Micro contrast is not real. 3D pop is not real. Well, they may be real phenomena of an image, but they are not imparted by certain lenses due to certain optical designs. Anyone who supports the idea of 3D pop, Zeiss pop, or micro contrast is an anti-science luddite or a grifter. Watch any of these people try to explain what 3D pop or micro contrast is and their bullshit is self evident. If a phenomenon cannot be described using scientific language and measured objectively, it isn't real. Every time you see an A/B test for 3D pop or microcontrast, the tester is using different camera bodies, or the composition is different, the color grade is different, different exposure levels or the lighting has changed. The only other area that has so much peasant level superstition has got to be pro audio.
>>4380208Actually, vignetting, sharpness falloff, and yes, chromatic aberration, can add to an illusion of depthOtherwise in the wild i see most lenses people say have pop are just higher contrast. The common belief that high element counts do it could be related to high element lenses being more prone to veiling flare from all their glass to air surfaces, lowering contrast when light hits the front element just right
>>4380210>Actually, vignetting, sharpness falloff, and yes, chromatic aberration, can add to an illusion of depthSo vignetting and CA, being two qualities which nearly everyone instantly corrects for either in-camera or as soon as they import their photos into software, account for 3D pop? More pseudoscience bullshit that is meaningless without statistically valid tests. Also kind of moves away from the idea that 3D pop is a product solely of the lens, considering that both of those qualities could easily be added to an image produced with a "sterile" or "clinical" lens.As far as sharpness falloff, I have yet to see anyone show that two lenses at the same focal length and aperture have any measurable difference in falloff.> high element lenses being more prone to veiling flare from all their glass to air surfaces, lowering contrast when light hits the front element just rightSo in this case, modern high element lenses can pop sometimes and not pop other times depending on the angle of light entering the front element? silly.
>>4380208How could any lens produce 3d pop if the scene is poorly lit?
>>4380215I mean, that's precisely it - lighting is what makes an image look 3d, not certain aspects of a lens. Shallow depth of field can add depth, obviously, but no more on a Zeiss 55 1.8 than a modern Sigma 50 1.4.
>>4380214If you can’t just imagine how vignetting can give centered compositions an illusion of depth, get your brain checked, but the CA thing needs explanationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromostereopsis
It's easy to manipulate different levels of contrast in any image processor, whether you want to call micro contrast or whatever. Fps-guy does not really know what he is doing, video already is "3d", thats the point of it. If 3d pop exists it is of interest to photos, and can be created with any sharp enough lens.
>leave in 2018>2024, decide to check on /p/ see whats up nowadays>click on the link and open /p/>'''''3D POP IS NOT REAL''''holy shit.....both 3d pop nerds and conspiracy theorists who deny it, need to learn how glass elements interact with light inside the lens once and for all... come on...both sides are such uneducated pigs, its not even funny. even if rage baiting, its not even funny anymore, its just sadthis pointless arguing been going on since late 2000's aka. ever since majority of american gen pop got their hands on ILCs, with half of them making up retarded terms such as ''3d pop'' and ''micro contrast'' and making up their own ''scientific'' terms, all to explain what are basically freshman college physics, all while europeans and asians are trying to explain to them that they are retarded and need to read a book.the fact that someone would rather spend 15 years of their life arguing about the same shit over and over again, just because... just to argue, instead of picking up a book or two and spend a week or two to learn what the fuck youre actually talking about and to realize how dumb you actually sound, that shit is insane to me. do you people really have no life outside of internet? hell, even if you dont, literally every university book ever made on every subject in existence, is nowadays available online to read either legally or illegally... and you still choose to be stupid. thats shits insane to me. a single, tiny 0.1mm glass element can completely change the look of an image. it can change the color tone of the image, shapes, add/cut reflections, change shading, change color gradient levels and even add effects such as halos, stars or kaleidoscope effect... and yet you wild pigs are over here arguing whether or not a whole ass lens can produce a more realistic image than the other... hahahahaha so sadjust FYI, you guys look like a couple of 6 year olds trying to argue about organic spectroscopy or quantum physics>pic not related[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4380317All these words, and you didn't actually say anything except "i hate americans, and yet, am exactly as stupid as the people I hate".Yes, "3d pop" is not *A REAL OPTICAL PROEPRTY*. The 3d effect is, as EVERYONE WHO HAS TAKEN A FRESHMAN LEVEL ART CLASS ALREADY KNOWS, mostly composition, light/shadow, and perspective. A contrasty lens with some effect (vignetting, sharpness falloff, field curvature, a convenient variety of mild distortion as street photographers often prefer) that helps emphasize the subject merely helps - if you are shooting film, and can't edit these things in and out to your hearts content. A rather large contingent of optical just-sos including brand worship are really just from the days before digital corrections+computer design and don't hold water today. Like leica worship. With primitive tech it's easier to make a sharp lens for a rangefinder than an SLR. That stopped being true somewhere in the late 80s.Anyways /p/, including you, fails basic tests like pointing out what's a leica photo and what's a sigma photo. I recall someone did a test with you specifically to see if you could spot the difference between the zeiss loxia f2.8 portrait lens and a sigma 90mm that relied on heavy distortion correction to achieve its small size and good sharpness/contrast. You could not tell.
>>4380317is this the scheiss schizo that bought a hasselblad h5d because he thought japanese lenses were scams and ended up getting photo mogged by a guy with a 6dmk1or is it the scheiss schizo who bought a 907x and never posted a photo (probably because the body, back, and lens couldnt maintain a connection and hasselblad CS stiffed him so hard he had to do a chargeback or fall on EU warranty laws, like what happens to everyone who buys that fucking POS including me)
>>4380217>>4380280>>4380215Artist>>4380317Gearfag
>>4380322>>4380323>>4380324>gearfagim a physicist with a phd and hopefully with a dsc one day, whos into painting and photography but thx for the insult 4chan nolifer.>3d pop>composition, light/shadow, and perspective>vignetting, sharpness falloff, field curvature, a convenient variety of mild distortionyeah you guys still, 10-15 years later, have no fucking idea what youre talking about or how lenses work hahahahhahahahahyou guys are probably 50 IQ americans, so here some very simple, elementary level explanation on how lenses and light work together from one of the amerimutt universities:>https://www.physics.louisville.edu/cldavis/phys299/notes/lo_lenses.html#:~:text=Lenses%20form%20images%20by%20refraction,of%20lens%2C%20converging%20and%20diverging%20.or if youre an american with a slightly higher 70 IQ then you might want to take a look at slightly more complex, in detail sources cited on this amerimutt website;>https://www.newport.com/n/optical-lens-physics>https://www.newport.com/n/diffraction-grating-physics>https://www.newport.com/n/optical-filter-characteristicsanyways take an hour or two to research about lenses, diffraction, refraction, lens physics, light and its physics, how they interact with each other blah blah blahhh etc etc etc... and youll (pretty fast) realize just how dumb you guys sound right now >pic not related
>>43803553d pop is not an optical property.Contrast, acutance, and resolution are optical properties. Field curvature, CA, and vignetting are optical properties."3d pop" is not an optical property. It's a property of composition and lighting first and foremost and a lens can merely help depending on the composition and lighting in the first place, if high contrast is conducive to adding to the illusion of depth for that scene, or something like that.I repeat, 3d pop is not an optical property.If you are a physics wizard, feel free to link us your peer reviewed paper explaining how low element counts "transmit depth" or some other horseshit... ah, wait, in over 200 years of lens design, no one has ever thought that except for yannick khong and a washed up lens designer from the days when every nikkor took hazy shit photos.
>>4380317>a single, tiny 0.1mm glass element can completely change the look of an image. it can change the color tone of the image, shapes, add/cut reflections, change shading, change color gradient levels and even add effects such as halos, stars or kaleidoscope effect... and yet you wild pigs are over here arguing whether or not a whole ass lens can produce a more realistic image than the other... hahahahaha so sadbro thats what i was thinking every time i saw one of these threads but i just didnt know how to put it into words because im a noob photographer but we literally have thin one element filters for our lenses that completely change the way our pictures look and then we also have cinematographers who will shoot a movie and then like use like 903953408509 different lenses for every single different scene because they want a different look but here we are on the interwebs and there are still people here who have full on typing wars about whether or not 3d pop or whatever you want to call it is real or not like obviously its there and obviously its not because of light or composition or whatever
>>4380215i mean this is a stupid argument. if the scene is poorly lit or even the opposite then nothing will look good in the image its not just 3d pop that will not be there its everything because at that point of extreme everything will look bad and be obliterated, from colors to shadows to 3d pop to highlights to whatever, everything will look like shit with too much or too little light........................
