zhangp wrote:
I think DOF is critical, but the lens must be another key factor that determines 3D. again 105/2 DC Nikkor
If DOF is critical, then I'd like to hear your explanation for every shot with complete 100% front to back focus with that 3D effect. Having seen about 40 or 50 original Ansel Adams prints, I can tell you with absolute surety that the 3D effect does NOT require a shallow DOF.
And if the lens is key or critical, then you need to explain every shot with a crappy lens that has the 3D effect.
It's perfectly fine to post shots with great lenses and use that as your thesis as to why they must be the decisive factor in making that 3D look (and of course they do help). But it's a self-fulfilling prophecy -- and unless you can tell me that no one has ever achieved that look with cheap glass, then I simply cannot accept the exclusivity of great glass in achieving that effect.
So why don't you or anyone else accept my challenge -- show me a shot with a 3D effect that 1) has full front-back infinity focus, and 2) was shot with a cheap lens that we all malign. I've already shown two such shots, and I'll show more if you'd like.
This combo was basically like a (big) P&S for the whole trip. Wonderful. Getting photos like this was as easy as pushing a button. I can't wait to get a CZ21 again and use it on my 5D.
In the next one, the foreground certainly helps, but then it is the tack sharp background that draws the eye in and "pulls" the perspective (or at least the perception) of the view into the 3rd dimension.
From the correct viewing distance, several of theses shots actually trick my brain into perceiving 3 dimensions, simply because of the incredible detail. It is like seeing it with your eyes only, not through a lens.
After seeing Will's cranes (?), I've just realized that there are two distinct types of this 3D effect. Many have mentioned DOF, but to me it is more about *where* the plane of focus is in the image. The closer to "natural" you get, the easier it is for our minds to make that jump into the 3rd dimension.
Will's crane jumps forward out of the photo, but you can clearly see deeply "into" several of Dr. Paul's, and mine as well.
I think my tiger lily with the Zeiss has a bit of both.
I still say the warm color/cool color differentiation plays a big part in color pics. These last 4-6 pics demonstrate it pretty well.
Regarding Ansel and his B&Ws, I was taking another look at some of them and I think that in his case composition played an important role. He incorporated s-curves and foreground/background elements in an effective way to lead the eye through the picture. Some of his pics make effective use of atmospheric haze also to provide a layering effect and several are shot at an approx. 45 degree down angle that heightens the sensation of depth.
I think you're right, both Paul and Eyeball, that there is something structural in many 3D photos that leads the eye into the photo.
For expansive shots of big subjects, like architecture and cityscapes and landscapes, there are depth cues that lead us in -- like convergence of parallel lines, or familiar structures like trees that recede into the distance. For more intimate shots like portraits, it is the surface textures and shadows that convey a 3D structure.
So composition and lighting are absolutely central to pulling this off successfully.
Interestingly, I think that panoramic photos often suffer from a complete lack of 3D effect. In fact I can't stand about 99% of pano photos I see. The reason is that people get so caught up in the left-right detail that they forget to compose with depth in mind. A lot of panos lack discrete foreground-middle ground-background relationships, and all the subjects are on one plane -- and the photos look flat.
So it's clearly not the crop at fault -- it's the composition, and the converse applies to successful compositions (including panos) that do show depth.
I am really enjoying this interesting discussion now, and lots of great points and shots.
The 3D effect that interests me is the one associated with the lens itself. There are great pictures which have 3D by virtue of their content, and great ones which don't, but the lens effect is a magical ingredient that seems to make ordinary pictures come alive. Like cogitech, I have used the CZ21, CZ28 and Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS. The former two have bundles of 3D effect and the last doesn't. It's still a great lens, and I own one and love it, but I expect my CZ 135 f2.8 to slap it down for 3D.
BTW, the bad test pictures I showed earlier were a brand new Canon 50 f1.2 and a battered old 200 f1.8. The 200 has about as much 3D effect as any lens I have ever used, and the 50 is very disappointing in this respect. I traded my CZ 200 f2 for the f1.8 for that reason, so it is not a brand distinction. In my view it depends on the individual lens design. However, some brands, especially Zeiss, have a tendency to pull off the 3D look.
