Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              9       10       end
  

Archive 2012 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM
  
 
SKumar25
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


PetKal wrote:
Thank you, Jerry, much appreciated.
I am also looking forward to the opinions of our resident 3D experts: SKumar and Dan G Mitchell.


- you're too funny Peter...

Super shot. Wish Canon would make a mkII of this lens. Certainly great 3-d look to my eye...



Oct 31, 2012 at 05:17 AM
SKumar25
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


StillFingerz wrote:
Peter,
That would be the fence, it's complete in-focus presence across the image, defeating the 3D look.


+1...

Beautiful shot regardless.



Oct 31, 2012 at 05:19 AM
15Bit
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Bucking the trend i would say that Peter's first shot doesn't look very 3D to me. At risk of trying to "quantify" 3D i would say that there is too little microcontrast and its a little too soft in the in-focus areas.

This is probably the closest i've got to "3D" - 5D with Samyang 85mm f/1.4:








Oct 31, 2012 at 06:29 AM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Ski, I like the 3Dish look, the car/driver really pop out; the shiny body, bumper and driver kind of a flat gray go well together, background is composed spot on...

The only thing that distracts, kills it for me is the disappearing bottom right of the right headlight; it's outside lower corner Without any body to outline it completely it blends so well into the snow bank that it looks like the headlight is not there.

If there might have been some "dirty snow" or a rock(s), some dead branches/grass behind it, a bit of contrast to slightly outline the bottom edge of the headlight, otherwise it's super. Maybe burn/darken that area in a touch...my hobbyist take; 2cents!

Jerry



Oct 31, 2012 at 07:10 AM
slee915
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


How about this:








Oct 31, 2012 at 07:42 AM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Still 2D for me. But great pics anyway.



Oct 31, 2012 at 08:40 AM
SKumar25
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Nice shots mttran, 15 bit and slee.

mttran, which lens was that with? Love the BG rendering.

Nice example from wfrank:








Oct 31, 2012 at 08:52 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


I challenge anyone to dispute the 3-Dishness of this image.




  Canon EOS 5D Mark III    EF85mm f/1.2L USM lens    85mm    f/1.2    1/160s    100 ISO    +0.7 EV  




Oct 31, 2012 at 08:58 AM
SKumar25
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


John_T wrote:
I challenge anyone to dispute the 3-Dishness of this image.






Oct 31, 2012 at 09:05 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Ralph Conway wrote:
Still 2D for me. But great pics anyway.



+1

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.



Oct 31, 2012 at 10:16 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


justruss wrote:
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.


I strongly and thoroughly disagree. It is obvious that we are talking about regular 2D images. This context is a given. Within this context, the only meaningful term to describe what we are after, is that the image gives the illusion of three dimensions. The other terms describe different things. The fact that we don't know exactly what causes the illusion, should not stop us from using the best term for what illusion we are after. Neither should the fact that different people experience it differently. It is still the sense of three dimensions that we are talking about.

The case that 3D has different meanings in other contexts can easily and safely be ignored when discussing photographs. Stereoscopic images is another matter, and the correct term for them is stereoscopic images, not 3D-images.



Oct 31, 2012 at 10:30 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


...we are also having fun, ribbing each other and ridiculing serious, intellectual, boring people.


Oct 31, 2012 at 11:08 AM
MintMar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


I think for 3D you also need a 3D-og




Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


For those who can locate the fly in this image, they must have derived three dimensional information from the image.

For those who cannot locate the fly in the image, it will bite you next.





Oct 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Thank you for your pictorial contributions, they are all good examples for the suggestion of depth, i.e., the three dimensionality.
We can look at it in the following simplified way: images can suggest an infinite number of feelings, situations or structures, although we all know that an image is just a two dimensional still artifact. Think of pictures which succeeds in suggesting motion of a subject such as a racing horse, or a bird in flight, or an athlete jumping. Clearly, there could be nothing moving in the image itself, yet the suggestion or feeling of motion is there because many viewers would perceive it. In fact, therein resides the success of photography as a visual message maker which goes way beyond the physical properties of the medium itself.



Oct 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


alundeb wrote:
I strongly and thoroughly disagree. It is obvious that we are talking about regular 2D images. This context is a given. Within this context, the only meaningful term to describe what we are after, is that the image gives the illusion of three dimensions. The other terms describe different things. The fact that we don't know exactly what causes the illusion, should not stop us from using the best term for what illusion we are after. Neither should the fact that different people experience it differently. It is still the sense of three dimensions that we are talking about.

The case
...Show more

As far as I know, 3D refers to stereoscopic imagery. It's not a matter of "different meanings in other contexts" because the fact is that 3D is already a well-defined term in still photography... with a different meaning than what is displayed in this thread.

That would be like saying we should use the term "saturation" to refer to hue.

Yes, that may be pedantic, and it may be a semantic argument as well... but I really don't think "3D" is the best word to use to describe what the images in this thread are displaying.


None of this is a knock on any of the images in this thread. They're just like all threads, ranging from mediocre to superb (a subjective measure!). Why 3D though? Why do we strive for hyperbole in describing what we're seeing?




Oct 31, 2012 at 12:06 PM
John_T
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


...perzactly, otherwise photography would as dead boring as a photocopier and the greatest skill needed would be as in filling the paper tray...


Oct 31, 2012 at 12:06 PM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


John_T wrote:
...perzactly, otherwise photography would as dead boring as a photocopier and the greatest skill needed would be as in filling the paper tray...





Oct 31, 2012 at 12:12 PM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


For instance, there are entire forums and websites devoted to 3D photography (aka stereoscopic images). Usually using a method of producing two similar but slightly shifted images that can be viewed using a cross-eyed technique.

I can't imagine going to a gallery viewing called "3D Images" and finding out they're all just high/controlled DOF photography without anything stereoscopic going on.

I'll try not to pollute this thread any longer with my views (no promises though). Keep the photos coming!



Oct 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 3D at f/1.0 for SKumar and Dan GM


Yeah, it would be a shame to clutter discussion boards with discussions.

Hands up everybody who expected to see a stereoscopic image when they opened this thread



Oct 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM
1      
2
       3              9       10       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              9       10       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password