lens quality, three dimensions, illusion

[bluekorn]

I have always thought of the third dimension in photography as an achievement in illusion by the photographer as he/she manipulates the perception of a viewer beholding a two dimensional surface to appear more or less in three dimensions.

I've been reading about the Pentax K5 lately, coupled with the Pentax 31mm 1.8 Ltd fixed focal length lens. Many who write about this 31mm allude to an inherent quality of this lens to render three dimensional images, quite apart from the skills of the photographer. If there is such an inherent quality in some lenses, and it doesn't fall into the category of "it has a special mystique because I paid a lot of money for it", can anyone speak to what brings it about?

Thank you. Any insights would be appreciated.

[mcbroomf]

A lot of discussion here....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238

[feppe]

3D quality is not quantifiable, and is ill-defined. It's quite popular among MFDB aficionados in justifying the cos... I mean describing the files from the backs

There are many more such terms, such as micro-contrast, tonality, and the latest I've heard, color discrimination. These terms are to photography what astrological signs are to astronomy.

[bluekorn]

Thanks for the response Mike. I looked at the link, Fred Miranda, and therein toward the middle of the page is a remarkable photo of a cat. There is something very special about this photo in my perception. Many of the responders on this page make a distinction between 3D and a sense of depth. A sense of depth is what I meant to be asking about in my original question about inherent qualities in lenses. Depth. In hard science it is depth that is the third dimension. Perhaps people think of 3D as the visual phenomenon wherein the subject appears to leap forward from the page as if suspended in front of it. That's not what I meant to inquire about. I meant to ask if there is an inherent quality in some lenses that gives the feeling of depth.

I know that those of you who don't like to talk about Leica don't like to talk about Leica. And I know that there a lot of people who can afford Leica equipment because even though they don't make photos they like to talk about Leica because they can afford to buy exclusivity. But there seem to be a few out there who can afford Leica gear, talk about it intelligently including, it's expense, and, who make beautiful photos with their lenses, some of which stand out in a way that other photos don't, which is not to say that other lens manufacturers don't make lenses offering similiar image qualitites, hence my inquiry about the Pentax 31.

I offer a quote that I can't source anymore but I'm quite sure it came from Michael Reichmann. (My apologies, Michael, if I've got this wrong.) "The mystery was that Minolta never made a camera to match the professional appeal of their lenses. So pros moved on to Canon and Nikon. And though their loyalty to Minolta glass was broadly supplanted by relationships with optical stars of a different stripe, many working shooters missed the Minolta drawing style: lush colour, smoother-than-smooth bokeh and an appealing rendition that eschews the dramatically contrasty nature of Canon and Nikon lenses in favour of a Leica-flavoured, high-res presentation that gently rolls off the tonal extremes for open shadows and well-tamed highlights."

It's that last phrase that I wonder about; lush colour etc..... Is it all down to the photograher and his compositional and post processing skills or are there inherent qualities in some glass lending to the undeniable feeling of depth apparent in some photos?

[uaiomex]

I don't own a digital MF system. I shoot with ff dlsr. The 3D "thing" is a combination of edge accutance, really clean shadows and the right amount of OOF working in unison with the right perspective. Impeccable post-processing seems to be a must. That's what I believe.
All this together creates the "3D Illusion". Nevertheless, what can be more real than what the awaken brain perceives?
The first time "I experienced an illusion" was 30 years ago. A good friend in our photo gang bought a used Leica and one evening showed us an 8X10 b&w print. We all were delighted about the sharpness. I saw the 3D effect for first time in my life. I don't remember if someone else saw it though.
On the internet and right at my monitor, once in a while I get to see some medium format pictures that transmit the illusion of 3D. Rarely I've seen it from FF dslr files and once or twice (if I recall well) from an aps-c camera.
In my opinion, buying a digital back won't guarantee you'll get it, because 3D is more than great gear and skills. It is a serendipitous thing.
Eduardo

P.S. I'd like to add that I've seen the ilussion from one or 2 pics in which everything was in focus. When OOF becomes blur as in "nice bokeh", in my perception it rarely works.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The "3D effect" comes from various sources.

1. Sharp vs. unsharp areas
- rendering of the scene by the lens (bokeh) along with aperture and sensor/film format
- medium (digital sensor or film)  
- focal length, perspective and camera type, eg. tech camera.
2. Cold Color vs. hot color areas
- composition
3. Dark vs. light areas
- composition
4. Perspective and size relations of objects
- composition
- focal length and point of view

All can be manipulated to more or less some extent in pp, but its hard or impossible to achieve if it shall look good - doing  the capture right is the most important point as usual.
The sharpness distribution (harsh sharp-unsharp area transition vs. smoother transition) also depends on the media (digital vs. film) and the lens formula (digital vs. old analog lenses and over- or under-  correction of spherical aberration).

Of course there is no magic bullet, but I believe a good lens with a beautiful character is probably the most important technical means to achieve a good 3D look and beats any pp attempts.

[Fritzer]

In the digital age, the 3D effect is a leftover from the film days.

Back then, people who were shooting 35mm tried to tried to convince themselves that certain lenses created the tonality and object seperation of MF and LF, and in many cases didn't even have their own darkroom; these days, it's just people who don't know Photoshop .

