Thank you, Shaul, for your generous and thoughtful video. You've brought up several new concepts, in your always carefully considered, yet creative and integrative approach. Though I have some initial thoughts and questions, I should first take a few days to digest and reflect upon what you've shared, and then write further. In the meantime, I've been gradually exploring more of the 3D rendering techniques that the painting masters used. One that may relate directly to photography is blurring combined with unusual (and probably unnatural) light and color/hue patterns at the interface of key subjects, with the background. ...The conditions or rendering of edges. DaVinci's Mona Lisa shows this, at the outline of her head against the background. Could this relate to "high pop" lenses in that High Refractive Index elements more greatly "separate" various colors of light on the spectrum**, and spread them more widely across the film or sensor? At the interface of a differently colored and differently lit background, this spreading of the colors could be more visibly obvious. (Is this what is meant by "fall-off?) I got this idea by analyzing the graphic of a lens or prism spreading light's colors, in one of your early, foundational videos. Likewise, considering the model you proposed, the absence or low ratio of ED elements will not "disperse" this color differentiation and spreading too much. Especially, color differentiation from the HRI elements will be retained better, before the light hits the film or sensor. (Am I understanding this process, and its implication correctly?) If so, this could also explain why - as you discovered - an ED element in the front or middle of a lens will "do less damage" to the pop-producing splitting/spreading of colors by other elements. Would it imply that placing one of more HRI elements after the last ED element of a lens will tend to create more pop, because no ED element diminishes it before light reaches the sensor? I remain, very grateful to you, - Gary Note: **since the angle/degree of refraction varies by light frequency.
Hi Gary, I think you got it right. Dispersion, or CA, is one way to cause a slight gradient around edges. Lenses that do not correct for it would be more poppy. This is my experience. Maybe I'm wrong.
It’s about how tonality is used to describe objects and surfaces. I was at a top London lab called Metro in Clerkenwell in London. They used to develop my C41 and make my C-type exhibition prints when they were there. They had some amazing photographic printers serving the Professional photographers of the time. I was once invited up onto the mezzanine of their print workshop. They unrolled a very flat looking but impressively large black and white portrait of Keith Richards. They had white gloves on and a number of iterations of the print for the photographer to view and to demonstrate their skills as printers. The printer switched on a hand held spotlight and lifted it overhead. Keith Richards’ face loomed up as the paper surface popped into three dimensional volume like a conjuring trick. This was a platinum print with inky black blacks and silvery greys reflecting and absorbing light from colloidal platinum nano particles in a thin film painted onto the paper with goats hair brushes. It was as stunning and vivid as a photograph almost never is. We don’t see three dimensional pop without wide tonality and without media that can record the subtlest differences in tone and then we need to reflect light from the image into the eyes with realistic intensity and tonal relationships. Lighting, focus and capturing tonality for the lens and capture medium reveals 3D pop. Yes it’s about perception as you said but that’s true of how we see. What our eyes see is always going to be mediated by the brain and ascribed meaning. We can trick our minds with Magic eye books and VR helmets because our brains want to create meaning from experience.
I worked at Metro at that time. I think I know the printer who did the pp prints. Metro had some of the best printers around. You are right that a pp print or even an excellent silver print can create the 3d illusion very well in the right hands. The metals are embedded into a 3d substrate and light is reflected from different depth of the paper also adding to the effect. I have some family prints of highest quality from the 1930's and they have amazing 3 dimensionality
Your second paragraph merits deep reflection. Is it perhaps possible to map what's happening at specific regions/locations on a photograph -- due to specific "intensities and tonal relationships" -- to the eye's perception of 3D pop? Or, inspired by some of Shaul's words in this video, to how the brain's neural networks might process such information to create a perception? (Perhaps my question is simply too speculative.) -Gary
@@sneye1 definitely! I had favourite darkroom papers they were all different and some were more special. Kentmere and Jessops resin coats were good sleeper budget types. Ilford papers were great. Ilfobrom was a bit special. The Kodak and Agfa papers were really cool. Agfa Brovira was beautiful. Developer chemistry and multiple exposures with multigrade filters and local applications of heat and water to manage local tonal range, flashing and superdilution of the developer were used when I was ‘working’ a print. Then there were toners and split toning. The printing would need to take int account whether the print was going onto a wall and how it was going to be lit. Inkjet giclee prints won’t have colloidal silver reflecting light back so 3D pop is probably less likely. I was at PhotoLondon this year and there were some large new Daguerreotypes, they look impressively 3D. They give a mirror-like reflection. 3D pop was more prevalent and more expected with wet photography techniques. Polaroid negatives make great 3D tonal images when contact printed and enlarger printed. The general disappearance of darkroom prints and printing may be what has made 3D pop harder to achieve.
