What's your fascination with telling people what they can't or shouldn't do? The term in question is an appropriate metaphor for describing a certain visual effect. As with all metaphors, the effect described is not exactly the same as the effect to which the comparison refers, but that's the whole point of a metaphor.
Photos that evince an obvious or exaggerated separation of the subject from the background are artistically representing 3D space as closely as possible on a 2D plane. "3D effect" is not technically accurate, but it works metaphorically to convey a certain look or effect. Chris On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:31:45 -0500, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically > accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? > > I agree completely. But selective focus and good bokeh are the > attributes that have led to the "3D" descriptor being applied to lenses > that are obviously not capable of 3D. I don't think anyone thinks those > lenses produce actual 3D images. It's just another example of how > language takes on other meanings over time. Of course it's not > "technically accurate," but much of our language is not. Artists > generally have no problem with that. Scientists do. That's the way of > the world. > Paul > > On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:42 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > What you describe is a selective focus effect > > but the out of focus background is still viewed > > on same plane as forground, it would look totally > > different with 3D photograhy, the forground > > would not only be in selective focus, it would > > be "popped out" in front of the background. > > > > For those who have never seen 3D photography > > or havent in seen it a long time, The thing > > to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity > > looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are > > closer than infintity look "popped out" off the > > infinity background. No 2D process does this with > > any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not > > agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a "3D quality" > > or effect. "Realistic Selective Focus" might me a better > > term for the effect they are trying to describe. > > JCO > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? > > > > > > If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it > > separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent > > "3D" effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's > > merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and > > > an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 > > limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like > > my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 > > On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > >> If you have ever done or seen any decent > >> 3D photography you would know it's a really > >> dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt > >> read too much into it, or put too much trust > >> in the writers of just descriptions... > >> JCO > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM > >> To: PDML > >> Subject: 3D quality in a lens? > >> > >> > >> What is meant when a lens is described as having > >> a "great 3 dimensional quality"? > >> Or "it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel"? > >> I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly > >> WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? > >> > >> TIA > >> Don > >> > > > >