[bluekorn]

Thank you all for your replies. The term 3D doesn't seem useful as it is somewhat elusive. Let me abandon the terms 3D, depth, microcontrast, tonality etc. and simply ask; If an impartial master printer applied his rigorous workflow equally to images taken in a lab by an impartial master photographer who struggled to make the process of capturing the images on film identical in every way but for the use of 50mm 1.4 lenses from different manufacturers, would there not be discernable and/or noteworthy differences in the final images attributable to the glass itself?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thank you all for your replies. The term 3D doesn't seem useful as it is somewhat elusive. Let me abandon the terms 3D, depth, microcontrast, tonality etc. and simply ask; If an impartial master printer applied his rigorous workflow equally to images taken in a lab by an impartial master photographer who struggled to make the process of capturing the images on film identical in every way but for the use of 50mm 1.4 lenses from different manufacturers, would there not be discernable and/or noteworthy differences in the final images attributable to the glass itself?

It's about the system MTF, and limited DOF. So you cannot separate the lens performance from the film or sensor array, because they interact. Different lenses can generate a different combined response.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

I wouldn't be willing to discount the truth about the Leica image effect.

When I was still working for another photographer, I was involved in working on prints from an M3 and a 21mm which, now, (it was back in '65) might have been a Leitz or a Schneider optic - can't swear to which.

The images were room sets shot for BBC TV in their Glasgow studios. I was so impressed by my own b/w prints from that stuff that I kept a couple for my own portfolio for the day I hoped to go solo. I had a similar experience years later, when I had to turn some slides shot by John Swannell, I believe it was, for one of my own clients, into Ciba prints. I found the colours of the slides remarkable, and I was told it was Leica.
Unfortunately, the M system was too limited for my needs and their first slr cameras were not really that hot, either. By the time I thought seriously about the R6 it was far too late to change systems so far into a career, so I didn't.

An interesting take on this can be found in the website of Stan Malinowski, one of the leading shooters of his day. If you can't be bothered with the images, just read the 'Introduction'.

http://www.modelpix.com

Read what he has to say on the matter and smile.

Rob C

[bluekorn]

Thanks again all. I know that in digital photography the lens plays only one role in a greater system but as I explore this idea of buying a premium fixed focal length lens I'm more and more convinced that the glass you put out front makes a significant contribution to what is potentially finally available in image quality. And Rob C, I'm willing to count the truth about the Leica image effect Thank you.

[Mark Muse]

bluekorn, I largely agree with the belief you are coming to that the glass does indeed make a difference. I know nothing about the specific Pentax lens you are pondering. But over the last two-three years I purchased quite a few vintage manual focus lenses to use with adapters on my 5d2. Mostly I purchased Contax CY lenses (Carl Zeiss), but also Pentax m42 mount, Pentax 645, Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss). Some of these are zooms, but most are fixed focal length. I have also purchased three Zeiss ZE mount lenses. And of course I have several Canon L's. These have all proven to be excellent lenses, but differences are remarkable. For my tastes, the Zeiss lenses are the most appropriate. And of the Zeiss lenses I have the ZE's are clearly an improvement over the CY lenses (with one exception!).

The description someone else used earlier in the thread (in a derogatory way) "color discrimination" or what could perhaps be more accurately said of a lens that it doesn't muddy color distinctions as much as other lenses is probably the first characteristic of the Zeiss ZE's that sets it apart from many of the other offerings out there in my opinion. They are also sharp (though some not as much as others), "brilliant" (micro-contrast?), but with perhaps less macro-contrast (highlight to shadows) for a given scene. They convey a sense of depth very nicely.

What I am beginning to recognize is that there seem to be personalities in rendering style, not only to individual lenses, but also to lens lines, probably reflecting the sensibilities of the lens designers. Lens design is as much an art as a science I think. There is quite a lot to it. There is no question in my mind that there are significant differences in images as a direct result of the lens that formed the image. I have seen this on film and digital, DSLRs through 4 x 5 view cameras.

My 2¢.

[schrodingerscat]

One of the things that kept me using M lenses, other that preferring to work with a rangefinder camera, was the contrast. With both B&W and Kodachrome 25, there was an ability to differentiate between subtle tonalities that I couldn't match with any other hand held system, except perhaps Hassy/Zeiss with color neg or a Technika. I think this, more than resolution or bokeh, is what produce the images with qualities that resemble 3D. And in B&W, there is that atmospheric 'glow' that seems to be the result of a controlled diffusion, and would be considered a defect in todays terms. Myself, I find many digital images rather harsh looking, but that seems to be the 'look' preferred by many.

Subjective? Yes, but all things sensory are subjective(if not reality itself). As far as the MTF thing is concerned, there was a white paper by a Zeiss lens designer/engineer posted not long ago that did declare that the camera and how it was set up was part of the equation. As the medium that records the image projected, it would have to be, not to mention Heisenberg. More of a marketing tool as anything else.

[elf]

Thank you all for your replies. The term 3D doesn't seem useful as it is somewhat elusive. Let me abandon the terms 3D, depth, microcontrast, tonality etc. and simply ask; If an impartial master printer applied his rigorous workflow equally to images taken in a lab by an impartial master photographer who struggled to make the process of capturing the images on film identical in every way but for the use of 50mm 1.4 lenses from different manufacturers, would there not be discernable and/or noteworthy differences in the final images attributable to the glass itself?

The simple answer is yes. You will see differences in sharpness, color rendering, bokeh and just about every other attribute of a lens. You'll even see differences with different copies of the same lens from the same manufacturer.  Whether or not the differences are large enough to matter is another question.