@@frontstandard1488 Your sentence, "The metals are embedded into a 3d substrate and light is reflected from different depth of the paper also adding to the effect" reveals something I've never heard of, or considered. Sigma's Foveon sensors are physically 3-D, unlike Bayer or X-trans sensors. Different layers detect different RGB colors. I wonder if this is one reason why Foveon photos tend to show much more 3D depth and pop than most other photos. Because some light is absorbed at each layer of the Foveon sensor, the final color has less light to sense. I wonder if a similar process took place with respect to the deepest layer of monochrome light in Metro's process. I'd have to think more to figure out if there are any useful results or insights from this "differential sensor/paper depth" rendering process. Any ideas, anyone? Note that Sigma changed the 3D architecture and color processing sequence between the SD1 Merrill cameras and the SD Quattro. Would this affect 3D-pop due to contrast or color/hue gradation in different ways, depending on the major colors at the interface of subjects vs. backgrounds? A reference: DPreview article entitled: "SD1 Merrill vs SD Quattro, best for infrared?: Sigma Camera Talk ... It contains a graphic of the RGB color curves for the sensors. -Gary
I definitely perceive the so called 3d pop effect. How much of it is just CA, spherical aberration, vignetting, barrel distortion, optical vignetting, and sharpness falloff towards corners, though? Genuinely curious. If you compensate for these pleasing flaws in post, does 3d pop decrease? If so, is the opposite true? Can you edit a flatter image in a more poppy way? Really enjoying your videos lately
I once tried adding simulated CA by slightly blurring the red and blue channels. It definitely made a difference to one photo, did not affect another. Watch the third video on this channel, towards th end.
@@sneye1 individual differences in perception may be at play here, but i react more to barrel distortion, vignetting and sharpness falloff (while keeping enough local contrast) than CA, tbh. The only thing i can't really compensate for is the transition between in and out of focus areas. That is unique to the lens design/number of blades.
you coined a phrase or term that makes it much easier to talk about this stuff... ...Micro Gradation... This time next year that term will be all over lens discussion groups...
All interesting points, but given the plasticity of the brain, how new neural pathways can be created, with trauma or repetition for example, I do believe we can train ourselves to expand our perceptions, including sight, much the same way a palate can be trained to taste wine and whiskey, or ears developed to listen or to play music :)
It would be interesting to apply a brain mapping to individuals while they look at different images. That would reveal which of the brain's centers are activated. Far beyond my abilities though.
Looking at its arrangement, it has one HRI element at the front and one ED element in the middle, making about 15% of the glass. Should be average to good. Nothing special. Out of curiosity, do you own this lens or are you considering buying a copy?
I have the Nikon Z 50/1.8. It's quite mediocre in the pop department. If depth rendition is a top priority for you then go for the Nikon 50/1.4 G, adapted to mirrorless.
Owning this lens, it has nothing like deep or 3D, however it has a strong pop because the lens is very sharp wide open (at least a good copy). If you want a Panasonic lens with depth and 3D, I strongly suggest the 24-70mm S Pro or the Panasonic Leica 25-50mm (m43).
@@aiseurnae5976 Hello, yes, I remember what you advised me! It's just rather strange why the 50mm 1.8 doesn't have a 3D effect, since you disabled the lens correction in the camera for only 9 elements? Then please tell me which fixed lenses from the m4|3 have a 3D effect? And which fixed lenses from the L mount?
Thank you, Shaul, for your generous and thoughtful video. You've brought up several new concepts, in your always carefully considered, yet creative and integrative approach.
Though I have some initial thoughts and questions, I should first take a few days to digest and reflect upon what you've shared, and then write further.
