not laying claim to any differences only demonstrating that by the simple act of swapping the two images over (in the last example that's all I did) that your perception of which is correct changes, because the images do not.

I assure you that I'm not living in my own world because the reason for why this should be is basic colour theory. The examples posted after are only a demonstration of how I can change your perception of the images simply by the way I present them. The implications are that TAP has deliberately presented the two images in such a way so as to generate an illusion by a simple understanding of basic colour theory and how we perceive colours. The alternative (to the yellow text and the way the images are combined with the blue side - enhanced with an added blue cross - against the yellow), is that TAP is giving definitive advice on colour casts without a working knowledge of colour.

Look again at the first and last images where I've done nothing but reverse the order and see how your perception of the colour difference between them changes. With the same images I'm trying to demonstrate that the blue/yellow shift is nothing much more than an illusion created by the way they're presented.

and the colour differences are well within the scope of post-processing adjustments anyway. I have wasted hours trying to bring into line artificial lighting in post, and someone can't cope with a little difference in lens cast. We're not having to shoot slides with filters anymore.

Absolutely. By the data the colour shift between the two appears to be a very slight green/magenta and is probably explained by the differences you pointed out and nothing to do with lens design.

Just Tim New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Funny thing perception
3

primeshooter wrote:

Bottom image, left side is magenta shifted.

This is what I see. By the simple act of reversing the order of the images the illusion of a yellow/blue shift disappears and is replaced by green/magenta.

photowurks Regular Member • Posts: 449
"Better" is non-specific. Please clarify.
1

More accurate color, more pleasing color, or something else altogether?

 photowurks's gear list:photowurks's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 +3 more
photowurks Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Funny thing perception

Just Tim wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

You are living in your own world as if post-processing for color doesn't happen. You're trying to lay claim to subtle differences in a test that is not properly controlled for lighting,

No, not at all (though I agree the test is rubbish). The point I'm making that it is totally incorrect to think that we see colour in an absolute sense and that we can judge between two examples on a computer screen as to which is correct, because we can't. I'm not laying claim to any differences only demonstrating that by the simple act of swapping the two images over (in the last example that's all I did) that your perception of which is correct changes, because the images do not.

I assure you that I'm not living in my own world because the reason for why this should be is basic colour theory. The examples posted after are only a demonstration of how I can change your perception of the images simply by the way I present them. The implications are that TAP has deliberately presented the two images in such a way so as to generate an illusion by a simple understanding of basic colour theory and how we perceive colours. The alternative (to the yellow text and the way the images are combined with the blue side - enhanced with an added blue cross - against the yellow), is that TAP is giving definitive advice on colour casts without a working knowledge of colour.

Look again at the first and last images where I've done nothing but reverse the order and see how your perception of the colour difference between them changes. With the same images I'm trying to demonstrate that the blue/yellow shift is nothing much more than an illusion created by the way they're presented.

and the colour differences are well within the scope of post-processing adjustments anyway. I have wasted hours trying to bring into line artificial lighting in post, and someone can't cope with a little difference in lens cast. We're not having to shoot slides with filters anymore.

Absolutely. By the data the colour shift between the two appears to be a very slight green/magenta and is probably explained by the differences you pointed out and nothing to do with lens design.

I'd posit that is has more to do with screen position of the images and viewing angle relative to positions of observer and their LCD/LED display device.

 photowurks's gear list:photowurks's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 +3 more
Just Tim New Member • Posts: 11
Re: "Better" is non-specific. Please clarify.
1

photowurks wrote:

More accurate color, more pleasing color, or something else altogether?

Exactly! Sorry I thought that I was clear on this. You cannot tell which is better in a side by side comparison you can only note the differences. As to which one is correct you also cannot tell unless you compare it to reference data.

But if you take an image that has an uneven colour temperature across it, that's say more yellow at one side and more blue on the other. Then say a carefully placed blue cross, and yellow text, (add blue and yellow colours to it), you can create an the illusion of a greater colour difference than exists in reality. This is simple colour theory and well documented, the way we perceive colour.

Again the two images, in the lower on I have made absolutely no changes to the colours in the image. I've simply removed the extra colour that TAP added and reversed the order.

It's not a question of which is either best or more accurate, only ask yourself how your perceptions of the difference changes:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Exactly the same image but reversed in order with the added colours removed

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,176
Re: Version 2 left lens is the 105mm f/2 DC

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Same question as before - do you think the left pane has better microcontrast, or the right pane?