>>4380359>3d pop is not an optical property.going from both of his replies that was obviously his point he even said that both sides are dumb and dont know what they are talking aboutalso on a side note what is going on with captcha on /b/ and /p/ it keeps saying i typed it in wrong even though i didnt and it takes me like 5 tries before it accepts my input but it only ever happens on /b/ and /p/ never experienced it anywhere outside of /b/ and /p/
>>4380364>mfw the zeiss schizo samefags.......... but forgets to stop typing like himself and larping about cinelense stuff for 10.23473900001 seconds!!!
>>4380371No, anyone who disagrees with "3d pop" being an inherent property of a lens is either going to know what they're talking about, or just parrot info from someone who does.People who dont know about how lenses work and are designed are the ones that try and invent "3d pop". Again, the closest single metric you can find to 3d pop is merely contrast. It's the best candidate for this schizo shit because it's the only thing that has a connection to both depth perception (preserving the light and shadow of the scene better) and element count (glass to air surfaces with less than perfect coatings = flare and loss of contrast)
>>4380359>explaining how low element counts "transmit depth" or some other horseshit>in over 200 years of lens design, no one has ever thought thatexcept they did that... they did exactly that... wait until you learn the fact that what you just said in laymans terms is EXACTLY how Nikon, Leica, Zeiss and Bresser engineer and design glass for their industrial, dental and surgical microscopes and for ultra sensitive miscroscopy. even those low tier labaratory microscopes need to have super precise depth sensitive glass in order to work properly and project a precise and accurate image
>>4380372>samefagtry again my replies are >>4380364>>4380366>>4380371
>>4380379>Midwit thinks he can be smartThere is only one way an optical system can actually measure distance (depth).A second image, from another camera or a second shot of the scene.Everything else is illusory effects, like perspective+shadows or chromostereopsis.One thing is very true: The most consistent property present in optics idiots like you say have 3d pop or depth rendering is a high level of contrast. And good color accuracy, I guess, but that comes with high contrast in the majority of cases.
>>4380383>unironically thinkinkg the reason why $40k ultra sensitive microscopes for e.g cellular imaging can project depth/distance so realistically is because of contrast and colors XDDD
>>4380379namedropping doesn't replace knowledge.monocular depth cues are documented so widely you can look them up on wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception#Monocular_cuescan you tell us which one of these is a special property of leica's magic glass and how?because in photography all of these are controlled by the photographer, are characteristics almost universal to lenses, except for>curvilinear perspective (a special lens)and>Lighting and shadingwhich is partly controlled by the contrast of the lens. i guess "micro-contrast" means high contrast at high spatial frequencies then, and this 3d pop shit is in fact possessed in spades by a sony 35mm f1.4 GM - as long as you dont let light hit the front at the wrong angle, because the high element count causes an odd sort of veiling flare that turns blacks kind of brown.
>>4380388Distance can be accurately measured by moving the specimen or moving the optics. Ever see how a rangefinder works? All they need is sufficiently high resolution and contrast/color reproduction.As for camera lenses, please refer yourself to any treatise on perspective and depth for painting, and then think critically about how lenses relate to it.
That's all I'm going to waste my time telling youIf you don't just get it at this point, and will keep saying BUT LEICA ZEISS IS EXPENSIVE!!!! you're an idiot beyond saving.
>>4380382Stop spreading lies
>being this much beyond savingJust take >>4380355 advice and learn something for once in your life. How much you wanna bet that you wont even do a few clicks of your mouse and learn anything because you're lazy and in 5 years time you will still be here on 4chan arguing about 3d pop?This is like arguing about electricity with a 6000 BC Neolithic Greek peasant. Until he learns what it is and how it works, he will keep thinking that it's magic and not real.Okay I have to go now, see you next month, faggots...
>>4380413At no point do you or any of your sources explain how one lens can have measurably more monocular depth cues than another in a way that contradicts this guy >>4380392 and his theory that photographers are actually schizophrenic audiophiles mislabeling contrast as something elseIn fact, you don't seem to be capable of articulating your own knowledge. Do you have it, or are you just a brand fanboy who doesn't like being reminded that his favorite rolex-esque camera company sells overpriced junk (like rolex makes low quality inaccurate fragile shit that can't hold a candle to a grand seiko)
>>4380421I love his desperate exit.>"Look, just believe me okay? It totally happened once. Goodbye, kids!"If this was something that could've been proven, it already would've been.Remember guys: at least 70% of the "3D pop" look starts with lighting. If your set and subject are properly lit and composed correctly, you can get pop from a highly-corrected modern lens.
my favorite boomer forum 3d pop ramblings 1/2
>>43804382/2
3D pop is real. If you can’t see it you probably have a Sigma butt plug so far up your ass it’s blinding you lol
Love that this thread has attracted the same kind of vibes-based, mystical morons I was addressing in my OP, but none of them responded to my points at all and instead opted for the extremely tired arguments that somehow make 0 verifiable claims. "It's definitely real". >>4380317>a single, tiny 0.1mm glass element can completely change the look of an image.>just FYI, you guys look like a couple of 6 year olds trying to argue about organic spectroscopy or quantum physicsI'm afraid you're the only one who looks like a 6 year old. You're literally saying "Lenses are complex so how could anyone be able to say what is true and verifiable and what isn't". It's simple - if it existed, it would be measurable. Since it is only described in vague terms that merely hint at some sort of understanding of optics, it isn't.
>>4380355>you guys are probably 50 IQ americans, so here some very simple, elementary level explanation on how lenses and light work together from one of the amerimutt universities:>>https://www.physics.louisville.edu/cldavis/phys299/notes/lo_lenses.html#:~:text=Lenses%20form%20images%20by%20refraction,of%20lens%2C%20converging%20and%20diverging%20.>or if youre an american with a slightly higher 70 IQ then you might want to take a look at slightly more complex, in detail sources cited on this amerimutt website;>>https://www.newport.com/n/optical-lens-physics>>https://www.newport.com/n/diffraction-grating-physics>>https://www.newport.com/n/optical-filter-characteristics>anyways take an hour or two to research about lenses, diffraction, refraction, lens physics, light and its physics, how they interact with each other blah blah blahhh etc etc etc... and youll (pretty fast) realize just how dumb you guys sound right nowUnfortunately none of the links you posted address 3D pop. The only argument you seem to be making is "lenses are different depending on factors" - which no one is disputing. You seem too stupid to put together an argument that actually applies to the concept at hand. You're gesturing at tangentially related science and going "See? I'm right. Because of reasons I can't articulate but which are sort of like these reasons"
>>4380438>>4380440This is precisely the kind of "vibes based" and completely unserious thinking that I am dismissing in the OP. The fact that this kind of conspiratorial and unscientific meme has persisted for so long in photography makes me think that most photographers are not very smart. Literally everything he expresses about depth in images could just be "subject is lit in x way and background is lit in y way" and have nothing to do with optics.
you gotta get one of them cameras with two lenses and the red and blue glasses
>>4380516quoting random science without understanding science as a whole is flat-earther mentality. The Camera Conspiracies guy is an unironic flat earther so no surprise he believes in 3D pop although at least he and the guy who came up with a method for figuring out whether a lens will allegedly have it is that they will occasionally doubt its very existence. So at least they are honest about it unlike that fat bald gearfag from whom Camera Conspiracies picked up the idea.
>>4380519Low and high contrast lenses do exist and stuff can look less 3d with lower contrast. The origin of this meme is the zeiss pop and leica glow meme. Stereotypic lenses were normally low contrast at wide apertures and sometimes had uncorrected spherical aberration. Zeiss lenses were stereotypically sharp and had excellent contrast so things popped instead of being washed out, hazy, and glowyAfter a lot of schizo fagging it’s turned into pseudoscientific bullshit
Micro contrast is real. 3D pop is also real. They are real phenomena of an image sometimes, and also they are often imparted by certain lenses due to certain optical designs. Anyone who supports the idea of 3D pop, Zeiss pop, or micro contrast is a good person who knows their shit and has actually taken pictures.Watch any of these people try to explain what 3D pop or micro contrast is and their experience is self evident. If a phenomenon can be described repeatedly using both empirical and scientific language and can measured objectively, it's obviously real. Every time you see an A/B test for 3D pop or microcontrast, you can see a difference and often the testers use the same parameters.The only other hobbyist area that has so much pro level knowledge has got to be pro audio.
