Hey Richard, I have enjoyed your posts very much in this thread. Sorry that I am so rarely around these days. The fact is that with the M8, the technical/equipment discussions on the Leica forum are much better. I still do poke in here from time to time, especially because of threads like this, which tend to be better here.
Richard, do you still have those portrait comparisons handy from the Leica 180/2 and the Zeiss 200/2? They were very educational because of the subtle technical differences, yet extreme perceptual differences.
I think that in general the focal length is also very important. A standard lens will have an advantage, because its view of the world is so similar to that of our eyes. A 35mm lens would also be very close, being slightly wider than our eye view, with the 50mm being slightly tighter. But that is lens independent.
I still stick to my claim that the transition from in-focus to out of focus is all-important in the 3D portraits we have seen. The Hasselblad portrait has loads of it. Standard lens, gradual transition of focus, and so on, very 3D.
It may be that the answer is simply in how close a photo corresponds to what we would see with our own eyes. Since we have very densely packed photoreceptors in the centre of our eyes, and that is where we "see" things with, the micro-contrast of a lens is so important to the 3D look. The dropoff in focus is also very important in areas which lie very closely together in the 2D image plane, since that is the only kind of differential focus we may actually perceive with our eyes, given that our focus adjusts too fast to wherever we look, and we only see such a narrow cone at any one time.
Edited by carstenw on May 18, 2007 at 04:17 PM GMT
carstenw wrote:
DrPablo, I think that the explanation for the 3D look in Ansel Adams prints is at least partly in the size of the presentation. Larger images are more believable somehow.
Well, his exhibition has plenty of 8x10 contact prints as well.
Of course an 8x10 contact print will soundly destroy an 8x10 enlargement even from the best small format systems. The detail is just tremendous even from viewing distances just inches away. His enlargements, of course, also come mostly from 8x10 inch negatives. Most of his prints are only 3x or 4x enlargements (30x40, for instance, would be a 4x enlargement), whereas from 35mm systems it would be a roughly 30x enlargement.
Point is, the size of presentation in some cases matters, but enlargements are the real test of any photographic system. And with a 4x enlargement from capture size, you can hold a print up to your eyeball and still discover new detail everywhere you look. But with a 30x enlargement there's a point beyond which the print starts to look soft as you get closer. So I think Ansel's (and others') large prints look 3D in part because they are just so damn detailed, they suck you in, and the closer you get the better it gets.
That's an interesting point Carsten. I was comparing a 180 to a 200, and I had to get a bit closer with the 200. I agree with you about the noticeable difference in the transition between in-focus and out of focus areas. The Zeiss lenses tend to have slightly more 'nisen' bokeh and fans of the Leica style find that uglier. For me, the in-focus objects are the priority, so smooth background rendition matters less to me than subject rendition.
I will see if I can dig up those samples when I have a mo.
DrPablo, I know what you mean with detail and this walk-right-in look, and I love it too.
I think ultimately there are all these factors which contribute to a 3D look, and excessive quantities of one can overcome a deficiency in another area (CZ21 - superp micro-contrast and perspective effects, for example, overcoming "unbelievable" focal lengths). Some effects are certainly more important than others, but the lens-specific effects are rather limited in scope compared to the general effects possible.
Richard, what does "nisen" mean? FWIW, I don't find the Zeiss look ugly, I just prefer the painterly look of Leica lenses to the high-contrast punchiness of Zeiss lenses. The bokeh thing is rather secondary to me, but again, I prefer the creamy Leica bokeh to the 3D but slightly more jarring Zeiss bokeh.
I don't know what nisen means exactly, but I think you may have hit the nail on the head with 'jarring'. I think many Leica lenses do tend to have prettier, dreamier bokeh, but recently Canon and Nikon et al have been working wonders with rounder apertures.
The left hand shot of the girl is with a brand new Canon 50 f1.2. I returned the lens to vendor within 24 hours. I kept the 200 f1.8 which has 3D in bucket loads. Every shot leaps out at you.
Since I have a 200 which shows lots of 3D and normal lenses which have less, I don't think it is to do with natural rendition and psycho/physiology. We have a well known 21mm which excels at 3D, at least one 200mm, and plenty in between and probably beyond. The 3D effect that I look for is nothing to do with focal length.
Edited by brainiac on May 18, 2007 at 03:43 PM GMT
Thanks for submitting your fine work to such a critical audience. Based on comments in this thread (particularly brainiac and Son), I interpreted the scene to accentuate 3-D qualities. I will, of course, remove the image on request...
Copyright Woody Spedden
In capturing the scene directly, I would use a wide aperture, and select a time of day when the canyon was in darkness and the ledge in oblique light.