When assessing lenses to buy, I like to shoot a couple of hyperfocal shots to see if the lens has strong 3D irrespective of DoF effects.
I don't attribute this quality of a lens to composition, lighting, DoF, sharpness, or any other pictorial factor. It is about how the lens portrays tones, highlights and shadows, and it happens in the glass (or rather, doesn't get removed there). It could be as simple as high contrast rendition with very low haze in the shadows.
This question also had me thinking about it for a while.
The best 3D look I ever got myself was with the Hasselblad H2D22 and H3D39 somehow.
The trick for modelphotography or portraits, is to use the proper lens and distance.
When using a 200mm lens for a portrait the face will be compressed, when using a 15 mm you will get funky distortions, I found that on the 5D the best 3D look is achieved with the cheap 85mm 1.8 lens. But light is also VERY VERY important, you have to sculp your subject, take the shot on any aperture, DOF is not important for the 3D look as mentioned here, you can get it on f16 and f5.6
Here some examples I think are very 3D looking, this is almost all due to the light used.
Haselblad H2D22 f9.5 / 80mm
Hasselblad H2D22 f11 / 80mm
5D f9.0 200mm (70-200 f2.8 IS L)
5D f9.0 120mm (70-200 f2.8 IS L)
5D f11 85mm (85mm 1.8) for me this is the best 3D looking combination for the 5D.
However when you look carefully you can see I used a accentlight to shape the face while on the other ones the face is lit by main lights only.
BUT I totally agree the hassy looks more 3D.
This is mainly because the 80mm on the hassy is more wideangle than the 85mm on the 5D.
So it's a combination of both sensor size/distance/lens length.
For the 5D a 50mm lens gives me not the portrait I'm looking for so the next best thing is the 85mm length, it comes close when you look at the prints, but the hassy still beats it
Especially the scaping light (accents) will give you more depth than the flat light, HOWEVER you can still get more when using the same light with a different lens and sensor, but it's to get started. I strongly believe that the light is for 50% debit to the depth of a picture, 40% choosen length and 10% other factors.
Yes, on my film Hasselblad the 3D effect is very evident. But on 4x5 the effect is even more evident than on the Hassy, and on 8x10 the effect is hard to avoid. There is indeed a format effect.
The 3D effect that interests me is the one associated with the lens itself. There are great pictures which have 3D by virtue of their content, and great ones which don't, but the lens effect is a magical ingredient that seems to make ordinary pictures come alive. Like cogitech, I have used the CZ21, CZ28 and Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS. The former two have bundles of 3D effect and the last doesn't. It's still a great lens, and I own one and love it, but I expect my CZ 135 f2.8 to slap it down for 3D.
But clearly one can't make the argument that this is exclusively a lens effect. I bet you could find shots from Holgas that have a 3D effect. So 1) do these great CZ lenses always 100% of the time have the 3D effect (i.e. regardless of content), and 2) are there certain shooting conditions in which a cheap lens can produce a 3D effect comparable to the CZ lens? A cheap lens may lack sharpness or other qualities of the great lens, but I'm wondering if the 3D effect is one that is similar with different lenses under the same conditions.
This is hardly a scientific experiment, because I took these shots about 2 1/2 years apart from one another and conditions were different (and there's JPG artifact in the first one). But the first, as I've just posted, was with the Canon 18-55 kit lens on a Digital Rebel. The second one I took last weekend, and it was with the Hasselblad 500 C/M and CZ 80/2.8 C T* Planar on Fuji Fortia slide film (Fortia is even more saturated than Velvia).
The kit lens picture actually looks more 3D to me than the Zeiss picture. And I attribute this difference mainly to the lighting. Otherwise it's the same subject. So here we see one of the most maligned of all lenses, the kit lens, exceeding (or at least matching) the 3D effect of one of the greatest lenses in the history of photography, the Zeiss 80 Planar (and this is an APS-C versus 6x6 comparison, no less).
