Pixie Dust

Todd Adamson · 05-30-2011, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The second one (older lady) is as 3D as I've seen in a photograph. I expected her to move.

I would agree that photo has 3D qualities. But I've seen lots of pics in which I would say the 3D jumps out even more. I'd post some, but that would really be derailing the topic, and that's a whole new can of worms, anyway. LOL

Curious to know what lens on that shot, though.

DogLover · 05-30-2011, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The second one (older lady) is as 3D as I've seen in a photograph. I expected her to move.

Really just couldn't disagree with you more.

Vinceloc, I'm not saying your images are bad, quite the contrary, but they are so completely "dustless" that I have to think that you are seeing something completely different in the generally agreed upon "dusted"samples posted here.

Perhaps it is your method of posting that is causing the dust-busting.

**Ash** · 05-30-2011, 07:17 PM - **1 Like**

There is texture in most of your shots here Vincent that renders well with your chosen lenses. There is a sense of depth in the subjects themselves (beyond DoF control), but not much in your last example, and the 3D look about the portraits show some quality of microcontrast that I don't see in many other lenses.

Here is a portrait with what appears to me to possess surprisingly some 3D rendition for a standard telezoom. Having said that, lighting does have a lot to do with it. Some frontal fill flash over ambient lighting that reflected back onto the child's face from behind. Minor PP editing.

... shot with the DA 55-300 near wide open

TOUGEFC · 05-30-2011, 07:24 PM

3D ?-

Im not going to say what lens is what pic, some of these I feel have a 3d look and some of them dont. Curious to here thoughts....

DogLover · 05-30-2011, 07:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

3D ?-

Im not going to say what lens is what pic, some of these I feel have a 3d look and some of them dont. Curious to here thoughts....

First one has fair amount of 3D, last one has it in spades. All are nice, though.

**Ash** · 05-30-2011, 07:31 PM - **1 Like**

1, 2, 4 and 6 have it Simon.
They all look like the 43 ltd.

Blue · 05-30-2011, 07:35 PM

Talking about 3d . . .

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

What I'm seeing from the posted shots is that a large extent, what people perceive as "pixie dust" is often a combination of sharp subject, soft background, with pleasingly complex bokeh (eg, not "nervous", but not just blurred beyond recognition, either). With that theory in mind, here are some shots from some lenses not generally considered to have "it". Curious how people will stack them up against those posted here. These are mostly images I've posted elsewhere in the recent past (because it's what I had up on Flickr), and many of you know what lenses I typically shoot with, but try look at these on their own merits. Mind you, I'm not saying they *do* have "it"; I'm just trying to understand what others are seeing. As it happens, 2 lenses account for a disproportionate number of these images, so maybe they are my most dusted lenses.

#6

#8

On second thought, several of these images are all pretty light on the transition areas; they probably show *too* much isolation.

TOUGEFC · 05-30-2011, 07:37 PM

Thanks Ash and doglover, any others want to share their thoughts before I reveil the exif?

dgaies · 05-30-2011, 07:46 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

Thanks Ash and doglover, any others want to share their thoughts before I reveil the exif?

I'm going to go with the 77

Blue · 05-30-2011, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by tougefc

3d ?-

im not going to say what lens is what pic, some of these i feel have a 3d look and some of them dont. Curious to here thoughts....

43
43- 3d
15
77- 3d
77
15- 3d

TOUGEFC · 05-30-2011, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

I'm going to go with the 77

I was meaning- which ones may or may-not look 3d ? But you can guess the lens too

dgaies · 05-30-2011, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

I was meaning- which ones may or may-not look 3d ? But you can guess the lens too

I'm mixing up threads, thought I was in the guess the lens one.

I think the first two and last two have more of a 3D look. The third one has the least and the I can't quite make up my mind on the fourth one.

TOUGEFC · 05-30-2011, 07:59 PM

thats ok mate.

I will wait until Todd and Steve share their thoughts before i reveil the exif, since those 2 seem to have the most to say about this topic

paperbag846 · 05-30-2011, 08:06 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by dgaies

I think the first two and last two have more of a 3D look. The third one has the least and the I can't quite make up my mind on the fourth one.

Thats funny, I think the 4th and 6th have the most 3d look!

Great shots. While I think that there is quite a bit of pop to them, I would suggest that has more to do with good DOF control than any specific lens. E.g., Marcs photos / Ash's photo. The biggest difference I see is *post-processing philosophy!*

PS is number 6 the 77?

Todd Adamson · 05-30-2011, 08:13 PM - **1 Like**

Baha! Yes, Steve and I are the loudmouths here.

I'm looking on my iPod again, so can't see them large. But to me they all seem to have at least some 3D except for the first one. Which everyone else thought did have it. SOooo...

05-30-2011, 07:17 PM - 1 Like	#273
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	There is texture in most of your shots here Vincent that renders well with your chosen lenses. There is a sense of depth in the subjects themselves (beyond DoF control), but not much in your last example, and the 3D look about the portraits show some quality of microcontrast that I don't see in many other lenses. Here is a portrait with what appears to me to possess surprisingly some 3D rendition for a standard telezoom. Having said that, lighting does have a lot to do with it. Some frontal fill flash over ambient lighting that reflected back onto the child's face from behind. Minor PP editing. ... shot with the DA 55-300 near wide open Last edited by Ash; 05-30-2011 at 07:27 PM.