>>4380208Ok, we can now all agree that 3D pop is not a property of a lens, despite some lenses making 3D pop possible where others can't.Now is micro contrast just a sub-property under contrast? Something to do with tonality rather than sharpness and acuity?
>>4380599>Ok, we can now all agree that 3D pop is not a property of a lensWrong, it is not all lens but it certainly helps a lot, it is an effect fueled by the lens>Now is micro contrast just a sub-property under contrast? It is a sub-property of contrast but needs sufficient acuity to discern between tonesNow here's the deal for brainlets and non-photos: 3D and Pop are two different effects, both can be combined but they can occur isolated. One certainly depends much more on the lens than the other but both need lighting conditions and composition to pull off well enough.
>>4380602>3D and Pop are two different effectsCool. when will you be posting some examples?
>negro contrast
If there really was something to this, there would be actual proof by now and not just a repeat of the same boomer schizo theories and evangelism./thread
>>4380648You'd think for all the talk of a visual phenomenon, people would be posting actual visual examplesInstead, it's another thing for nophotos to argue about over text
>>4380602>>4380599Please stop samefagging schizo>>4380654People have triedZeiss loxia vs sigma iseries, sigma art vs summicron, they could not fucking tell across dozens of samples. One poster swapped exif between sony and pentax and tricked /p/ into saying his GM lens had 3d pop. It is essentially this>>4380571>>43805782/10 bait
>>4380679>...and tricked /p/ into saying his GM lens had 3d pop.I wonder how many Sony users here fell for this.
Yeah, how about you stop spreading lies about Sony and Zeiss...First of all, the sole reason why GM lineup even exists in the first place, is only and solely because of Zeiss. They even said it themselves. The ''GM'' lineup of lenses wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for their partnership contract with Zeiss at the time. Secondly, Sony literally pulled the oldest Jew business tactic in the book and stole Zeiss lens design as soon as their partnership contract with Zeiss expired... Not even half a year passed after their contract expired and Sony just magically released their ''new and improved'' cinema lenses for the cine market and for consumer market they just happened to coincidentally also release the ''new and improved'' 50mm 1.8 design and their brand new 90mm macro lens and a year after that, they also accidentally released their ''new and improved'' design of GM lenses, all of which just magically and purely accidentally happened all at the same time and just accidentally happened to have nearly identical 1:1 glass element structure and nearly identical 1:1 design as Zeiss' latest Planar and Sonar lenses for the mount and also on top of all that, they just coincidentally happened to be their very first 3D pop lenses as praised by people all over the internet...>its just a coincidence bro, we just got lucky and created the near identical lens as you, 7 months after our partnership contract expired XDDDDDDThat's the reason why Zeiss told Sony to fuck off and cut all legal ties with them and that's the reason why Sony was forced to work with Tamron instead.That's why people like Sonys Cinema and GM lenses in the first place.Also, Canon literally did the same thing in 2000's, just on a smaller scale compared to Sony.Even Leica ''stole'' from Zeiss back in 80's.Nikon and Voigtlander were the only two companies that worked with Zeiss but didn't steal anything, stayed true to their own designs.Literally everyone besides Nikon copied Zeiss.
>>4380679>Zeiss loxia vs sigma iseries, sigma art vs summicron, they could not fucking tell across dozens of samplesthere was a guy together with me in one of these 3dpop threads in 2022 during the last covid19 wave, we posted real time side by side images for comparison for like 2 hours straight, probably longer. we both used tripods and we both shot side by side images because these unaducated schizo 3d pop deniers kept spamming for us to post side by sides. and then even after both of us posted dozens and dozens of side by sides, clearly proving them wrong (the images were so different from lens to lens that it was visually obvious from a mile away) we both agreed to shoot with different lenses, from the same spot, on the same camera, in the same lighting and same conditions overall, at the same distance, at the same aperture, same shutter speed and basically same everything, we were basically clowning ourselves for the purpose of trying to get these schizos to understand that there is 3d pop and that it is because of lens design not because of lighting or anything else and that even lenses of the same manufacturer can have vastly different looks but they still kept making up imaginary nonsense reasons as to why our images were not valid and why they looked different lmao. one of the schizos even said that the difference between two of my shots that i took outside, was 4 minutes apart and that the sun could have shifted and changed the light and thats why the Sigma lens image looked like it didnt have 3d pop LMAO yeah im not even joking LOL they were literally making up their own reasons as to why the sony and zeiss lenses looked realistic while sigma and tamron looked flat and digital. This just proves that these scizos would rather DIE than accept that they are wrong. Thats why i stopped arguing about this or posting any imagesThese are actual schizos who if there's nothing or no one to blame, they'll make something up, just to avoid accepting truth.
>>4380727Yeah I remember those threads, remember when they posted collages of sigma and lecia shots and no one could accurately tell which was which?
>>4380733I do this with mft and my cellphone. Teehee.
>>4380733Leica and Sigma should merge into Ligma.
>>4380739What's Ligma?
>>4380727it is hilarious to call a group of people who are skeptical of something which you can't account for scientifically or describe objectively "schizos" while having a near religious faith in an ineffable quality of photography
>>4380722what the fuck are you talking about? no one cares about any of that, are you one of these brand obsessed gearfags who somehow leaked out of your containment thread? did you just not read anything written in this entire thread except the word Sony?
Thing is, even someone failing A/B test of something doesn't mean it's not real. Some people would insist that they don't see the difference between PWM and flicker free monitors, even though there's a real and undeniable difference.I don't know how to explain "3d pop" scientifically, but the human eye certainly isn't as highly corrected and "perfect" as 20 element hyper-asph., quantum coated modern lenses, maybe that has something to do with it.
>>4380741ligmama
>>4380776you can measure PWM, you can measure chromatic aberration, you can measure vignetting, you can measure contrast. THOSE are all real things.
>>4380777Joe ligmama?
>>4380776>I don't know how to explain "3d pop" scientificallyThat's the best things, you can just post examples pictures and let them speak for themselves
>>4380615OP and his croonies are like atheists, even if God came down and cured them of their blindness they would still doubt, like a jew.No point in degrading myself into this conversation with my own photos but i will give you an example:Pop in an exaggerated way is something like >>4367382, you can clearly see a non-harsh transition and a clearly "popping" subject but there's considerable SA, so there's insufficient resolution and lighting conditions to showcase microcontrast and evaluate distances which is the 3D illusion.Now use your head, the lack of those things means no illusion, so what do you need for said illusion? the ingredients are not needed for it to "pop", and you can have both in the same place.
>>4380824>No point in degrading myself into this conversation with my own photosLol, that bad huh
>>4380829Taking photos for specs and point proving is a very anti-aesthetic, ironically enough
>>4380829Not him, but I have tried to use my own examples in one of these silly discussions. It will do no good and has probably never done any good. It proved to devolve the already devolved discussion, but it was hilarious to see all the seething nophoto trolls come out of the woodwork.
3d pop is not an optical property. If it were anything more than high contrast and high resolution, everyone would be finding a way to correct it into their snoy GMs. Audiophile types are the worst of the gearfags and the most heavily scammed. When they post flat vs 3d attempts its just a contrast difference.
>>4380842Wrong.
>>4380846Stay delusional audiophile
>>4380847>Thread about photo>Post about photo>"hurr audiophile"Flatfags can't stop seething lol
>>4380208I just like taking photos, man.
I don't care what you call it, I love the look of both my vintage Zeiss and Leica R lenses give when used properly under good light. Laymen use words like micro contrast and and 3D pop but they may as well be saying Voodoo, Vibe or magic crystal energy. But what they are really trying to express is that these lenses have a certain look when used correctly that they really, really like. You can talk shit and pixel peep all you want but it won't capture scientifically that feeling certain people get in their heart when they see images with a certain look. Not everybody likes the look, but a lot of folks do. I have a collection of vintage lenses like Helios's, Jupiters, Takumars etc (as well as a full set of modern canon RF lenses, but clients seem to pick the shots I do with the Ziess's for color and Leica Rs for B+W more often than not. Here is a vintage Zeiss Planar T 85mm f1.4 that was shot on a shitty old canon 5dmark ii. Beautiful lens, love how it renders skin tones.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1417Image Height967Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:06:15 14:29:29Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/8.0Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1417Image Height967RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4380866Same lens and camera combo.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3744Image Height5616Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2021:01:06 18:25:48Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/10.0Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width945Image Height1417RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4380866Lots of words to bite yourself and land as the layman you mock
>>4380869Just try to say certain people love the look
>>4380871certain people also enjoy drinking their own piss
>>43808715regardless of what you want to call it
>>4380871"certain people love the look"There, still A LOT of people like 3D Pop but overall the low IQ of many photogs make them unable to pull it and protogs are too deep inside their finances and asshole to be artistic, they need to shoot to survive and this is done easier with zooms and cheap fast primes.And those pursuing the arts are too distracted with other stuff but shooting.