In the meantime, I've been gradually exploring more of the 3D rendering techniques that the painting masters used. One that may relate directly to photography is blurring combined with unusual (and probably unnatural) light and color/hue patterns at the interface of key subjects, with the background. ...The conditions or rendering of edges.
DaVinci's Mona Lisa shows this, at the outline of her head against the background.
Could this relate to "high pop" lenses in that High Refractive Index elements more greatly "separate" various colors of light on the spectrum**, and spread them more widely across the film or sensor? At the interface of a differently colored and differently lit background, this spreading of the colors could be more visibly obvious. (Is this what is meant by "fall-off?)
I got this idea by analyzing the graphic of a lens or prism spreading light's colors, in one of your early, foundational videos.
Likewise, considering the model you proposed, the absence or low ratio of ED elements will not "disperse" this color differentiation and spreading too much. Especially, color differentiation from the HRI elements will be retained better, before the light hits the film or sensor. (Am I understanding this process, and its implication correctly?)
If so, this could also explain why - as you discovered - an ED element in the front or middle of a lens will "do less damage" to the pop-producing splitting/spreading of colors by other elements. Would it imply that placing one of more HRI elements after the last ED element of a lens will tend to create more pop, because no ED element diminishes it before light reaches the sensor?
I remain, very grateful to you,
- Gary
Note: **since the angle/degree of refraction varies by light frequency.
Hi Gary, I think you got it right. Dispersion, or CA, is one way to cause a slight gradient around edges. Lenses that do not correct for it would be more poppy. This is my experience. Maybe I'm wrong.
It’s about how tonality is used to describe objects and surfaces. I was at a top London lab called Metro in Clerkenwell in London. They used to develop my C41 and make my C-type exhibition prints when they were there. They had some amazing photographic printers serving the Professional photographers of the time. I was once invited up onto the mezzanine of their print workshop. They unrolled a very flat looking but impressively large black and white portrait of Keith Richards. They had white gloves on and a number of iterations of the print for the photographer to view and to demonstrate their skills as printers. The printer switched on a hand held spotlight and lifted it overhead. Keith Richards’ face loomed up as the paper surface popped into three dimensional volume like a conjuring trick. This was a platinum print with inky black blacks and silvery greys reflecting and absorbing light from colloidal platinum nano particles in a thin film painted onto the paper with goats hair brushes. It was as stunning and vivid as a photograph almost never is.
We don’t see three dimensional pop without wide tonality and without media that can record the subtlest differences in tone and then we need to reflect light from the image into the eyes with realistic intensity and tonal relationships. Lighting, focus and capturing tonality for the lens and capture medium reveals 3D pop. Yes it’s about perception as you said but that’s true of how we see. What our eyes see is always going to be mediated by the brain and ascribed meaning. We can trick our minds with Magic eye books and VR helmets because our brains want to create meaning from experience.
Hi, thank you for the fascinating story. I agree about printing media. Papers have their own effect on contrast and tonality.
I worked at Metro at that time. I think I know the printer who did the pp prints. Metro had some of the best printers around. You are right that a pp print or even an excellent silver print can create the 3d illusion very well in the right hands. The metals are embedded into a 3d substrate and light is reflected from different depth of the paper also adding to the effect. I have some family prints of highest quality from the 1930's and they have amazing 3 dimensionality
Your second paragraph merits deep reflection. Is it perhaps possible to map what's happening at specific regions/locations on a photograph -- due to specific "intensities and tonal relationships" -- to the eye's perception of 3D pop? Or, inspired by some of Shaul's words in this video, to how the brain's neural networks might process such information to create a perception? (Perhaps my question is simply too speculative.)
-Gary
@@sneye1 definitely! I had favourite darkroom papers they were all different and some were more special. Kentmere and Jessops resin coats were good sleeper budget types. Ilford papers were great. Ilfobrom was a bit special. The Kodak and Agfa papers were really cool. Agfa Brovira was beautiful. Developer chemistry and multiple exposures with multigrade filters and local applications of heat and water to manage local tonal range, flashing and superdilution of the developer were used when I was ‘working’ a print. Then there were toners and split toning. The printing would need to take int account whether the print was going onto a wall and how it was going to be lit. Inkjet giclee prints won’t have colloidal silver reflecting light back so 3D pop is probably less likely.