Rico
Very interesting interpretation and certainly makes the outcropping "pop" from the background. When I was shooting I wasn't even thinking about this effect but rather a scene where all was in focus. I really like what you have done. For the record this scene was shot at daybreak which rendered the the canyon very dark compared to the outcropping. I did quite a bit of work PP in order to "fit" the contrast to the entire image. Straight out of the camera the river was virtually in darkness. This is a tough scene to shoot at dawn.
Very interesting interpretation and certainly makes the outcropping "pop" from the background. When I was shooting I wasn't even thinking about this effect but rather a scene where all was in focus. I really like what you have done. For the record this scene was shot at daybreak which rendered the the canyon very dark compared to the outcropping. I did quite a bit of work PP in order to "fit" the contrast to the entire image. Straight out of the camera the river was virtually in darkness. This is a tough scene to shoot at dawn.
Woody
I think the comments on my image have run their course and I just wanted to thank all who responded. Dr Pablo is correct when he said that the value of the image is not at question here because this is a thread about how to make a more 3D image. I have learned (as have all who have been following this) a great deal about what makes a 3D image and will be able to incorporate this in future works. I did not find any of the comments offensive but rather accept that only with detailed criticism can anything be learned. So once again, thanks for the comments, the education and the fun of sharing ideas together
Richard, my theory is that excellence in one or more areas can overcome deficiencies in other areas. The telephoto look is clearly less believable in terms of being *in* the scene, and there is little doubt in my mind that it is harder to make a telephoto lens with a 3D look than a normal lens. The 200/1.8, however, is an acknowledged classic, and little wonder. Do you have some comparison shots from when you decided?
I am happy to see some of the old folks back here, be welcome!
Carsten, I did not exactly ask what lenses give more 3D look, the question was open. What must I do to create a 3D effect?
Well I think we have a few ideas here and we do not agree everywhere, which is fine of course! Between all these lines there is quite a bit to pick up and learn.
I think...
lighting/shadow is very important
DOF must be used to the right degree
A completly blured OOF background rather flatens the image, perspective should remain visible at least
Larger Film/Sensor size is beneficial
Microcontrast/Acutance is probably less important than what people call transition?
People (want to) see more 3D in their own images than others see in these images
Colour: I dont think that lens tint is of importance, but subject colour certainly is
Perspective can be very important
There is a thing I very much love about photography! Nothing is written in stone, there are rules but they do not always apply! Things like a 3D look in photography are a bit like the Swing in music, it is reletated to Jazz but musicians of all kinds want their piece to have some groove. Please keep going...
The 200/1.8, however, is an acknowledged classic, and little wonder. Do you have some comparison shots from when you decided?
Zeiss on left at f2 iso 800, Canon on right at f1.8 at iso 400. Both shots hand-held. The Canon's slightly higher sharpness isn't due to iso: it looked sharper in all the pictures.
There was very little in it, but combine the better wide open sharpness of the Canon with smoother bokeh, comparable 3D, and autofocus and the decision was a no-brainer. The Canon has an annoyingly far close focus of 2.5 metres though. The Leica is the winner for portraits in the pub with a close focus of less than 1.5 metres.
BTW, I can't guarantee that I didn't very very slightly miss focus with the Zeiss, but considering I was doing my best and focus-bracketing in brighter conditions than usual for me (dusk!), I have to take that sharpness as representative of what I will typically get.
Note, BTW, the trademark sharp edges in the Zeiss bokeh. That's 'nisen' bokeh. It wouldn't surprise me if this didn't have something to do with making the edges of objects more definite, and the apparent extra DoF that some Zeiss lenses seem to have. Yes - I know it's f2 versus f1.8, but the difference is still visible with the Canon at f2.
Nisen or ni-sen, is a Japanese word (you could have guessed that, I suppose) that basically means "double" or "two". Nisen bokeh describes OOF highlights that seem to be double-edged. For instance, instead of a single, circular OOF highlight, the highlight may look like two circles, overlaid, but not precisely aligned. The misalignment results in a double-edged look to the highlight.
The zeiss image appear to me slightly more contrasty (deeper shadows). Add to this that is somewhat noisier and the "harder" bokeh (so more textured). Perhaps this is the reason you said 'comparable 3D" despite the canon image being clearer.
OK - thanks. I didn't mean nisen then. Carsten's word, 'jarring' is about right. I actually don't mind the sharp edges that appear often in Zeiss bokeh - they can be quite interesting. But I can understand that some people prefer it smooth.
Don't know if people generally find Zeiss lenses for Contax different than Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad... but I find my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses to have magnificently smooth bokeh.
I first noticed the artefacts with a Hasselblad Zeiss 80 f2.8. The bokeh is smooth, but sharp edges appear variously within the bokeh. It is an interesting effect. You can see it in the background highlights of the bike close-up. The highlights have sharp edges even though they are in an area of smooth bokeh. The same highlight in the Canon shot has softer edges.
Based on comments in this thread (particularly brainiac and Son), I interpreted the scene to accentuate 3-D qualities. I will, of course, remove the image on request...