>>4380866>You can talk shit and pixel peep all you want but it won't capture scientifically that feeling certain people get in their heart when they see images with a certain look.Yet the image you have there is nothing but pixels, and all the lens really does to influence what pixels you eventually end up with is a matter of physics. So it should be entirely possible to describe what "the look" actually looks like, and it should be entirely possible to what it is about the lens that causes this. Unless it's just that what you actually have is an emotional reaction to knowing that it's an old Zeiss lens that it was taken with, in which case there is indeed nothing to be seen in the pixels, though the explanation of what it is about the lens that matters gets really easy.
>>4380866>>4380868Great, but how would those same shots look through a different lens?
>>4380866>>4380868much expert
>>4380208Those captchas are insane now![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerKenneth Hines,Jr.Image-Specific Properties:
>>4380208[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4380317>a single, tiny 0.1mm glass element can completely change the look of an image>it can change the color tone of the image, shapes, add/cut reflections, change shading, change color gradient levels and even add effects such as halos>arguing whether or not a whole ass lens can produce a more realistic image than the otheryupppp this guy gets itDOPs, cinetogs and high end photographers across all fields, literally choose different lenses for their visual properties but there are still idiots that will say for example a Nikon 80mm and a Sigma 85mm will produce the exact same, undistinguishable image :DDDDDfor example film directors will all literally refuse to shoot a scene if they dont like the way the lens makes the image look and they will swap lenses until they find the lens that works best for the scene. for example Lubeski used 20+ different vintage lenses such as Helios 44, on top of 10+ zeiss cine lenses, to shoot Dune 2. why? because they all end up in a different render of the image. but despite that some people are dumb enough to look at that, see the fact and still claim their sigma lens is no different than the other guys zeiss lens. i will never understand these people and how their brains work. maybe my 126 iq is too low for their huge cosmic level intelligence to be able to understand their 4D logic.main point being; well made glass is not like sigmas window glass that they use for their lenses but some people cant seem to grasp that fact. capitalism, profiteering and consumerism is slowly killing the very little that is left of photography. most modern 3rd party lenses are shit. so are most first party lenses.
>>4380868>>4380866Looks exactly like they were shot on a sony with a sigma lens. You see brand name and have emotional reaction. Its called being a consoomer.
>>4381002That boat has 3D pop
>>4381077>GLASS DOES STUFF>PRICETAGS AND RICH KIDSOk, but 3d pop isnt an optical property. You are very low IQ. Depth rendition is not an optical property. Microcontrast either isnt one or you made up a word for mtf at 900 lp/mm.
>>4381080Its a high contrast edit (light and shadow) with shallow depth of field (defocus blur). The environment provides relative size cues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception#Monocular_cues>>4381077You are the person who could not visually identify which photos were shot with a sigma 90mm f2.8 and which were shot with a zeiss loxia 85mm.
>>4381077>DOPs, cinetogs and high end photographers across all fields, literally choose different lenses for their visual propertiesno one disagrees with thisyou are missing the issue
>>4381077You’re speaking of bokeh, color cast, flare…Sometimes DOPs dont give a fuck and use a lens to say they did!But 3d pop? that seems to be how leicazeiss audiophiles refer to contrast while desperately trying to exclude cheaper lenses from the club. Because it actually hurts them when a sigma lens has the same properties as a leica. And it hurts them even more when a sony GM is better. >>4381083He is, the painfully austrian typing style is easy to spot. Its the OG scheiss schizo.
>>4381095>while desperately trying to exclude cheaper lenses from the clubwho the fuck said its only zeiss and leica? are you retarded? some nikon and voigtlander lenses do a better job at the realistic/3d ''zeiss look'' than the best zeiss lens itself does.close to all nikon and voigt lenses are very well known for their unique look that mimics the ''zeiss look'' and its not like its new, nikon has been rivaling hasselbland zeiss and leica since like 50's lol... same with helios, same with vintage pentax and hundreds of other vintage lenses... same with canon, sony and fuji... where did you even see someone say its only zeiss lenses that can do the realistic image look? youre so consumed in your own schizo hate that your brain doesnt even register half the things people say to you
>>4381119>muh brandsYou cant tell a sigma 90mm and a zeiss 85mm apart without exif and its doubtful you’d spot nikon vs sigma eitherThis myth comes from sigma arts having too much veiling flare.
>>4381119>realistic/3dSchizo to facts translation: sharp/high contrast
>>4381124bbbut then its a fact instead of a vibe and then even sigma and snoy and even CANON lenses can do it and not just my favorite brands!
>>4380208tesy
Just for shits, I'm going to post a couple of deer photos. One taken with an older Zeiss prime by itself, and the other with a modern Tamron zoom + ProMist filter, both at 85mm. Which is which?1/2
>>43811292/2
>>4381129>>4381131Doesn't matter, they are both downward-pointing snapshits of lawndeer
>>4381129>>4381131I dont like the out of focus areas in the second one, so - I wish it was the Tamron, but I am pretty sure its gonna be the Zeiss cause Im fucking autistic right
>>4381136the urbie fears the lawn deer photographer
>>4381129>>4381131Why do fuckers always use two garbage photos to compare. If you are going to do a comparison at least have decent light.
>>4381150We can see the suburban roof in the eye, kid
>>4381151It's like the pixel peepers on Youtube. I take one look at their shit photos that they are comparing and immediately know that they don't have a fucking clue about what they are talking about.
>>4381153I'm not >>4381150. I don't live in the suburbs. I'm actually right next door to a canal between two lakes, and just down the road from miles of forest.
>>4381151Lens magic affects ALL photos. Hazy rendering is hazy rendering in any light. If it only works with good light… guess what, its the lighting not the lens. I cant tell zeiss and sony glass apart when the jpeg is done. No one can.
>>4381160>i didn't notice the suburbs in the photoPay more attention
>>4381171So what you are saying is that all lenses look the same. What a load of horseshit.
>>4381129>>4381131The dishonesty inherent in "comparisons" like these lies in them being different shots of different subjects at different distances.
>>4381173No. That 3d pop is the lighting, composition, and DOF, not the lens, now that basically all lenses have good contrast and color saturation. Also zeiss and sony DO look similar. Guess why.
>>4380208But if you debunk this shitty meme, how will retro fags shill their inferior optics ? "3D pop" is just the symptom of a garbage lens with distortion and CA up the wazoo making the only part of the picture that is somewhat sharp (the center) pop compared the the surrounding sea of liquid shit.
Soviet 3d pop is best 3d pop.
>>4381188Only 300 more posts to the perfect GET.
>>4381187Thats just one of several ways to make things pop and the most limitedThe irony is you now see these audiophiles saying leica lenses that were traditionally ascribed ‘duh leica glow’ being re-designated as zeiss pop, i mean, 3d pop lenses because of their noticeable sharpness falloff… and the street shitters who center everything
>>4381188its stolen zeiss
>>43811293D pop>>4381131No 3D pop
NO ONEliterallyNOT ONE SINGLE NIGGERwho talks about muh pop, muh meme thing, muh 3d micro goontrast...everunder any circumstancesever posts RAWsthe whole thing is a lieif you believe any of it, you're a fucking morongood lenses are goodbad lenses are badmost DSLR lenses under like $2000 are pretty badsorry they just areno, you can't convince me otherwiselikesorry I have eyesalso 24MP with an AA filter? and you think some magic lens will give you fine details? when your own sensor is too low res to record them, and actually goes a step further to intentionally blur them?really?you faggots just fall for demosaicing+sharpening, sharpening, local contrast, dehaze faggotry, and more... hook line and sinker every timeidiotsactual idiots
>>4381077>why?Lubeski is a jew and does neurotic jew things, see The Cat in the Hat production stories.Opinion discarded yid
>>4381222>ever posts RAWsCan't you see no one is posting anything in /p/, now you want them to post RAWs from tests done for the sake of nothing because flatfags will deny it the most obvious proofs.Nice redditspacing by the way
>>4381227>no one is posting anything in /p/, now you want them to post RAWs from testsyesand when people claim the earth is flat, I expect them to be able to prove itnone doit's all a mememicrocontrast is copemost people who believe in it shoot JPEG and don't even know what a photosite is they'd probably think it's a tourist hotspot or something
>>4381229>and when people claim the earth is flatAnother retarded take by an uninitiated, flat earth shit happened not because people were vehemently saying the earth is flat but that most space evidence is fake due to NASA laundering massive amounts of money, so the earth being flat might as well be a reality due to so much fabricated proof.Then it escalated quickly and the idea subverted to claim the earth is really flat, which it isn't but who knows if a globe actually, thing is everyone forgot how NASA published different photos on how Earth is and all excuses don't add up at some point. Neither does the maths claiming curvature, this can be even seen in super telephoto shots showcasing things we shouldn't be able to see, hence why the Nikon P series became a joke amongst normalfags.Speaking of which one of those proofs was the studio pictures of the moon landing where lighting conditions were more similar to a studio than a real barren landscape, people can see it but can't interpret it, much like 3D Pop which exists but cannot be explain due to lack of education by many.Microcontrast is real by the way, you are just a coping noskills nolenses nophoto kid.
