Upload & Sell: On
Ralph Conway wrote:
Still 2D for me. But great pics anyway.
The term 3-D as used in popular photography forums seems totally misplaced.
It seems an awkward grafting on of a term better used elsewhere, such as for physical things, or 3D projection, or split images that produce depth when properly displayed.
Tiny DOF is just tiny DOF. Micro/Macro contrast, falloff, sharpness don't do it.
What is the impression of 3D in human vision? Essentially-- in my opinion-- it's when something NOT in physical form looks like it is in physical form. In human vision outside the "macro" scale, this tends to involve SIGNIFICANT DOF, where the near and far are both in sharp focus, but aided by movement, shadows, color, and massive DR could be confused with being physically present in three dimensions.
A 3D film can make you jump when something virtually shoots out from the flat screen. A "3D" image as shown here and on many threads does no such thing.
What we see here are things like focus/sharpness separation, selective focus, contrast use, etc. But I think these things are best spoken of in 2-D, photo-specific terms.
Experiment: Stop reading this thread for a moment, turn away from the monitor, look at your room/office/whatever. How do you know what you're seeing is in three dimensions? How does that scene differ from when you show the scene in a photograph? How could a photograph trick you that what you're seeing was real, and really in three dimensions? Would that be possible?
My vote: Let's drop the 3D thing as wishful hyperbole. Let's call it focus separation. Or drawing style. Or better yet, let's describe how it's objective qualities (re contrast, shadow, light, movement) describe drawing style.