What is "POP"? A Query.

Bilsen

Hi all,

This is a definitional question.

I have often heard the comment "It's a nice shot but it lacks pop".

I don't object to the C&C ever but I've been trying to figure out the term and it appears to be "I know it when I see it". So my question here is

Do any of these have "POP". I know about the hard shadows in some and other issues and feel free to C&C anything else, but I'd really appreciate an up or down on "pop".

Thanks.








<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

Nikolai

John,
in my personal opinion "lack of pop" is typically used to describe captures with limited dynamic range (lack of contrast, dull, bland, etc.).
Most often this situation happens when specular highlights or other strong light sources are included into the frame, thus making camera's autoexposure system to compress everything else into a tiny fraction of the full range.

An image with a set black and white points will most likely already have all the pop it needs (albeit stuff happens).

In that respect I think your frames are pop-happy.
HTH

Bilsen

Thanks Nicolai.

WingsOfLovePhoto

I think that pop is made of a mixture of clarity, color, contrast and black/white points as Nikolai mentioned.... How it "pops" off the page at you. I think you have done a nice job with pop in these photos...

Tee Why

IIRC, "Pop" is referred when an image looks 3D and seems to pop out of the page.

I've found that three things mainly contribute to this. First is resolution. If the image is tack sharp, that makes it pop. Second is contrast. If there is strong contrast (but not too much as you lose shadow and highlight detail) this helps to separate the dark from the light and creates a sense of depth. Lastly is color. If the colors are rich and vibrant, it also adds to pop.

As for your images, one thing I notice is that the image seem soft. I'm not sure if this is due to lack or sharpening or due to compression though. There are some overexposed areas which lends to washed out colors. So hence, I'm not seeing much pop. I'd actually turn the exposure down a bit and try to sharpen more and see if that makes it pop more.

Hope that helps.

Bilsen

Thanks Tee.

I think the softness is compression. I use lab method USM on every image.

jeffreaux2

Nikolai wrote:

John,
in my personal opinion "lack of pop" is typically used to describe captures with limited dynamic range (lack of contrast, dull, bland, etc.).
Most often this situation happens when specular highlights or other strong light sources are included into the frame, thus making camera's autoexposure system to compress everything else into a tiny fraction of the full range.

An image with a set black and white points will most likely already have all the pop it needs (albeit stuff happens).

In that respect I think your frames are pop-happy.
HTH

I think Nik has said it all here.

Bilsen

Thanks Jeff. It seems there's a fundamental difference here on the subject.

jeffreaux2

Here ya go....


"Make Your Image Pop!" (link)

Bilsen

Thanks Jeff. Great article.

jeffreaux2

JohnGalt_ny wrote:

Thanks Jeff. Great article.

I agree!

I generally expose to the right of the histogram which means I often find myself having to tune the blackpoint. That threshold/curves trick in there is an excellent tool for that.

torags

sharp and usually saturated and some can have too much pop making it unreal.

But not yours, they seem fine (maybe the nose shadow on #1 could be softened). I like the head shot