Some of my 8x10 contact prints have this almost hyper realistic look to them that you could call/describe as a number of things... Maybe even 3D pop. :D It doesn't matter if the center is sharper than the corners either. It's mainly lighting, subject matter, perfectly in focus and putting the right amount of contrast into the print/scan that does it.
>>4381233if you want real micrcocontrast you convert your sensor from bayer to panchromatic greyscaleall the autism voodoo worshipping nonsense you do will never change thatthe moon landing photos were real and shot on film and you can download ultra high res unedited scans of them from archivesUNLIKE finding RAWs from microcontrast retards>>4381236that's high resolution and no bayer bullshityou're just looking at fine detail and contrast, no magic involved
Scheiss schizo meltdown ittYou can tell the pricetag on that rattly out of date hassy rattled him too>>4381237Pseud meltdown. Its because it’s the grains equivalent of like 800mp crammed onto a face sized piece of paper.
>>4381242An 8x10 monitor with a 4k resolution has less than 10 megapickles of resolution as well. Personally, I would say that large format contact prints using azo paper and amidol dev is magical.
>>4381242>Its because it’s the grains equivalent of like 800mp crammed onto a face sized piece of paper.so, resolutonlike I was sayinglol>>4381249not only is it low resolutionthe low pixel density matters toonormies bitch and cry and try to be all "MUH SCIENCE N SHEEIT" and make bold claims like human eyes can't see more than 1080p but the general understanding is 4K at 27" is the minimum most people would ever want to use with the caveat being not that this has anything to do with resolution/quality but just the fact modern OS's fail at DPI scaling and people want to run at 100% / 1:1 and 27" 4K makes fonts smallif it weren't for that people would be looking at 15.6" 4K displays and demanding 8 or 16K for their large 27-40" displays but we live in retardland where most software is designed for ~100 PPI scaling and scales very poorly to any higher values
>>4381217The first shot with the single deer was the Tamron.
>>4381264is this a guess or are you telling us?
>>4381264That Tamron has 3D pop
>>4381265I took the photo.
>>4381268RAWs
>>4381217>3d pop is literally just depth of field give an image...depthI hate all of you so much.
>>4381270How do I host it anonymously?
>>4381278site?google drive or something on an alt account?RAW?don't program your name in the camera so that's not baked in, or convert it to a DNG with exif stripped (leave cam model / lens since those aren't unique) with dng converter or something
>>4381278Catbox.moe should work okay
>>4381270First - https://files.catbox.moe/egz0eg.CR2Second - https://files.catbox.moe/o6tl1w.CR2No lens EXIF on the second, since it was adapted from C/Y to EF.
>>4381293>#1decent shot, nice lightbut isn't very sharp or contrasty at allthat's all post-process craphere's a neutral take on itno sharpening or added contrast at allonly vignette brightness corrected, despite being a zoom it's well controlled so other stuff isn't neededthe eyelashes are soft and don't seem to be in the focal plane or maybe that is the promist softening themeither way your editing program was able to detect they existed and highlighted them but that's not microcontrast or lens related that's just editingseems like a pretty good zoom but your JPEGs are heavily baked which is typical for people trying to post examples of microcontrast>#2apparently corrupt?not sure what happenedif this is a prime lens it might be a bit sharper but still even a great lens won't ever deliver that "crispy" sharp stuff you get from overbaked post-processing that people like to associate/shill as being part of glass when it really isn'tnarrow DOF and nice focal plane control gives the "3d" subject isolation effect and lenses with just good contrast give good fine detail rendition, microcontrast and 3d pop are just snake oil ways to muddy the waters and confuse people
>>4381305I originally posted the JPEGs just to troll, and ended up getting helpful feedback on my RAWs. I guess I do bake the shit out of my photos. I'll have to figure out what happened with #2. It looks like some others from the same month might be corrupted as well.Do you think the 3D pop arguments will ever end?
>>4381313>It looks like some others from the same month might be corrupted as well. Doesn't sound fun.Sometimes shit gets corrupted in camera (written bad to begin with) before you copy it to a PC, if that's what happened I'd recommend replacing the card.>Do you think the 3D pop arguments will ever end?It's too easy for people to create clickbait videos and profit from it so probably not.A few bad photographer shills on YouTube is all it takes to confuse lots of curious beginners.As megapixels continue to rise I feel like the truth will become more obvious to people but that will take a while before we see any real changes. Eventually people will see contrast is contrast and the focal plane and bokeh are their own things, and things like longitudinal/lateral aberration all affect the ways things look too. A lot of these things aren't easy to measure with a lowly 24MP bayer+OLPF/AA sensor but with pixel shift and higher MP bodies anyone interested in actually looking at this shit can get a pretty detailed view.I expect in 20 years the microcontrst/3dpop guys going "just trust me bro, this <affiliate linked lens> lens POPS! no I didn't bake the JPEG this is just the power of <insert brand+lensmodel>" will be laughed at more. I believe they'll still be doing it though. We'll probably see people throw AI shit in the mix too to further confuse people.
>>4381313>>43813203D Pop exists, arguments will always exist because some people are blind to depth, just how women and chinamen can't drive
>>4381332>chinamenare you 90? who the fuck says chinamen anymore?
>>4381335>who the fuck says chinamen anymore?Uhm i do actually, didn't you just read it you ugly zipperhead, no wonder you can't see 3D Pop
>>4381335Orientals?
>>4381332>3D Pop existsSurely you can provide an example right?Show us this mysterious 3D Pop "depth" that can't be attributed to simple sharpness and DOF. A RAW image free from meme processing. Should be easy, as it's just something the lens has.
>>4381249>An 8x10 monitor with a 4k resolution has less than 10 megapickles of resolution as well.That's not really correct. It has less than 10 mega-foveon-pixel equivalent, but you can't compre it to bayer, when it has 3 colors per pixel.
>>43813423D pop = image where humans perceive depth beyond defocus blur. It's obviously real and some images have it even with big dof. You can argue how much the lens matters and whether it's caused by lighting, contrast, sharpness, editing or whatever the fuck else, but it's obviously real. In some photos, the subject looks like a cardboard cutout, and in others it does not.
>>4381352You're right. The whole point is that it's not an optical property on its own, that sales/hype people would like you to believe, but rather a combination of many factors
The perceived separation is what they are referring to when talking about this pop. Older lenses have less sharp corners etc that magnifies this effect and the wildest examples are when using projector lenses and that sort.. you almost get sucked into the image.
>>4381332>3d pop existsYes, and its in the depth perception wikipedia article under monocular depth cues.
>>4380210erm, pretty sure low element lenses have more 3D pop.>>4380722>Literally everyone besides Nikon copied Zeiss.erm, pretty sure Nikon had multiple Sonnar lenses in its original offerings for both rangefinders and SLRs.>be me>had to wait 800 seconds to post thisTCP/IP is cooked as a system
>>4381475> erm, pretty sure low element lenses have more 3D pop.this is a myth spread by clueless gearfag pseuds. the closest it comes to reality is:if a simple lens and a complex lens both have mediocre optical coatings (ie: as in older and cheaper gear), the more complex lens can easily have more washout/veiling flare and in more situations. this lowers contrast and makes images look flatter, because the depth cue (shading) is reduced. similar effects can apply to color accuracy and saturation. 3d pop itself is the audiophile, i mean, lens snob community’s mythologized version of “zess pop”, which was due to zeiss lenses being well made and having better than average coatings compared to other shit at the time, so with a zeiss instead of an old leica lens you could expect more sharpness, contrast, and accurate saturation for instance. ancient history. today optics are pretty good and sony gms and arri signatures with 20 elements have more contrast and better color than a vintage zeiss. they are thus MORE “3d” and if you strip exif or swap it around a 35mm f1.4 gm quickly becomes a god tier 3d pop lens, if you are a good photographer who understands how depth is indicated in the visual arts of course.
