retinax
Well-known
Low "Micro Contrast" -> High "Micro Contrast"
Problem solved! Just use the pop-slider.
Seriously though, OP, try to find out if what you mean is micro contrast or not. You mention it along with 3D-pop and multidemensionality which aren't easily discussed because not all of us perceive these things the same way. If it's all down to micro contrast, we know what we're discussing (although its existence has been denied by some folks here...). Then the question if lenses with many elements have less of it still stands. I suspect that there is a correlation with number of glass-air interfaces and maybe the amount of glass per se, but it's probably obscured and overridden by a much stronger relationship with the advance of coatings, lens design and manufacturing precision.
charjohncarter
Veteran
How do you get 'pop' that is the question. But I don't care how, I just like it. I'll continue to use my 'poppers' and be happy that I have them.
This isn't to say that this hasn't been an interesting and informative thread. At least now I have some idea why I like these lenses. Thank you NickTrop.
This isn't to say that this hasn't been an interesting and informative thread. At least now I have some idea why I like these lenses. Thank you NickTrop.
DominikDUK
Well-known
The human eye's lens is a biconvex singlet with pretty much every optical fault known to physics in short very far from perfect. I believe the preference for lenses with some degree of optical faults stems from the fact that lenses with "defects" seems to be closer to how we perceive the world. The brain does a lot of correction work but it inherently knows about the eyes faults.
oldwino
Well-known
The human eye's lens is a biconvex singlet with pretty much every optical fault known to physics in short very far from perfect. I believe the preference for lenses with some degree of optical faults stems from the fact that lenses with "defects" seems to be closer to how we perceive the world. The brain does a lot of correction work but it inherently knows about the eyes faults.
I suspect this is close to the truth. I find today’s modern designed lenses to be too good. They seem to portray a “hyper reality”. Now, that may be how the world really looks, but my eyes don’t see it that way. My preference is for the simpler and less corrected lens designs. They render an image that just looks more “natural” to me.
retinax
Well-known
I suspect this is close to the truth. I find today’s modern designed lenses to be too good. They seem to portray a “hyper reality”. Now, that may be how the world really looks, but my eyes don’t see it that way. My preference is for the simpler and less corrected lens designs. They render an image that just looks more “natural” to me.
You guys realize that we still use those same eyes to look at photographs?
I understand the desire for a photograph to look less real. But the theorizing going on in this thread cracks me up.
shawn
Veteran
But the foreground / background separation that comes from having a subject lit brighter than the background isn't a feature of the lens in that case. That's just lighting.
Yes, lighting plays a big part in 3d pop in an image. Look at the examples in this thread. First one... bushes in bright sun, immediate background in shade. Motorcycle in bright sun, immediate background in shade. Tree rated as only a little pop... similar lighting throughout.
You can also get pop from big differences in color between subject and background.
Shawn
mich rassena
Well-known
Yes, lighting plays a big part in 3d pop in an image. Look at the examples in this thread. First one... bushes in bright sun, immediate background in shade. Motorcycle in bright sun, immediate background in shade. Tree rated as only a little pop... similar lighting throughout.
You can also get pop from big differences in color between subject and background.
Shawn
Sure, in painting you learn that colors on opposite sides of the color wheel have greater contrast than those adjacent.
I'd much rather see someone make good use of color and lighting to define the subject. It works well on any format and with any lens.
peterm1
Veteran
As an interesting aside this thread kind of reminds me that there has been an ongoing debate about photography (of the is it art or does it just represent reality with absolute verisimilitude kind) since it began. There are those who prefer an artistic interpretation and there are those who demand that photography just "tell the truth". Seems our current crop of lens designers are of the latter kind......
One of my heros of photography is Frank Hurley, an Australian photographer and adventurer who both traveled to the south pole (or tried to) and photographed the Western Front in WW1. In the latter capacity he often got into trouble for his more artistic style and rendering, even on occasions making photographic montages to "capture the deeper truth" about war on the western front. This latter action really got him into strife with the historians who hated the idea. But the public loved it as it did convey the war with a cinematic quality that none of the other hack photographers (you can pick a Hurley photo a mile way when you know his style) could even approach. (As might be expected Hurley later went into movie making). There is no doubt that at times his images were both artistic and even had a rugged beauty. While this is s sideline to this thread it does as I say remind me that there has been an ongoing debate about what photos should be and do - well for as long as photography has been around.
One of my heros of photography is Frank Hurley, an Australian photographer and adventurer who both traveled to the south pole (or tried to) and photographed the Western Front in WW1. In the latter capacity he often got into trouble for his more artistic style and rendering, even on occasions making photographic montages to "capture the deeper truth" about war on the western front. This latter action really got him into strife with the historians who hated the idea. But the public loved it as it did convey the war with a cinematic quality that none of the other hack photographers (you can pick a Hurley photo a mile way when you know his style) could even approach. (As might be expected Hurley later went into movie making). There is no doubt that at times his images were both artistic and even had a rugged beauty. While this is s sideline to this thread it does as I say remind me that there has been an ongoing debate about what photos should be and do - well for as long as photography has been around.



Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
to the OP; what you are looking for and at with regards as to your idea of 'pop' is under corrected spherical aberrations. Yes I totally agree medium format would be your best option in film for this look. I would suggest looking for budget to mid-level TLR and folders around the mid 1950's.