Thanks for looking, again!

And has better microcontrast and inter tonal detail.

johnanderson Regular Member • Posts: 142
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
2

Marianne Oelund wrote:

After all his bluster decrying the failings of the new Nikon 105/1.4E, Ken has unwittingly given us the best evidence ever, that it can produce gorgeous 3D pop.

All it takes is a smart aleck like me to come along, and notice how to use his resurrection-plant example to put the "flatness" issue to rest.

Here you go - Ken's stereogram created with the 105/1.4E (and a little help from the 105 DC as well; I wouldn't want to leave that out). Arranged by yours truly, for cross-eye mode viewing.

Nikkor 105/1.4E (with 105 DC) creates real 3D!

Of course, to make the stereo effect work well, I had to adjust the exposure to match as closely as I could. With that done, I would like to have some feedback about the microcontrast in each pane: Have a careful look, and post your opinion as to whether the left pane or the right pane has better microcontrast - or if you think they look about even.

Thanks for looking!

Right lens has the 3-d pop, more microcontrast and better rendering - it's the 105mm f/2 DC isn't it - admit it. A lot less flat. Way to prove him right!

semaphore Regular Member • Posts: 123
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
3

It's amazing how many sockpuppets he has...

 semaphore's gear list:semaphore's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon 35mm F1.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR
OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,779
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

WillemB wrote:

Sorry Marianne, I only see a good stereo picture when right and left picture are switched!. As it is, I see a hole instead of an 'outbutting'.

You're using parallel viewing.  For the correct effect you need to use cross-eye viewing.

I accomplish it by sitting back 2-3', then holding a finger or pencil about midway, positioned so it points to the same detail in each pane.  Then after looking at the finger tip for a few seconds, the stereo image on the display will resolve.

-- hide signature --

Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

a_c_skinner Veteran Member • Posts: 8,455
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

That depends on how you fuse them, divergent or convergent.  But yes this pair is for convergent viewing, the technique of a tyro.

-- hide signature --

Andrew Skinner

 a_c_skinner's gear list:a_c_skinner's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro +5 more
OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,779
Re: Funny thing perception

primeshooter wrote:

Just Tim wrote:

Bottom image, left side is magenta shifted.

Perhaps this identifies an interesting coupling.  The left edge is artificially shadowed, as it would be on a screen display with Windows when another window is positioned to the left of it.

With the tapering of luminance, you are seeing a magenta shift.  This gives us a bit of a clue into how you perceive relative color and contrast.  Gives me some ideas for further experimentation.

-- hide signature --

Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

L Copps Senior Member • Posts: 1,608
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
2

Marianne Oelund wrote:

After all his bluster decrying the failings of the new Nikon 105/1.4E, Ken has unwittingly given us the best evidence ever, that it can produce gorgeous 3D pop.

All it takes is a smart aleck like me to come along, and notice how to use his resurrection-plant example to put the "flatness" issue to rest.

Here you go - Ken's stereogram created with the 105/1.4E (and a little help from the 105 DC as well; I wouldn't want to leave that out). Arranged by yours truly, for cross-eye mode viewing.

Nikkor 105/1.4E (with 105 DC) creates real 3D!

Of course, to make the stereo effect work well, I had to adjust the exposure to match as closely as I could. With that done, I would like to have some feedback about the microcontrast in each pane: Have a careful look, and post your opinion as to whether the left pane or the right pane has better microcontrast - or if you think they look about even.

Thanks for looking!

What "3D" pop? This picture is a very poor test of perspective rendering capabilities. You perceive "3D" pop because the ball of twine conceals part of the object on which it sits. Your mind therefore perceives "3D" because it perceives the ball is concealing the background and is led to speculate what is underneath.

A better test would be a facial portrait with gentle sloping lines and no concealment as was put forth in a previous thread which I attached below. The subject area of the picture above is very tight. It looks heavily cropped so only the center area of the lenses is tested, negating its spherical and aspherical properties.

This test proves nothing as far as "3D" pop.

This is a much better test:

http://foto-info.si/review-of-nikon-af-s-105mm-f1-4e-ed-and-comparison-with-nikon-af-s-85mm-f1-4g/

 L Copps's gear list:L Copps's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads