pagpow
Well-known
I think this post belongs here -- though the forum warning fills me with trepidation.
My question crosses lens brands and may deal with issues of technical construction.
I've read and seen numerous threads (w and w/o photos) discussing "glow" and "3D". Sometimes these seem to be used interchangeably, but my look at some of the "glow" examples suggest that at least some of those are created by light haze -- this seems particularly the case with some discussions of the Canon 50 1.8 and DAG's request not to be asked to clean those.
I'm focused on 3D, not "glow".
Years ago Sherry Krauter (Golden Touch) did a study of Leica lenses with this quality (no, she didn't think they all had it), listed some (I forget which) and suggested the effect might be the result of large, rounded back elements.
Recently, I saw a photo of a cathedral interior taken with a Komura 28mm 3.5 that exhibit great 3D, "space".
I have bought a Canon RF 35 1.8 which seems to exhibit that character in ways the Canon RF 35mm f2 does not.
The flicker CV 28/3.5 group has many shots suggesting 3D.
Sorry for the long intro -- here are the questions:
1) Is there really an identifiable 3D effect in some shots, or have I been smoking something? (does a consensus exist on the issue?)
2) Is this effect, if it exists, a characteristic of particular lenses, as some have suggested? or an artifact of steep perspective, side lighting, etc?
3) Is there some agreement as to its cause -- rear element shape as some suggest, undercorrected aberrations, as others have suggested, other explanations...
4) Is there a compilation of lenses that seem to exhibit this characteristic?
My question crosses lens brands and may deal with issues of technical construction.
I've read and seen numerous threads (w and w/o photos) discussing "glow" and "3D". Sometimes these seem to be used interchangeably, but my look at some of the "glow" examples suggest that at least some of those are created by light haze -- this seems particularly the case with some discussions of the Canon 50 1.8 and DAG's request not to be asked to clean those.
I'm focused on 3D, not "glow".
Years ago Sherry Krauter (Golden Touch) did a study of Leica lenses with this quality (no, she didn't think they all had it), listed some (I forget which) and suggested the effect might be the result of large, rounded back elements.
Recently, I saw a photo of a cathedral interior taken with a Komura 28mm 3.5 that exhibit great 3D, "space".
I have bought a Canon RF 35 1.8 which seems to exhibit that character in ways the Canon RF 35mm f2 does not.
The flicker CV 28/3.5 group has many shots suggesting 3D.
Sorry for the long intro -- here are the questions:
1) Is there really an identifiable 3D effect in some shots, or have I been smoking something? (does a consensus exist on the issue?)
2) Is this effect, if it exists, a characteristic of particular lenses, as some have suggested? or an artifact of steep perspective, side lighting, etc?
3) Is there some agreement as to its cause -- rear element shape as some suggest, undercorrected aberrations, as others have suggested, other explanations...
4) Is there a compilation of lenses that seem to exhibit this characteristic?
George S.
How many is enough?
If anyone knew the answers to all your questions, by now there'd be many many lenses across many brands that would exhibit this "3-D look".
pagpow
Well-known
how about any one of the questions, or impressions informed by use?
Tuolumne
Veteran
kxl
Social Documentary
I do think there is an identifiable 3D quality to certain images, but I do not think there is consensus. In another thread, I posted an image that had extremely shallow DOF and others agreed that it indeed "looked 3D." On the same thread, another Keith (from Oz) posted an image with very deep DOF, and most (including me) agreed that it was also 3D.
I think the 3D look is less about the lens itself and more about lighting, local contrast and other factors.
I think the 3D look is less about the lens itself and more about lighting, local contrast and other factors.
Last edited:
pagpow
Well-known
Good point. I should have specified 35mm; MF seems to generate that sense more frequently.
pagpow
Well-known
Another good point. Some have indeed called out shallow DoF as creating that sense, and I agree that deep DoF also creates it in some instances.
re consensus, in part I meant "is there consensus on whether it actually exists?" and later "Is there consensus on whether it is a lens quality rather than things like kxl mentions?"
I think the "3D effect" exists but is fleeting, hard to pin down. Like Bokeh, it's inconsistent and apparently dependent on the circumstances in addition to the lens itself.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
You will find that Zeiss lenses exhibit this feature more frequently, but in my experience it seems more evident when shooting colour, which I do rarely these days. A presence of a front - back plane of interest helps that too, so does using wider apertures. Some guys on Fredmiranda forum have analyzed this phenomenon a little, and it seems to have something with how the edges of subjects are drawn. As to which lens design makes it - I am not sure it is so simple to know that, but Tessar formula is famous for a strong 3d effect, but my most 3d lens is probably the Hasselblad Biogon, which is a wide angle.
C Sonnar 50/1.5
Hasselblad Biogon 38/4.5
C Sonnar 50/1.5
Hasselblad Biogon 38/4.5
pagpow
Well-known
You will find that Zeiss lenses exhibit this feature more frequently, but in my experience it seems more evident when shooting colour, which I do rarely these days. A presence of a front - back plane of interest helps that too, so does using wider apertures. Some guys on Fredmiranda forum have analyzed this phenomenon a little, and it seems to have something with how the edges of subjects are drawn. As to which lens design makes it - I am not sure it is so simple to know that, but Tessar formula is famous for a strong 3d effect, but my most 3d lens is probably the Hasselblad Biogon, which is a wide angle.
C Sonnar 50/1.5
Hasselblad Biogon 38/4.5
Wow!! Thanks; that Biogon shot really illustrates the effect. Thnks for the lead to Fredmiranda.
Others?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This used to be called a 'plastic' look, in the days when 'plastic' did not just refer to petrochemical-based synthetics. It's widely recognized to exist, though its causes are equally widely disputed. I've found it quite marked in lenses as disparate as the 50/1 Noctilux, the 90/2.2 Thambar and (lest I be accused of elitism) the 135/2.8 Elmarit.
EDIT (for mfogiel): Gorgeous photos. Should have congratulated you earlier.
Tashi delek,
R.
EDIT (for mfogiel): Gorgeous photos. Should have congratulated you earlier.
Tashi delek,
R.
Last edited:
Papercut
Well-known
OT: that Biogon shot (regardless of whether one thinks it's 3D or not -- seems to be to my eye) is really gorgeous ... love the textures and light, almost looks like some underwater coral -- nicely done ....
my apologies for OT post ... now back to your regularly scheduled discussion
my apologies for OT post ... now back to your regularly scheduled discussion
charjohncarter
Veteran
This isn't my shot but when I saw it the first time I thought 3-D. I read some of the comments and somebody said the same thing. In this case: DOF.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/2114323047
I hope this doesn't violate some rule, if so delete it.
peterm1
Veteran
Yes......... I remember now that the term "plastic" was applied in this way - I think I recall the term being used in the book " Collecting and Using Classic Cameras" by Ivor Matanle. There are also some nice shots exhibiting this characteristic in that book.... it seems to me to be something that's more prevalent with certain designs of lenses.
Sonnar lenses are renowned for this!!! Check out some shots from classic Hasselblad lenses for example. But the same is true for 35mm format equipment.
Is the Canon 35mm lens cited a Sonnar? I do not know and have not researched it. For example the very famous and sought after Canon LTM 50mm f1.5 (not 1.4) is a Sonnar design and it attracts crazy prices on eBay because of its image characteristics which are "plastic" in this sense although this term is no longer much used these days.
ditto the above comments re the very nice pics in this thread.
Last edited:
George S.
How many is enough?
That Biogon 3-D look is helped A LOT simply by the subject. You have the brighter top leaves set against a darker, slightly OOF background, and some of the leaves have a bright, very delineated lighter color edge, which for the most part is also against a darker area of the shot. That light against dark, really helps to separate things which give it a 3-D pop.
I feel the 3-D or "glow" look is a combination of many things. I feel that there has to be a certain type lens with not so easy to define characteristics. A very sharp foreground separated from the background by both focus and light, and the said lens must give a very pleasant, smooth and fine bokeh.
Sonnars are sometimes known for that look, as well as some older Leica Elmars, which to me is strange since the vintage Elmars are not the sharpest tools in the camara bag.
I feel the 3-D or "glow" look is a combination of many things. I feel that there has to be a certain type lens with not so easy to define characteristics. A very sharp foreground separated from the background by both focus and light, and the said lens must give a very pleasant, smooth and fine bokeh.
Sonnars are sometimes known for that look, as well as some older Leica Elmars, which to me is strange since the vintage Elmars are not the sharpest tools in the camara bag.
Last edited:
pagpow
Well-known
Now, we're cooking; let's have some others chime in.
I do think that the look is enhanced by certain qualities of the subject, lighting, and,possibly, f-stop. But I am particularly interested in this recent honing in on lens design. Appreciate it.
I do think that the look is enhanced by certain qualities of the subject, lighting, and,possibly, f-stop. But I am particularly interested in this recent honing in on lens design. Appreciate it.
snausages
Well-known
i think my idea of the "3D look" is simply that the subject is rendered sharply on its own distinct plane, with background and foreground elements soft and separate. distinct planes of light can amplify the effects of the distinct planes of focus.
i think this pentax 67 + 105mm is kinda close (subject lit from the side, as some has said is helpful)...
then again, i've always kinda thought this shot had a 3D feel, but my subject is totally out of focus, so who knows...
...
i think this pentax 67 + 105mm is kinda close (subject lit from the side, as some has said is helpful)...
then again, i've always kinda thought this shot had a 3D feel, but my subject is totally out of focus, so who knows...
Krosya
Konicaze
I think some lenses deliver this "3D" effect - M-Hexanons and ZM Planar come to mind. But it's better seen in Medium Format. One lens in perticular Sonnar 180/2.8. Here is a link to photo ( not mine), that really shows it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lebedeff/859918901/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lebedeff/859918901/sizes/o/
Chris101
summicronia
Isn't this the same quality that they call bokey on other websites?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
"3D" in 35mm depends on the amount of contrast produced by the lens (higher usually means better) at the focused region, in conjunction with smooth bokeh and selection of aperture (not necessarily wide-open).
Like said above, it's easier to observe and achieve in Medium/Large format.