[TOUGEFC]

Thank-you all for sharing your thoughts, I will post them again at the bottom of this post with the lens + f/stop + my thoughts.
Rememeber the question i asked is what pictures do you think had a 3D effect to them?
There is no wrong or right answer to question, but it seems that most of us do seem to be on the same page about the 3D effect.

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

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

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.

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?

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...

I picked the same ones, Ash.

43 @ f/2.4, I feel this has quite a strong 3D feel to it.


43 @ f/1.9, I feel this has quite a strong 3D feel to it.


43 @ f/4 , I feel this has a very slight 3D effect, but its more noticable viewed larger.


43 @ f/1.9, I feel this has a bit of 3D to it but not as strong as others.


77 @ f/2.8, I feel no 3D effect here, yes subject is isolated very nicely but no 3D


77 @ f/3.5, I feel this has quite a strong 3D feel to it, prehaps that because its stopped a bit it has allowed more details to be caputered in the OOF area, where if it was shot wide open the OOF area would have little detail and be more soft and buttery.



Thanks again those who took the time to have a look and post your thoughts, +1 rep will be added

I think one of the key ingredients to the 3D effect is to have the OOF not completly blurred, but to have some detail left in it to still be able to make out what the rest of the scene is.

The bokeh thats often very smooth and buttery like a water painting of some sort is nice, and does isolate subjects but lacks the 3D effect because the OOF areas have little or no details and therefore we can not make out what lyes in the rest of the scene.

Some of you may agree or dis-agree, and thats fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinoun. These are just my thoughts on some aspects of the "3D EFFECT"

[jstevewhite]

There is a similar thread to this on MF Lenses and this is the shot I posted there. I have just bought this lense (Voigtlander Colour Ultron 50/1.8) and I am amazed at the quality from it - there is something very different and alluring, as in many Zeiss / Leica / 31 / 43 / 77 shots.

This one however, was take at f8 (one of a series of the same subject, from f2 thru f8) so it's not just about short DoF. To me there is something special - others may not see it, that's fine if you don't.

As I've said, I loves me some Bavarian glass. And, with slide film, I could pick out the Leitz/Zeiss/Schneider (Rollei) with fairly high accuracy. A cloudy day would fool me, as would artificial (tungsten or fluorescent) light, but if the images were shot in daylight, I could pick 'em out of a stack with fairly high accuracy. It was a bit of a party trick I used to sell more Leitz and Zeiss lenses when I was working in a camera shop... Negatives lose a lot of the native characteristics of the lens because they're second generation images. Digital loses it because you can actually adjust things like contrast and fill light and microcontrast and saturation with sliders.

That said, this image certainly holds some of that pop; much can be simulated with PP, though.

[v5planet]

LOL! I do. Every chance I get. You don't think I spend time here in this forum when I could be out taking pictures, do you? I hope you don't, either! I mean, it's fun, but really... Tonight I was grilling some chicken wings for the family, and noticed the Catalpas are blooming, so I grabbed the K-5 and the Helios 44M and snapped a few in between making a salad, mixing up dressing, setting the table, etc. I still haven't gotten what I consider to be my ... "definitive" catalpa blossom image, but this is what I got tonight:




I dunno if a Helios can even have pixie dust - I'm pretty sure Soviet Russia threw all the pixies out of the country - but I like this lens.

Nonsense. Glorious Soviet optical lenses were designed to deliver the greatest number of megatons of pixie dust.

[jstevewhite]

Thank-you all for sharing your thoughts, I will post them again at the bottom of this post with the lens + f/stop + my thoughts.
Rememeber the question i asked is what pictures do you think had a 3D effect to them?
There is no wrong or right answer to question, but it seems that most of us do seem to be on the same page about the 3D effect.

Thanks! I really liked these images ( at least, 1,2,4,6, as Ash said ) and they do inspire some confidence that I'll like the 43 when I end up getting it

I think color can have a significant effect on the "3d-ness", as well. Ever seen the blacklight artwork where certain colors 'float' above others?

[jstevewhite]

Nonsense. Glorious Soviet optical lenses were designed to deliver the greatest number of megatons of pixie dust.

ROFL! Literally laughed out loud. The wife called from the tub, "What are you cackling about in there?"

[Frogfish]

As I've said, I loves me some Bavarian glass. And, with slide film, I could pick out the Leitz/Zeiss/Schneider (Rollei) with fairly high accuracy. A cloudy day would fool me, as would artificial (tungsten or fluorescent) light, but if the images were shot in daylight, I could pick 'em out of a stack with fairly high accuracy. It was a bit of a party trick I used to sell more Leitz and Zeiss lenses when I was working in a camera shop... Negatives lose a lot of the native characteristics of the lens because they're second generation images. Digital loses it because you can actually adjust things like contrast and fill light and microcontrast and saturation with sliders.

That said, this image certainly holds some of that pop; much can be simulated with PP, though.

Yep I love Teutonic glass too. BTW - there was absolutely zero PP on that shot apart from re-sizing.

[jstevewhite]

Yep I love Teutonic glass too. BTW - there was absolutely zero PP on that shot apart from re-sizing.

You know, when I get that 43, I might just have to shoot a roll of slide film with it. Oh, crap. That means I have to buy a Pentax film camera

Honestly, if the truth were told, I'd say I shoot Pentax today because of two rolls of slide film I shot with a borrowed LX and a pair of SMC lenses (Don't remember K or M or A); a 35mm f2 (Hrm, I wonder if that's why the first prime I bought was the FA35 f2? LOL) and a 50mm 1.4. Those two rolls of film had some of that... quality. The almost-too-blue skies with white cottonball clouds, the startling, snapping, sizzling reds, the deep, intense greens.

[NicoleAu]

Believe it or not, over the course of two days I have read this thread. It has been an interesting read, especially as my next purchase is to be the FA77. After seeing so many gorgeous photos taken with the FA43 I'm half tempted to sell my FA50 to fund one.

Personally I think that the pixie dust is in all the lens, but it takes a good photographer to really make it sparkle...

And I happen to think that we have a talented bunch of Pentax shooters on this thread. I hope when I get my lens that I can make it sparkle too, one day

[rparmar]

Anyway, it was the first portrait I ever posted there from the FA77. It was probably the only one, or at least one of a very few FA77 pics I ever posted over there.

Brilliant portrait, pixies or no.

LHere's mine. It was shot at a smaller aperture of f4/4.5 I believe, thus you can make out the background a bit, but the 3D quality remains. Would you say the lens has the qualities similar to one with "pixie dust"?

No.

[rparmar]

3D ?

1, 2 and 4 definitely. i see dust people.

[rparmar]

Ah good, I picked three FA43 images. The fourth one would have been unexceptional from any lens. I guess this at least backs up my earlier statements that a) I could recognise the FA43 and b) it's got the most dust.

[asdf]

Folie a plusieurs.

[jstevewhite]

Ah good, I picked three FA43 images. The fourth one would have been unexceptional from any lens. I guess this at least backs up my earlier statements that a) I could recognise the FA43 and b) it's got the most dust.

Actually that sequence goes a long way towards moving me more to the "pd" side, as in "a visible but difficult to explain quality of a lens' rendering", not as in "something about a lens that makes all its pictures look better" (lol). I picked out the images from the 43, as well. Good stuff, great information for a skeptic like me.

[Todd Adamson]

Actually that sequence goes a long way towards moving me more to the "pd" side, as in "a visible but difficult to explain quality of a lens' rendering", not as in "something about a lens that makes all its pictures look better" (lol). I picked out the images from the 43, as well. Good stuff, great information for a skeptic like me.

So, while rational arguments for even the possibility of pixie dust find your skeptic's armor impervious, the simple gut reaction to a few images gets you to budge a little. I'm not sure if this is poetry or irony.

[asdf]

I'm beginning to think pixie dust means "exif data". I hope I removed it from the two images below.

.

So which of the two images below (copyright photozone.de) looks better to your brain and why? One of them reminds me of a mirror lens...

.