I was at PhotoLondon this year and there were some large new Daguerreotypes, they look impressively 3D. They give a mirror-like reflection.
3D pop was more prevalent and more expected with wet photography techniques. Polaroid negatives make great 3D tonal images when contact printed and enlarger printed. The general disappearance of darkroom prints and printing may be what has made 3D pop harder to achieve.
@@frontstandard1488
Your sentence, "The metals are embedded into a 3d substrate and light is reflected from different depth of the paper also adding to the effect" reveals something I've never heard of, or considered.
Sigma's Foveon sensors are physically 3-D, unlike Bayer or X-trans sensors. Different layers detect different RGB colors. I wonder if this is one reason why Foveon photos tend to show much more 3D depth and pop than most other photos.
Because some light is absorbed at each layer of the Foveon sensor, the final color has less light to sense. I wonder if a similar process took place with respect to the deepest layer of monochrome light in Metro's process. I'd have to think more to figure out if there are any useful results or insights from this "differential sensor/paper depth" rendering process.
Any ideas, anyone?
Note that Sigma changed the 3D architecture and color processing sequence between the SD1 Merrill cameras and the SD Quattro. Would this affect 3D-pop due to contrast or color/hue gradation in different ways, depending on the major colors at the interface of subjects vs. backgrounds?
A reference: DPreview article entitled: "SD1 Merrill vs SD Quattro, best for infrared?: Sigma Camera Talk ... It contains a graphic of the RGB color curves for the sensors.
-Gary
I definitely perceive the so called 3d pop effect. How much of it is just CA, spherical aberration, vignetting, barrel distortion, optical vignetting, and sharpness falloff towards corners, though? Genuinely curious. If you compensate for these pleasing flaws in post, does 3d pop decrease? If so, is the opposite true? Can you edit a flatter image in a more poppy way? Really enjoying your videos lately
I once tried adding simulated CA by slightly blurring the red and blue channels. It definitely made a difference to one photo, did not affect another. Watch the third video on this channel, towards th end.
@@sneye1 individual differences in perception may be at play here, but i react more to barrel distortion, vignetting and sharpness falloff (while keeping enough local contrast) than CA, tbh. The only thing i can't really compensate for is the transition between in and out of focus areas. That is unique to the lens design/number of blades.
you coined a phrase or term that makes it much easier to talk about this stuff...
...Micro Gradation...
This time next year that term will be all over lens discussion groups...
Thanks.. Let us hope lens manufacturers listen too...
All interesting points, but given the plasticity of the brain, how new neural pathways can be created, with trauma or repetition for example, I do believe we can train ourselves to expand our perceptions, including sight, much the same way a palate can be trained to taste wine and whiskey, or ears developed to listen or to play music :)
It would be interesting to apply a brain mapping to individuals while they look at different images. That would reveal which of the brain's centers are activated. Far beyond my abilities though.
could you please review the panasonic 50mm 1.8s line. It has 9 elements it must be very three dimensional!
Looking at its arrangement, it has one HRI element at the front and one ED element in the middle, making about 15% of the glass. Should be average to good. Nothing special.
Out of curiosity, do you own this lens or are you considering buying a copy?
@@sneye1 I don't know what to choose nikkor 50 1.8 or lumix 50 1.8
I have the Nikon Z 50/1.8. It's quite mediocre in the pop department. If depth rendition is a top priority for you then go for the Nikon 50/1.4 G, adapted to mirrorless.
Owning this lens, it has nothing like deep or 3D, however it has a strong pop because the lens is very sharp wide open (at least a good copy). If you want a Panasonic lens with depth and 3D, I strongly suggest the 24-70mm S Pro or the Panasonic Leica 25-50mm (m43).
@@aiseurnae5976 Hello, yes, I remember what you advised me! It's just rather strange why the 50mm 1.8 doesn't have a 3D effect, since you disabled the lens correction in the camera for only 9 elements? Then please tell me which fixed lenses from the m4|3 have a 3D effect? And which fixed lenses from the L mount?