Fun lens schizo fact: “glow” is a property often assigned to extremely expensive leica lenses as a thing of myth and magic that only an Authentic Leica(tm) Les Paul(tm) in Heritage Cherry Sunburst(tm) can achieve. However, it is actually just uncorrected spherical aberration characteristic of any old or cheap lens without modern aspherical elements.
>>4381485It is fascinating how selective the autistic are when it comes to glow. In certain lenses it is desirable, but with others it is just bad rendering from a cheap lens. Some lenses are known for being bad for the exact same characteristics that are considered good in others. Doesn't make much sense. Nikon glow = bad, Tomioka glow = good, Leica glow = good etc.
>>4381485picrel is what comes to mind when I think of Leica "glow"
>>4381532This is post-processing. Lol.If not, post RAWs. You won't though."Glow" is just bloom, a property all good lenses aim to minimize. Having it optically is bad. Objectively bad. You can always add it with a filter or with some grease on the lens, so having it internally (outside of toggleable built-in filters) is always bad.
>>4381534Not my photos, but it is a good representation of what I've experienced using some Leica glass.Never said it was bad or good, all I said is that's a good example of what the phrase makes me think of.I agree other things can contribute to a different "glowy" look, I'll disagree on it always being bad (but that's totally subjective).
Tomioka 55 1.2
>>4381551Are th-those g-ghosts?
>>4381560I think Asians, not sure.
>>4381342>Surely you can provide an example right?Examples have been provided, check the thread and check something called Photography>as it's just something the lens hasWrong, you don't know what 3D Pop is>>4381475>>4381482Back to breddit bro
>>4381551very nice
This appears to be a solved problem, then.
>>4381629It is, people are finally realizing 3D Pop exists, just that it's not exclusive to a lens properties but just considerably influenced by it.
Can we all at least all agree that ultra sharp, clinical, boring modern lenses have more pffftttt than pop? At least as a compromise?
>>4381634>pfffttttwat
>>4381634I blame the Youtube generation of photographers. Any shit photo taking neckbeard can take pick up the latest gear, take a poorly lit photo of the anime figure they jerk off to an go on about muh sharpness. These fucker can't measure how beautiful a lens operates under optimal conditions because they are shit photographers, so they measure they only things they can can which is sharpness. So with all these fucking idiots reviewing lenses all the time going sharpness, sharpness, sharpness influences buys, and in turn the market. So we end up with a boring variety of very similar looking image producing devices where sharpness is the only aim to compete on the market. But sharpness aint everything. Plenty of other looks that are just as beautiful, if not more so, if used right.
>>4381636Even in the 90s they had a cool variety of looks like funky soft focus lens and what not. None of that cool shit in the digital age. Closes you might get is the modern Petzval copies
>>4381636Real soul is found in a brass body.
>>4381640Lets not call it Pop anymore. Lets call it Soul from now on, or is that something different?
>>4381636Not only is that dumb (sharpness and contrast is the lens property that aids depth in a photo, to be on topic) it's ignorant. It's gotten more accessible to shoot quirky and flawed lenses from the past so more people are starting to appreciate quirky lenses that only produce a nice image in some situations more. Mirrorless got a lot of its traction from people buying into sony/fuji/m43 just to adapt all their old film lenses, and only use those instead of modern EF and F mount lenses. There are now old style lenses native on mirrorless, where big companies reused old style simple designs on some budget gear (nikon 40mm f2, 28mm f2.8, sony 28mm f2 and 50mm f1.8, the cheap IS prime set on canon, half of fuji X mount) since it's cheap to make lenses like they used to, and in the mirrorless segment, there's a huge market that wants that look. Nikon even capitalizes on it with the SE rebrands, so it's big enough that they're aware.It seems for most of photography's history there was a continuous push towards newer is better. A triplet isn't enough, a sonnar isn't enough, except for super dreamy portraits most everyone was on board with optical progress. Now today there's a revival of worse lenses, because progress has gotten very front heavy, costs $1500+ per prime, and sometimes loses contrast in strong light or looks uncannily detailed in portraits.What is mostly dead is "lenses like they used to make them" being expensive, high end kit. Stuff that would have been amazing 50 years ago is just cheap and easy to create today. Ye olde sovlful glass can get expensive if leica is scamming you, or it's such an obscure design that supply and demand does its thing, but generally retro (aka shitty) lenses with gobs of character are $75-250.
>>4381641Maybe soul is the umbrella term for all the fun, enjoyable, beautiful lens defects that may or may not be intentional.We aren't making microfiches. We are making ART.
>>4381642Gosh, how I wish cooke portrait lenses were cheap.
>>4381643Read: Sovl
>>4381644They're so obscure even the chinese copies are expensive and high effort[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution0 dpiVertical Resolution0 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1946Image Height1297
>>4381643>the pictorialism-straight photography cycleI bet it ends and begins on a jewish holiday
>>4381642Sharpness is a bourgeois concept- Henri Cartier-Bresson
>>4381658The cycle predates Semitic influence on the photographic arts, right?
>>4381634I think it's more skrrrt tham pffftttt. Look at the GM 85mm for a perfect example of skrrrt
>>4381668skrrt sounds like the sound a ken rockwell photos makes.
>>4381636The boka ballz is also important. The ballz have to be round all the way to the edges. No catseye onions allowed.
>>4381639I have been playing with some vintage film filters and there is quite a lot of them that gives cool effects completely foreign today. LGBT effect filters and some that gives halo etc.I'm sure it is just a matter of time before one of the influenza seasoners shill them though.
>>4381676Yet directors in Hollywood are using rehoused swirly as fuck cats eye Helios 44-2s in their blockbusters
>>4381682Yup. The Helios swirls are cool, but overused at this point. I think the Cosina Cosinon 50 1.8 is cooler when it comes to that effect.
>180 posts with no examples of 3D popVerdict? Debunked.
>>4381689I recently went through some of my older shots and fell in love with the look Fujinon 50/1.4 has. Its swirly, but gently, and stays sharp.Can't find any second hand ones near me now, tough times ahead.
>>4381735
>>4381551holy shit thats nicewho shot that? got more or any links? i love the edit but i think it would look even better without the glow effect! i want to copy this style onto my images this is fucking amazingthe soft colors are what gets me. i love those ''colors that are not actually pastel but are pastel'' colors. these colors are always so soft and smooth and calm and fit almost any scenario imaginable. i tried multiple times but i can never hit these tones. the closest i got was when i tried messing around with it in capture one but i fucked up even then, my edit always ends up looking too strong colored even if i desaturate the fuck out of the colors...pic related is my best try on trying to get these colors...
>>4381741The glow is due to the lens. Quite common on vintage fast fifties, but the Tomioka seems to be one of the more characterful ones. It is priced somewhat higher than other regular fast fifties.>>4381735I have the 35 F1.9. It produces quite a different look compared to other vintage lenses I have tested. Soft wide open, lots of glow and interesting dark blue chromatic aberration, very good contrast when stopped down.>>4381736Yes, that is a cool look. Different.
>>4380208Micro contrast exists, but it's basically "really fucking sharp lens." You want micro contrast and pop? High res FF with sharp glass yields immersive fine detail that "pops" superior to old 6x9 and practically equal to 40-60mp MFDBs. Thing is most people never print that large, and they can get "pop" online and in their 8x10s with anything made in the last 16 years as long as they have good glass and know how to shoot.Thing is, we have it so good today that people often fall in love with the first camera they get and then romantically drone on and on about how special their setup is. A fucking used 18mp 7D or M, or 12mp 5D or D700 can "pop" with any number of affordable lenses at 16x20. Enter the pseudo scientific rationalizations that "my camera/lens is so special, you just don't know."More than ever before in the history of photography the playing field has been equalized. In Adams day you had to be able to afford and technically master 4x5 before you could produce truly impressive work even at 8x10. Now most consumer bodies and many kit lenses can do solid 16x20, but people still obsesses about the equipment rather than studying the art of the masters. Get a decent kit and focus on subject, light, composition, on making images that are interesting. Too many people would rather argue equipment online than do that simple task.
>>4381642>retro (aka shitty) lensesOpinion discarded
>>4381753>Get a decent kitThat's the problem, so many good options that picking the gear you might like the most became the game itself.And when you combine that a good camera is a year worth of wages for some people and not like picking a disposable 35mm film one in a pharmacy you add an extra layer of not taking photos at all but studying what to buy, someday.
>>4381753>Get a decent kit and focus on subject, light, composition, on making images that are interesting. Too many people would rather argue equipment online than do that simple task.This, btw, is why phone snapshitters can often dominate an Instagram stream while people masturbate to their kit. They were in the right place at the right time, 'the one you have with you', and nailed an interesting scene. There are certainly limitations to phones and P&S, but within their range even they can produce nice shots./p/ illustrates this phenomenon to a T. How many threads discussing great artists and compilations of art vs how many gear threads? If you want to do a photo thread on /p/ you have to strip the EXIF or some faggot will start a gear war. "hurr that's shit because it's not muh snoy/m43." This board would improve exponentially if every post required a personal pic attached to it.
>>4381756>That's the problem, so many good options that picking the gear you might like the most became the game itself.>And when you combine that a good camera is a year worth of wages for some people and not like picking a disposable 35mm film one in a pharmacy you add an extra layer of not taking photos at all but studying what to buy, someday.Except that's a myth to pushed by consoomerism. Hit eBay or KEH. Assemble a DSLR kit with some older but still very good lenses. I was traveling a lot when my main landscape combo was a 7D + Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. All of my Flickr explore samples were on the 7D or the M, two on the M+18-55 IS kit lens ffs. (No, I don't want to link here and reveal my identity so some snoy shill can stalk me and try shitting on my work on other forums.) $500 will get you started as long as you don't insist on having mirrorless butthole tracking AF. $500 will yield 16x20's that are indistinguishable from a fucking Phase One as long as you know how to shoot and process the RAWs.Can I produce technically superior work on FF? Yes, that's why I upgraded. But in the grand scheme of things, being in a better part of my life with more travel and more going on...being a happier person with fewer problems...mattered a lot more than megapickles or pro glass. $500 and spend some time studying the photographs you like on Flickr, Instagram, etc. Then go out and make them.
>>4381760>Hit eBay or KEHDon't exist or is very limited outside the U.S. Nice try.>consoomerismThis is true, people can easily buy a 5D mk. II or a Nikon D610 and call it a day with a couple of Tokina zooms and a fast chink prime, but they want a mirrorless body now with a brand prime or zoom.But also because a lot of people need new stuff to buy from a company's name to not pay taxes or get heavy discounts, but they also don't want small APS-C even when they can perfectly start doing good work on them.>spend some time studying the photographs you like on Flickr, Instagram, etc. Then go out and make them.Agreed, but you can't do that without a camera first, and people see into what to buy and how to begin with, that was my point.
>>4381758you say thisbut we had amazing porn photographs in the mid to late 2000s because people used good optics and digital bodies with good lightingthe typical smartphone porn photo is disgusting AI slop in comparisonexamples? look at katesplaygroundabsolutely in another fucking world not just another class compared to onlyfan smartphone garbagenot even a competition in the same fucking galaxy the phones are so shit and those are like 2004 camerasbut the sad thing isnormies gobble the AI slop upit's not that phones can capture a good imagethey usually cannot the problem is people have EXTREMELY low standardsalso editfagging fools normies too
Microcontrast 3d pop vintage lens digital pornography
Well, friends, now let's talk about this 3D "pop" effect in photographic lenses, yes? Now, this is, you know, an interesting phenomenon, really, that's often discussed by photographers and, you know, enthusiasts who want to make, uh, striking images, images with a bit of life in 'em, yes, that seem to, you know, jump out from the frame. Now, in essence, we're talking about how some lenses, certain special lenses, they have this ability, you see, to separate the subject from the background in a way that gives the whole picture a sense of depth, almost like it's, you know, three-dimensional, like you could just reach out and touch it.Now, uh, some people think this is just about using, you know, a shallow depth of field—getting that background blur, what they call bokeh, right? But it’s not, it’s not so simple. No, that’s just part of it, friends. The real 3D "pop" comes from a combination of factors, technical factors that work together, uh, sort of like, you know, a well-coordinated team, where everyone has a role. You’ve got the lens contrast, you've got the microcontrast, you've got the sharpness, yes, and that bokeh, like I mentioned, and, and even the lens's optical formula, how it's designed, really.So, this 3D effect, right, it’s a bit of a mystery, in some sense, and not every lens can do it, no, no. You get, you know, some old lenses—those classic ones, like, uh, the Zeiss Planar or the Leica Summicron, those have a certain character, friends, a way they render things, uh, with this beautiful depth. And why? Well, it’s the optical design, the glass elements, the coatings, everything, really. These aren’t just, you know, mass-produced pieces of glass. No, no, these lenses, they have, uh, they have character! You see, they were designed with artistry, with a certain vision in mind, yes?
>>4381791Now, let me tell you, friends, these modern lenses, uh, the ones that are all corrected, you know, for every possible aberration—no distortion, no chromatic aberration, super sharp from corner to corner, uh—they’re technically perfect, sure. But sometimes they lack soul, you know? They’re flat. The subject doesn’t, uh, it doesn’t "pop" in the same way. This 3D pop, you see, it’s like the spirit of the image, the essence that makes it stand out. It’s not just about being sharp; it’s about how the sharpness transitions, uh, gradually, naturally, from the subject to the background. The edges aren’t, uh, harsh; they’re, you know, soft and gentle, yet defined. That’s what gives you this, uh, this effect.So, in conclusion, friends, the 3D pop, it’s not an easy thing to achieve. It’s a process, you know? It’s not just something that comes from having the latest technology or the most expensive equipment. No, no, it’s about understanding the art of lens design, the subtleties of light and depth, and choosing the right lens for the job. You have to work with the tools you have, experiment, and find, uh, find the combination that works for you, that brings out the best in your subject, that makes it, uh, well, come alive, yes?And that, friends, is the magic of 3D pop in photography!
>>4381792>>4381791Pretty sad you went through the effort of typing all that instead of just posting some pictures
>>4381793>implying i typed any of that
>>4381791>These aren’t just, you know, mass-produced pieces of glass.Plenty of Nikkors could do it, many Canon L lenses can too
>>4381794okay nophoto
Wonder if newer lenses that rely on digital corrections if deactivated show more of this pop.
>>4381753Anon, 6x9 is an easy 200mp, if not more. Stop shooting bronica lenses. Stop shooting SLRs.
>>43817973d pop is just sharpness and contrast, none of that shit matters. The rest is schizos making up shit any time the center seems emphasized.
>>4381818>3d pop is just sharpness and contrastWrong, it is also how the lens corrects or not the geometry. Read the thread, harambe
>>4381832No.
>>4380208Camera conspiracies has always been the biggest gearfag idiot and anything he gets into is for sure somehow wrong or bad. You don't even have to know the technical side of photography, or the aristic side. If you're totally new you can still figure this out: if he likes it, it's probably a scam. Do the opposite of what he does.
>>4381875he hates sony colors, can't argue with that.
I just realized that dx0 photolab has a slider for microcontrast.
>>4381877the colors in his videos are awful. it looks like everyone has a rash and its filmed through a car window.
>>4381958He's completely talentless for sure. I don't get the appeal... I watched 5 or 6 videos and don't get it at all. My best guess is he has trapped a young casual demographic.
>>4381689The Auto Takumar 55mm f1.8 has a nice swirly bokeh that is not as dominant as the Helios but gives a nice effect. Here is a video still shot on the Canon R5. I really like the color rendition on this lens and a fair bit of pop if lit correctly.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3840Image Height2160Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:04:01 22:03:09Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1417Image Height797
>>4382061Another Shot with the Zebra Auto Takumar.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image Width5464Image Height8192Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:03:24 19:53:48Exposure Time1/200 secExposure Bias0 EVColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width945Image Height1417RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4381875>if he likes it, it's probably a scamBy trial and error he gets into correct suppositions: Nikon has the best bodies along with Canon, Sony has the best AF, Cosina the best optics if you don't mind manual focus, Olympus best colours SOOC, sharpness is overrated.>>4381958>the colors in his videos are awful. it looks like everyone has a rashIt's Canada and he has a piss poor diet so his face always looks odd>filmed through a car window.The dumbass always puts a mist filter on everything but that's not that bad anyways, he uses it way too strong tho.
>>4381817Not having this debate with you again, retard. You were completely btfo'd the first 5 times. Come back when you have samples to back up your claims.
