Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Thanks! Very nice to read how much you like it. I'm just a happy photowalker :) Toine On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 19:18, Eric Weir wrote: > > > > On Sep 26, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Toine wrote: > > > > I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That > > should result in something like

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Toine wrote: > > I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That > should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today: > > https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit > > I find myself lugging the

Re: More on bokeh (Was: Re: PESO: 3D pop?)

Great information. Thanks! Paul > On Oct 5, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: > >  > Toine, > > First, let me say that you've got a very nice image! > > Paul has given a very simple explanation for the visual effect you (we) > observe. The further difference is (as Paul and a few

Re: More on bokeh (Was: Re: PESO: 3D pop?)

Igor, Thanks for the references. I should be able to access the full text of the DOI through my university account. Maybe I need to refresh my physics and optics courses from 40 years ago :) It's difficult to reproduce the 3d pop. I think foreground and background should be blurred. Toine > >

More on bokeh (Was: Re: PESO: 3D pop?)

Toine, First, let me say that you've got a very nice image! Paul has given a very simple explanation for the visual effect you (we) observe. The further difference is (as Paul and a few others pointed out) comes from the quality of the bokeh for the particular lens. As you probably know,

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Mark, I bought an early Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version of that lens. Mainly because they're the cheapest of that design used, and Rob Studdard recommended it. (I watched eBay for a few weeks until I saw one in good shape for under $400 US.) I like how it performs and the images look. Very,

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

I agree re creamy bokeh - if people are going to notice the bokeh you don't want them noticing the details of stuff in the bokeh... Sounds like the 105mm f2.4 is doing well on you your 645Z. Sharp with minimal chromatic aberrations? An upgrade path to digital MF using my 6x7 lenses is an

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

I like cream with my bokeh. I've been using that 67 105mm f:2.4 with my 645Z and the results are wonderful. It makes a terrific portrait short tele on the 645 format. On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:25 PM Mark C wrote: > > Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been > shooting

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

BBB Alan C On 27-Sep-20 08:53 PM, mike wilson wrote: On 27 September 2020 at 18:54 Toine wrote: Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect. Zooms have a busy bokeh.

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

> On 27 September 2020 at 18:54 Toine wrote: > > > Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in > glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect. > Zooms have a busy bokeh. > >

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Lens design has a lot to do with how bokeh is rendered. I've been shooting film almost exclusively this year, a lot with a Pentax 6x7 and 105mm f2.4. That lens  seems to have been designed to produce the most beautiful creamy bokeh possible. I also use a Ricoh Diacord TLR, a 6x6 TLR with a

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

> But I read the last paragraph, as suggested at the beginning. Did you? Yes :) It's so full of pseudo science you cannt read it normally to the end. The before after slider picture is the funniest On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 21:01, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Of course there’s an illusion of 3D. But

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Of course there’s an illusion of 3D. But it’s not the result of lens design secrets. Just limited DOF on big glass. Paul > On Sep 27, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D. > > Dan Matyola >

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

I tried to quote that website. Yes some zooms have busy bokeh On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 20:35 Daniel J. Matyola, wrote: > That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D. > > Dan Matyola > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery > * >

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

That is certainly true, Paul, but there is no denying the illusion of 3D. Dan Matyola *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery * On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Paul Stenquist wrote: > What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Some zooms have busy bokeh. My 150-450 has lovely bokeh. Paul > On Sep 27, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Toine wrote: > > Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in > glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect. > Zooms have a busy bokeh. > >

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Yes I agree thats the main effect. However this guy even includes lead in glass as a pop factor. The rendering of bokeh also adds to the effect. Zooms have a busy bokeh. https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses I can hardly see the difference in

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

What is seen as 3D “pop” is just limited depth of field. And because primes generally have a larger app wide open than zooms, they give you more control over DOF. Paul > On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > That certainly does "pop"! > > Dan Matyola >

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

That certainly does "pop"! Dan Matyola *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery * On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine wrote: > I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That > should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

Very nice. In your image I think the effect is helped by the light fall off from near to far and also the contrast of dark tree trunks near vs. the two lighter colored ones in a bit further. But the “look” of the lens is also there. I’ve been using my DA*300 a lot lately, at first because I

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

On 9/26/2020 14:53:22, Toine wrote: I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today: https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Toine wrote: > > I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That > should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today: > > https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit > > I find myself lugging the

Re: PESO: 3D pop?

I love that! On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Toine wrote: > > I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That > should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today: > > https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit > > I find myself

PESO: 3D pop?

I read a lot about primes vs zooms and old designs of primes. That should result in something like 3D pop. Never noticed it until today: https://www.repiuk.nl/albums/new/#=1=005-899-20200926-imgp3095-edit I find myself lugging the DA*300 around on a daily basis. Maybe because it pops. Do I need