To everyone else still reading I remind that the OP (strongly) favorite lens in the 50mm range is the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D So the OP taste in lenses is either not very broad or that he prefers a look that most do not. Not a Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Leica Summicron DR or even a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 S. Nope. He *prefers* the AF-D, widely regarded as 'not one of the best Nikkor 50's' and thats being kind.
To everyone else still reading I remind that the OP (strongly) favorite lens in the 50mm range is the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D So the OP taste in lenses is either not very broad or that he prefers a look that most do not. Not a Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Leica Summicron DR or even a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 S. Nope. He *prefers* the AF-D, widely regarded as 'not one of the best Nikkor 50's' and thats being kind.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
It's just theorizing, no one is going to be bloodied.
This thread has been the best thing going for some time, I have learned a lot that may or may not be true.
This thread has been the best thing going for some time, I have learned a lot that may or may not be true.
I understand the desire for a photograph to look less real. But the theorizing going on in this thread cracks me up.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Are there ingredients, I’ll mention just one here, that are in front of the lens that should be considered? I mean does flat lighting versus controlled lighting that the photographer plans out have anything to do with the images a lens makes?
michaelwj
----------------
I have learned a lot that may or may not be true.
Hahahahaha!
DominikDUK
Well-known
You guys realize that we still use those same eyes to look at photographs?
I understand the desire for a photograph to look less real. But the theorizing going on in this thread cracks me up.
You can't compare reality with a 2-dimensional representation of reality, they are two completely different things, the brain knows the difference.
And the wish -at least mine- is to reproduce the things I/we saw and felt.
Seeing is only partially done with the eyes the brain, and other senses play a big role too.
For a time they promoted HD with the catch-phrase sharper than reality, which is impossible, but also correct it is sharper than we humans can see. HDR on modern TV looks often disgusting because it is a heightened reality, same applies to overly sharp lenses IMO.
NickTrop
Veteran
Here, an intensive YouTube video where a cinematographer during a shoot does a thorough comparison between a few modern Leica C (cinema) lenses and vintage Cooke cinema glass. Things don't bode well for the Leica in a side-by-side comparison, the author claiming the Leica is "good for shooting sheet metal". What was that quote by HBC? Something about it being a "bourgeois concept"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE
DominikDUK
Well-known
The Cooke S4 is very far from vintage they were introduced in the mid-to late nineties and still are some of the most widely used cine lenses in existence. If you want the real old time Cooke look you have to go with the S2/S3 they have a really beautiful organic look which isn't really suitable for a lot of movies but work wonders when it comes to beauty commercials or if you want the actress to look good. The S4 isn't as clinical sharp as a modern Zeiss lens, the Leica is somewhat in between. But the S4 are damn sharp especially compared to real vintage lenses and would put 99% of all still lenses to shame.
michaelwj
----------------
For a time they promoted HD with the catch-phrase sharper than reality, which is impossible, but also correct it is sharper than we humans can see. HDR on modern TV looks often disgusting because it is a heightened reality, same applies to overly sharp lenses IMO.
New TVs and modern lenses just have too much clarity, like someone who just noticed the clarity slider in Lightroom. Step back!
retinax
Well-known
Here, an intensive YouTube video where a cinematographer during a shoot does a thorough comparison between a few modern Leica C (cinema) lenses and vintage Cooke cinema glass. Things don't bode well for the Leica in a side-by-side comparison, the author claiming the Leica is "good for shooting sheet metal". What was that quote by HBC? Something about it being a "bourgeois concept"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5febma4_OE
Well that was interesting. I'll admit they look more different than I would have thought, and the Cooke lenses do produce a look that screams "Hollywood". I see differences mainly in contrast and color rendition. Direct comparisons are flawed though. Between the 21s, the actor and thus focus is at different distances, anyway nothing seems exceptional there to me. The 100, the lighting on the lady's face is very different. Now the output from the 75 Cooke does look exceptionally 3-dimensional to me. In the comparison shots with the Leica lens however, you'll notice that the DOF is less so the hair is OOF, while in the Cooke 75 shots it's in focus. That has been described many times as a fundamental point for the so-called 3D pop by thin DOF: The entire foreground subject must be in focus.
What do you see?
are these cookies lenses with few elements?
DominikDUK
Well-known
The Cooke S4 are not low element count lenses and also have some aspherical Elements. The difference in the video seems to be the result of higher field curvature of the Cookes as opposed to little field curvature with the Leicas. Higher field curvatures creates a stronger illusion of Depth. The color is mostly the result of grading the Leica also seems to be a bit overexposed. It is a T 1.4 lens whereas the Cooke is a T 2 lens. He could have done the test at T2 and the results might have looked a bit different.
brbo
Well-known
To everyone else still reading I remind that the OP (strongly) favorite lens in the 50mm range is the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D So the OP taste in lenses is either not very broad or that he prefers a look that most do not. Not a Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Leica Summicron DR or even a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 S. Nope. He *prefers* the AF-D, widely regarded as 'not one of the best Nikkor 50's' and thats being kind.
But it fits*!
It fits his idea that higher transmission levels and high microcontrast equal "3d pop".
* Well, in reality it doesn't fit, because the transmission level number he picked up from some web site is just an error and the notion that 50/1.4 af-d is a lens with high microcontrast (compared to modern hi resolution lenses) is equally wrong.
teddy
Jose Morales
Astigmatism, field curvature... Ah... Sigh. No one listens to me... ��
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.