>>4381767>picks a genre where phones struggle>"hurr phones no good"
>>4381817This is a scientific fact that any sane person knows true.
>>4381817200mp? Try 750mp
>>4382086>a genre where phones struggleYou mean... all of them.
>>4382086Name one where they don't.
OP here, wow you morons really blew this thread up with all your many tired arguments.Hilariously, almost every example of "3d pop" posted here is simply attributable to "subject is lit strongly, background is lit more darkly":>>4381551>>4381736>>4381002>>4380997amazing that any of you think these shots would look meaningfully different if another lens were used. The quality of the bokeh may differ, nothing more. >>4381956that's because microcontrast is exactly the same as "clarity"
>>4382352>"subject is lit strongly, background is lit more darkly">almostWrong, and not all of them, so doubly wrong.>The quality of the bokeh may differ, nothing moreWrong>microcontrast is exactly the same as "clarity"Wrong
>>4382354actually, no, I'm right.
>>4382357Can you prove it?
>>4382358You truly are like a battered wife.
>>4382366Concession accepted. Thanks.
>>4382357>>4382358>>4382366>>4382370Wait, none of you are me! impostors
>>4382399>nophotoOpinion discarded
>>4381875isnt that the whole point of his channel? like he literally got into cameras because someone said he looked healthier in one of his health vlogs and he's been impulse buying shit and banking off of being a sperg for his content
>>4385702He got into cameras because he had a Canon bridge zoom and wanted to make more fancy videos but was scared of the vast array of options so he decided to make a series about picking one, which ended up being a channel. For example he also wanted a desk chair and made a series of videos, but because he found an almost perfect one early he never made his Furniture channel.Because that gearfag channel became bigger than the "health" one, which is ironically shadowbanned/algorithm-raped in YT due to its anti-vaxx narrative rather than the crazy dumbass diets he tries, he pushes a lot of shit and trials but always under his niche set of rules. Despite being a dummy he does show the real character of his cameras, for example Nikon is praised for their IBIS yet he shows it sucks in video, Canon for their AF and he showed it's well below Sony and right now on-par with Nikon, etc.With the 3D Pop saga he's now saying glass and lighting matters way more if your video is static, apart from audio which he says dunks video altogether. He's retarded explaining the optical nuances and also disregarding other lenses because they are not Cosina or Canon, despite showing old Nikkors are as good, but i've seen some of his videos and i know he knows EXACTLY how to make 3D Pop at will, he just hasn't said it, but it's much more about composition and lighting yet when does and switches lenses you can see the glass is the make-or-break factor at the end.
>>4380208It's art 101. Tangent lines make an image look bad. In OPs image the difference is simple - the "3d" pop is created by a wider aperture (less dof = easier for the brain to make planes) and ensuring the subject's outline isn't tangent to any background/foreground lines. In the non-"3d" image a tighter aperture flattens the planes and the subjects position such that he and the bush form a tangent line where they meet blends them together.I swear for a bunch of failed painters photographers sure know nothing about basic art theory.
>>4385708Lmao this schizo actually falls for lens contrast differences>video ibisOther people do way better tests, its entirely different from stills ibis>video AFOther people also do better tests, and it is way different from stills IBIS. If you know what a circle of confusion is and that video is 8mp at most you instantly know how a camera with poor AF accuracy in stills can focus to great sharpness in video, where most frames are also motion blurred.
>>4385709It surprises me that for a well-read person you don't know there's empiric wisdom and theoretical knowledge, both can deduce the same things but the former sure as hell is way more difficult to explain and that's often the case with people who actually take pictures outside than read books.
>>4385713pseud
>>4385713None of that went over my head. Sorry you’re just low IQ. >you cant be smart and artisticDavinci laughs. Most artists laugh, actually. There are a LOT of masters degrees and high IQs in the top 40 charts and a lot of very high IQ schmucks represented in the MoMA. >you cant be smart and fitSocrates laughsEtc. see a trend? Its called anti-intellectualism. The idea that smart people can be excluded from groups like artists or athletes because they can not be worthy of any clique other than “nerds” because how could they be smart, and do other things? Doesnt reading take hella time bruh?It doesnt actually work because if you’re smart reading doesnt take hella time bruh
>>4385717Also as you can see we cope a little by skipping worthless classes like english (english 202 tanked my gpa). That saves us a decent amount of time.
>>4385713If you thought about your photos beyond snapping them, auto contrast in LR and then uploading them to insta you'd probably have intuitively stumbled on this effect as well. It's not exactly secret knowledge that tangent lines are generally something to avoid in pleasing images
>>4385712bruh you are a fucking circle of confusion
>>4385721So many people do nothing but snap, its not like art where each line, color, and shade is a decision. They even have anti-gear cults based around tiny web images being the ideal and photography being pure “vibes” because large impactful images and eye titilating fine detail are exclusionary of many digital leica users, all 35mm film shooters, and fujifilm digital cameras. How we’ve fallen since the days of quirky street photography on 6x7.
>>4385722>repeat stills IBIS instead of AF while multitaskingWow sorry i did not give this shitty porn site full of brazilians and indians my full attention
>>4380208finally someone on /p/ who isn't retarded3D pop, microcontrast and Leica glow are all buzzwords to sell overpriced glass to retards with more money than brains. Shit is the photography equivalent to Monster HDMI cables
>>4385716Not an argument>>4385717>None of that went over my headIt did, sorry you are not introspective.>you cant be smart and artisticI never said that, your post has been discarded, read again please you are embarrassing yourself.>>4385721>probably have intuitively stumbled on this effect as wellYes i agree, hence why i scratch my head when someone says certain effects don't exist when anyone who has shoot for a while knows there's conditions when a photo looks way better or punchier.>>4385725Back to breddit lil bro
>>4385732Seething. Lenses have NOTHING to do with this. So called lens pop is a fucking dehaze slider adjustment at best.
>>4385732>anyone who has shoot for a while knows there's conditions when a photo looks way better or punchier.90% or more of that is based on composition, lighting and specific exposure settings. Two lenses with the same number of elements and glass that's equally clear should produce similar images given the same camera settings regardless of brand or age. You think I'm agreeing with you that there's some magic pop some lenses have but I'm telling you that generally speaking those effects are to do with choosing a composition such that you avoid tangent lines, too much overlap in foreground/subject/background, the subject is well illuminated compared with the fore/background, and that you choose an aperture which lets the DoF assist your eye in distinguishing layers. You can do this with a 100 year old camera or a fresh of the line one as long as you understand how to utilize the camera
>>4385733You didn't say I was wrong, chud
>>4385737Element count is irrelevant to the look of an image. Only when the element coatings are junk or the elements are really poorly polished window glass can element count indirectly manifest as haze and flare. Hence its usually attributed to sigma art and sony ZA lenses.
>>4385737Agreed> Two lenses with the same characteristics should produce similar imagesYou are forgetting about the coatings, had two of the same Nikkors, one Q and the other Q.C. and the difference was notorious in terms of contrast.You definitely can do both effects with most lenses in certain circumstances but some glass is way easier to pull it with than others. Lenses are the finishing touch, all the other things you mention are correct but they mark the 80% of the job, the lens is the 20% that cannot be replicated unless you do Ps magic.Particularly the 3D effect, one can Pop almost anything with lighting and a fast lens but creating a 3D illusion needs very good lighting and a lens that doesn't correct the geometry of the image heavily.
>>4385743>a lens that doesnt correct the geometryWhat is this schizo bullshitAnon its only sharpness and global contrast. They are depth cues. The yannick khong bullshit about over correcting and depth rendition ed glass whatever is simply made up. Poorly made, poorly coated elements sap contrast. That’s it.
>>4385746>What is this schizo bullshitLearn a thing or two about photography gear and then come back, i will give you a clue: >>4385744>yannick khong bullshitwat, are you ok buddy?
>>4385754Distortion once corrected in software does not affect depth cues. Only corner/far edge resolution at max pixelpeep.
>>4385755>Changing the apparent depth does not affect depth cuesUhhhhh
>>4385757>distortion>apparent depthYou must not be a shape rotator
>>4380208i dont know about you guys, but i can tell a 3d pop lens from a non 3d pop lens every single timei can just simply see it
>>4381342most accurate would be to watch movies from 90s-2002people werent super obsessed with having blurry backgrounds so you could see depth even when everything was in focus, check for outside daylight shots too where they couldnt control depth via lighting other than maybe couple reflectors and such, tv series mainly