So how do you explain this? If it's just because the lighting and reflections were better in the first picture, then that shows pretty conclusively that the 3D effect depends much more on lighting conditions than it does on the piece of glass on your camera.
This is a wicked image in and of itself, all 13 Gigapixels of it! But more importantly for this thread, I think it exhibits the "3Dness" that people have been talking about. Forget depth of field for just a second and focus on the per-pixel clarity of the trees in this image. Some may say oversharpened, but I don't think so. The image on my monitor doesn't appear oversharpened, and every pixel seems to stand on its own in it's own "space".
I've been trying to recreate this look for as long as I've had a digital camera and Zeiss definitely helps me get there, but I haven't mastered it yet, not even with a 1Ds (comparatively weak AA) and Zeiss 21 (king of the hill).
Look at the trees! This is what I picked up the Zeiss 21 for!
I don't believe 3Dness can be distilled down to camera and lens, but rather all planets have to align for the combination of camera, lens, atmospherics, and infinity focus (in the case of the linked image) to create 3D.
Most eveything you guys have mentioned contribute to the 3D look in my opinion. The big ones in my book is the Lighting(Rim Lighting, Cross Lighting as mentioned above which will give your subject texture and a sense of deminsion, This effect can be created in the Studio and of course shows up in nature all the time). Accentuating this effect would be the use of a darker background, Warm colors in your subject(red comes forward), Color Contrast, Micro-contrast). In my expereince with Zeiss lenses as used on the Hasselblad and now on the 5D, the lenses give one a good start with higher color contrast and micro-contrast AND mine are warmer lenses in color as well. I have been able to manipulate an image in PS shot side by side with both Zeiss 28mm and Olympus 28mm on the 5D by matching the color of Olympus to the Zeiss AND manipulating the midtone contrast and overall contrast to add the micro-contrast of the Zeiss. With side by side shots its fairly easy BUT I have not been able to create a preset formula yet which exactly can turn any image from another lens into the exact look of the Zeiss.
DrPablo wrote:
I think we've never properly defined what we mean by 3D (and I'm not sure we can).
To be sure, the 3D look in prints just obliterates any 3D look on screen -- and also probably separates out the good lenses.
Well, the 3D I'm talking about is per-pixel clarity (for lack of a better term - acutance?) and the effect that's present in the photos I referenced above. For me, it doesn't have much to do with DoF. My definition may have something to do with AA filter strength, and perhaps I am a candidate for a Leica or Foeven sensor, as scary as that thought is ($). DrPablo, how I'm curious to know your definition, if possible. And I agree with your second point above.
For me, 3-dimensionality in a photograph relates to two features (which do not need to coexist in the same image).
1) Textural 3-dimensionality. This is the sense that you're looking at something physical, that you can reach out and touch. This comes from resolution of fine textural details (which in the case of a wide angle landscape shot can actually be very large real life objects -- think of tiny trees blanketing a hillside). Actuance, i.e. microcontrast, plays its role here, hence the performance of great lenses. Resolution of fine details does as well. And directionality of lighting is paramount to giving little textures both a luminous and a shaded side -- a very important textural feature.
2) Depth. This is the sense that you're looking into a world that you can walk into. Composition plays a role here, with things like leading lines, S-curves, and distinctive foreground-middleground-background relationships giving you a sense that the world is converging into the distance. The simplest example would be plain old perspective convergence, like the railroad tracks that come to a point on the horizon. Lighting, color relationships, and in some cases shallow DOF will evoke depth.
These I think are two separate variables that both make a picture seem 3D.
Let's not forget the surreal 3D effects one can achieve with view cameras, tilt-shift lenses, lensbabies, etc. With these you're using selective focus to create an exaggerated sense of depth, and this creates our beloved "miniature" effect. Again, this is sort of a footnote in #2.
By the way, you'll have to forgive me a small objection to "per-pixel clarity" as a measure, because these features are not unique to digital images or scanned film images. We certainly talk about actuance and sharpness with respect to different films and developers.