05-30-2011, 07:50 PM	#280
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by tougefc 3d ?- im not going to say what lens is what pic, some of these i feel have a 3d look and some of them dont. Curious to here thoughts.... 43 43- 3d 15 77- 3d 77 15- 3d Last edited by Blue; 05-30-2011 at 08:01 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Official Pentax Forums "Pixie Dust" Lens List	Winnie	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	40	10-24-2016 03:52 AM
Pentax K-7 Dust Alert and Dust Removal Functions	brosen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	02-09-2016 04:43 AM
HowTo: Replace the first lens group in the 31 with that of the 77! Double pixie dust!	feilb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	04-01-2011 10:31 AM
Rendering and Pixie Dust	GlennG	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	65	02-06-2011 02:21 PM
dust on sensor or dust on lens	41ants	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	10-08-2009 10:28 AM

05-30-2011, 07:03 PM	#271
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by audiobomber The second one (older lady) is as 3D as I've seen in a photograph. I expected her to move. I would agree that photo has 3D qualities. But I've seen lots of pics in which I would say the 3D jumps out even more. I'd post some, but that would really be derailing the topic, and that's a whole new can of worms, anyway. LOL Curious to know what lens on that shot, though.

05-30-2011, 07:14 PM	#272
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by audiobomber The second one (older lady) is as 3D as I've seen in a photograph. I expected her to move. Really just couldn't disagree with you more. Vinceloc, I'm not saying your images are bad, quite the contrary, but they are so completely "dustless" that I have to think that you are seeing something completely different in the generally agreed upon "dusted"samples posted here. Perhaps it is your method of posting that is causing the dust-busting.

05-30-2011, 07:24 PM	#274
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	3D ?- Im not going to say what lens is what pic, some of these I feel have a 3d look and some of them dont. Curious to here thoughts....

05-30-2011, 07:27 PM - 1 Like	#275
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by TOUGEFC 3D ?- Im not going to say what lens is what pic, some of these I feel have a 3d look and some of them dont. Curious to here thoughts.... First one has fair amount of 3D, last one has it in spades. All are nice, though.

05-30-2011, 07:31 PM - 1 Like	#276
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	1, 2, 4 and 6 have it Simon. They all look like the 43 ltd.

05-30-2011, 07:35 PM	#277
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Talking about 3d . . . Originally posted by Marc Sabatella What I'm seeing from the posted shots is that a large extent, what people perceive as "pixie dust" is often a combination of sharp subject, soft background, with pleasingly complex bokeh (eg, not "nervous", but not just blurred beyond recognition, either). With that theory in mind, here are some shots from some lenses not generally considered to have "it". Curious how people will stack them up against those posted here. These are mostly images I've posted elsewhere in the recent past (because it's what I had up on Flickr), and many of you know what lenses I typically shoot with, but try look at these on their own merits. Mind you, I'm not saying they do have "it"; I'm just trying to understand what others are seeing. As it happens, 2 lenses account for a disproportionate number of these images, so maybe they are my most dusted lenses. #6 #8 On second thought, several of these images are all pretty light on the transition areas; they probably show too much isolation.

05-30-2011, 07:37 PM	#278
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Thanks Ash and doglover, any others want to share their thoughts before I reveil the exif?

05-30-2011, 07:46 PM - 1 Like	#279
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by TOUGEFC Thanks Ash and doglover, any others want to share their thoughts before I reveil the exif? I'm going to go with the 77

05-30-2011, 07:51 PM	#281
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by dgaies I'm going to go with the 77 I was meaning- which ones may or may-not look 3d ? But you can guess the lens too

05-30-2011, 07:55 PM	#282
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by TOUGEFC I was meaning- which ones may or may-not look 3d ? But you can guess the lens too I'm mixing up threads, thought I was in the guess the lens one. I think the first two and last two have more of a 3D look. The third one has the least and the I can't quite make up my mind on the fourth one.

05-30-2011, 07:59 PM	#283
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	thats ok mate. I will wait until Todd and Steve share their thoughts before i reveil the exif, since those 2 seem to have the most to say about this topic

05-30-2011, 08:06 PM - 1 Like	#284
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by dgaies I think the first two and last two have more of a 3D look. The third one has the least and the I can't quite make up my mind on the fourth one. Thats funny, I think the 4th and 6th have the most 3d look! Great shots. While I think that there is quite a bit of pop to them, I would suggest that has more to do with good DOF control than any specific lens. E.g., Marcs photos / Ash's photo. The biggest difference I see is post-processing philosophy! PS is number 6 the 77?

05-30-2011, 08:13 PM - 1 Like	#285
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Baha! Yes, Steve and I are the loudmouths here. I'm looking on my iPod again, so can't see them large. But to me they all seem to have at least some 3D except for the first one. Which everyone else thought did have it. SOooo...