mikekx102 said:
ahsanford said:
ahsanford said:
Larsskv said:
)jd7 said:
Just had a look at the photos on flickr and, well, my initial reaction is I feel like I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Of course there is an element of subjectivity in this but to me the headshots with the 50 Art have a similar depth effect, if not more so in some cases, than the 50L headshots. (I was going to go into more detail, but I didn't want to post a message which gives away which photos are which
I have never owned a 50L but I have seen plenty of photos from it I've really liked, so don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bag the 50L or say the 50 Art is better. And I have seen a few shots taken with the 35 Art and 50 Art which have given me an impression of the subject being a sticker on a blurry background. However, I regard that as the exception rather than the rule, and as I say, looking at the photos in the links on my screen here, I just don't feel like I'm seeing a flatness to the 50 Art images in comparison to the 50L images.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'll be interested to see what other people's opinions are!
Edit: do you by any chance use Lightroom and have lens profile corrections turned on? I do feel like having that turned on makes images look much "flatter" in a way I often don't like.
Larsskv said:jd7 said:Just had a look at the photos on flickr and, well, my initial reaction is I feel like I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Of course there is an element of subjectivity in this but to me the headshots with the 50 Art have a similar depth effect, if not more so in some cases, than the 50L headshots. (I was going to go into more detail, but I didn't want to post a message which gives away which photos are which
I have never owned a 50L but I have seen plenty of photos from it I've really liked, so don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bag the 50L or say the 50 Art is better. And I have seen a few shots taken with the 35 Art and 50 Art which have given me an impression of the subject being a sticker on a blurry background. However, I regard that as the exception rather than the rule, and as I say, looking at the photos in the links on my screen here, I just don't feel like I'm seeing a flatness to the 50 Art images in comparison to the 50L images.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'll be interested to see what other people's opinions are!
Edit: do you by any chance use Lightroom and have lens profile corrections turned on? I do feel like having that turned on makes images look much "flatter" in a way I often don't like.
I have to admit that the effect I am talking about is not obvious in every picture. That said, when I showed a number of pictures to my non-technical wife and asked the same question: "does this look flat or not". She picked out the Sigma pictures as fla, and the 50L pictures as 3D-like, all without hesitation.
I admit that pictures taken with the 50L can look flat as well. I have tried to figure out why some pictures appear flat, while others dont. I find that the distance to the subject has a lot to do with it. The lighting also plays a big part of it. Shallow depth of field does not help. f2.8 or f4 may on a 50mm lens on full frame seems to be good.
If it is subjective or not? I am not so shure. Once you have noticed what I mean, I believe you will recognize it much more often than if you are unaware.
I actually find that my 24LII and 28mm f2.8IS is very good at making pictures with a sense of depth in them. Have a look at these pictures, taken with a Canon crop sensor camera, and the 28mm f2.8 IS:
https://flic.kr/p/K1hGg1
https://flic.kr/p/LcNgof
https://flic.kr/p/S2btB3
And with the 24LII:
https://flic.kr/p/pswYhP
https://flic.kr/p/RxoiBS
When I look at these pictures, it gives me a true to life impression, as I was standing where the camera was.
Your thoughts?
jd7 said:
jd7 said:I don't pretend to be an expert, and apologies if much of this seems very basic/obviously, but here goes with my theories about why some photos seem flat while others give a sense of depth ...
A photo is a 2D representation of a 3D scene (obviously), so if we perceive a "depth" to a photo it's because we are picking up clues in the photo which our brains are using to interpret the scene and interpolate the sense of depth.
One clue to depth is from shadows, so directional light used well helps give a sense of depth. I think you can see that in a number of the photos you linked, including "Otto" and this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariazuelo/30449645921/ Even a slight vignette on the image can sometimes help give a sense a depth.
Another clue to depth is from in focus areas versus blur. That's clear enough when you see background blur, but I think it's often particularly noticeable when you have blurred foreground areas as well, eg in this photo I found on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/behzad_rad/32318420484/in/pool-zeissotus55/ where you get a clear impression of depth "layers", and I think you can see it in this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/95698098@N06/32482571716/ which you linked to earlier, where the tip of the nose is blurred.
Another clue can be the relative sizes of objects (which means choice of focal length and distance to subject are at least potentially relevant). I think the "Otto" photo is an example of that, with the guy's nose being a little on the large size. You can argue about whether or not its flattering, but I think it does help add a sense of depth to the photo. In the case of portraits, I think it also tends to make you feel like you are standing closer to the subject, which is an effect I actually like sometimes.
There are other things too of course, eg straight lines getting closer together, such as looking along a railroad track, etc, etc.
All of that said, some lenses do seem to be better than others at giving a sense of depth. The ability to blur out of focus areas is probably part of it, but I agree it's not the whole of it. My belief is, at least in the past, lenses designed for portraiture (eg 50L, 85L, etc) have tended to "suffer" from field curvature issues, ie they don't have a "flat field", and I wonder whether something about the lack of a flat field actually helps in creating a sense of depth? I think relatively recent lenses have tended to have flatter fields, so perhaps I'm on the wrong track there. I've also seen someone on CR (can't recall who), saying that higher end lenses tend to use glass elements in places where cheaper lenses use polycarbonate elements, and the glass elements do a better job of creating a depth effect and "pop".
Regarding images where the subject seems like a sticker on the background, my feeling is that tends to happen when the subject is the nearest object in the photo and the background is quite blurred but obviously not that far away, and especially if the light is "flat" as well. And I wonder whether it can be exacerbated with newer lenses (like the Arts) which are very sharp even wide open, because they can create such a precisely defined edge to the subject?
This 50 Art shot I found on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/148209260@N04/32039657674/in/pool-sigma-50mm-art/ almost looks like the subject is a sticker (I think) if you look at the right side of the photo (eg subject's left shoulder). However, her right side gets blurry around the shoulder and upper arm, giving the impression the subject is attached to / part of the rest of the image, so in the end I don't think the "sticker effect" is really there. Similarly, I think you can see it starting to happen in this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/orsonwang/32615125323/in/pool-canon35mm_is_usm/ if you just look around the head and next, but again it's counteracted by other parts of the photo. In contrast, I do think you can see the "sticker effect" at least somewhat in this shot https://www.flickr.com/photos/128693487@N08/32497215313/in/pool-zeissotus55/ and this one https://www.flickr.com/photos/ileohidalgo/32884247933/in/pool-2064616@N24/ . I have a particularly good example of the "sticker effect" in a shot I took last year with the 35 Art, but I don't have it handy to upload it.
I realise the examples above come from a number of different lenses, but they are just what I found having a quick look around flickr now.
Anyway, at least generally I would choose a photo which gives a sense of depth over a "sharper", so I'm intrigued by your belief the 50 Art does not do a good job of creating a sense of depth - although I'm not ready to say I agree that's the case
Sorry for the long post, but I find this quite an interesting topic, as you may have gathered!
jd7 said:
zim said:jd7 said:
Really interesting stuff about ‘sticker’ effect. My uneducated 2 pence worth
Lighting
There is just something ‘off’ with the lighting in the first picture but correct in the second, maybe its colour balance between subject and background?
Subject matter
There are items in the second image which connect through to the background. Image one is completely disconnected.
Composition
The vertical angle of view enhances the disconnect between subject and background
I suspect all three ‘faults’ could be replicated with just about any lens?
Larsskv said:jd7 said:
I agree with your observations. The first portrait in the article has a fair amount of depth in it, while the three similar at the bottom don´t. As for the last three, I believe it is due to flat lightening of her face, and that no lenses would make them look 3D-like.
One thing I would like to point out, is that I think black and white pictures often appear more 3D-like.
As for your pictures, the woman in the restaurant does not appear flat, and I suppose that was your point.
Larsskv said:
I will try to do some more tests with my own lenses over the next few weeks though - just don't have time to do them immediately. Interestingly enough (and perhaps as we should expect?), you're list generally has wide aperture prime lenses up the top, then wide aperture zooms, then slower aperture zooms. (I also see you've given Sigma's old 50 1.4 EX a "very good" rating. I used to own that lens, I noticed how often non-photographers were drawn to the images it produced, notwithstanding issues like the colour fringing it can produce.) If you find out more, I'd be interested to hear!jd7 said:
Viggo said:
