To be honest the most 3D shot I've seen was with a CZ 35mm, I think Brainiac posted it a while ago. I know its not a recommended focal length for portraits and not very flattering for people's faces, but telephotos do tend to flatten things a lot. Harder to get a 3D shot out of them.
Anyone have anything to say about the 3D effect of the Contax 85mm N, the one that can be converted to canon AF? my eyes are medically totally screwed up so MF is out but I do really love the 3D effect of zeiss glass.
Phuang, this pic is a very good reason to discuss the meaning of the term "3D" s it applies to photos.
To me, the woman herself looks quite flat (compressed) even though it's only a 60mm lens. Additionally, while the backround is clearly way behind her (one type of 3D, for sure, it almost looks like a cinema blue-screen effect. I get the sense that she is standing in front of a rear-projected image.
Weird, but very cool. Now, is that 3D or is that dual-2D? I dunno ......
When we say "3D" are we talking about the entire image, or depth in the face / body in the foreground? For the latter, I think Spyro's CZ85 shot is pretty spectacular.
Perhaps we need more than one term for these 3D effects. Or even MANY terms, like Eskimos & snow.
---------------------------------
OT, but why do we have only one word for bokeh? Why not one to denote blurred bokeh and one to denote defined bokeh? (Sig 50 vs Zeiss 50)
"$400 to $600 depends on condition and when you buy it"
More like upwards of $1000.
The reputation of the lens is excellent, but it is very pricey and difficult to get hold of. Of course depth of field at 1.4 is very thin and not easy to manage well.
Its a confusing subject but to me (well this week any way), '3d' is a quality which goes with a lot of cine imagery. Similar to the pictures by trumpet guy, the subject is sharp and there is a distinct separation between subject and background yet the background still retains enough information in the bokeh to give a sense of place and the transition from in focus to out of focus does not appear abrupt.
The subject is clearly defined and stands out from the background yet retains some connection to the background and thus creates 'depth' within the image.
sorta like the way we look at a person with our eyes and they appear all sharp in front of a fuzzy background
I think some of Cogitech's old environmental portraits from the rokkor illustrate this fairly well.
As for different names for different types of bokeh, i know that there are some technical names for different types such as nissen bokeh..
hmmm I forgot to add, another thing which seems to give a sense of three-dimensionality to an image is the distribution of contrast. Lenses which get labled '3d' tend to have hightened micro and macro contrast on the plane of focus, once again making the subject 'jump' out of the picture.
- One of the reasons why the C/Y Planar 100/2 is so desireable methinks
Good analysis. I would very much enjoy shooting with a C/Y 100/2 Planar or the new
ZF Makro-Planar 100/2 to explore its 3D qualities. I see so many good images from
these lenses here.
I was surprised with how much 3D pop I was getting with my gear that day. It was a
day of high contrast lighting. And I was stopped down enough to get people in focus
in group shots; I think that contributed to the sharpness of the subjects, and hence
to the 3D aspects.
Cableaddict wrote:
Phuang, this pic is a very good reason to discuss the meaning of the term "3D" s it applies to photos.
To me, the woman herself looks quite flat (compressed) even though it's only a 60mm lens. Additionally, while the backround is clearly way behind her (one type of 3D, for sure, it almost looks like a cinema blue-screen effect. I get the sense that she is standing in front of a rear-projected image.
Weird, but very cool. Now, is that 3D or is that dual-2D? I dunno ......
When we say "3D" are we talking about the entire image, or depth in the face / body in the foreground? For the latter, I think Spyro's CZ85 shot is pretty spectacular.
Perhaps we need more than one term for these 3D effects. Or even MANY terms, like Eskimos & snow....Show more →
I completely agree with this.
Dual 2D and 3D sums it up. The first look I associate with Leica lenses, and the second with Zeiss. It may be due to any one of many factors. It seems to me that the Zeiss heightened edge contrast and neutral bokeh go hand in hand. You seldom see soft bokeh in combination with the trademark Zeiss 3D effect.
Of course, there are many compositional methods which help to accentuate the difference between the focal plane and the unfocussed areas, but that is quite a different subject of discussion to that quality in lenses that enables subjects to jump out from the screen/print as if they were really there.
On the long 3D thread here there was a photo of some bluebell woods where everything was sharply in focus, and yet it had a sense of 3D and space that was breathtaking, even in a web graphic. The lens 3D effect can appear regardless of whether there is focus differential in the image.
I have a Contax 35mm f1.4 and a Canon 200 f1.8 both of which produce superb 3D effect without even trying. The 3D effect that I pay good money for is nothing to do with focal length or how I compose the picture. It is a quality in some lenses, and I'm afraid that it is rarely found alongside soft bokeh. That explains why the pin-stripes were resolved on the previous page, against all odds, by the Zeiss voodoo lens. Look for very even (neutral) bokeh in highlights, and higher contrast on the focal plane than off it, and often you will find lens 3D effect. Here's an example: http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/85_3D_labelled.jpg
This is why I use the Contax 35 f1.4 and not the Canon. The Canon is certainly sharper in the corners, but it has soft bokeh instead of neutral bokeh.
When I think of the ingredients for that mysterious 3D look, the first thing that comes to mind is the sort of lighting that is able to etch out a subject from its background. Often that involves a brighter subject against a dark background plus side and rim lighting with just the right amount of fill. Regarding lenses, Zeiss lenses do seem to etch out their subjects quite well probably due to the micro-contrast characteristics the lenses are known for but any decent lens given the right lighting can give the effect. Below is landscape shot at Yellowstone a while back with the old Canon 20-35mm 2.8 L lens on a T-90. Sometimes the lighting just before or after a storm can give the landscape that 3D look: http://www.gibranstudio.com/Yellowstone1.jpg
Dual 2D and 3D sums it up. The first look I associate with Leica lenses, and the second with Zeiss. It may be due to any one of many factors. It seems to me that the Zeiss heightened edge contrast and neutral bokeh go hand in hand. You seldom see soft bokeh in combination with the trademark Zeiss 3D effect.
Of course, there are many compositional methods which help to accentuate the difference between the focal plane and the unfocussed areas, but that is quite a different subject of discussion to that quality in lenses that enables subjects to jump out from the screen/print as if they were really there.
On the long 3D thread here there was a photo of some bluebell woods where everything was sharply in focus, and yet it had a sense of 3D and space that was breathtaking, even in a web graphic. The lens 3D effect can appear regardless of whether there is focus differential in the image.
I have a Contax 35mm f1.4 and a Canon 200 f1.8 both of which produce superb 3D effect without even trying. The 3D effect that I pay good money for is nothing to do with focal length or how I compose the picture. It is a quality in some lenses, and I'm afraid that it is rarely found alongside soft bokeh. That explains why the pin-stripes were resolved on the previous page, against all odds, by the Zeiss voodoo lens. Look for very even (neutral) bokeh in highlights, and higher contrast on the focal plane than off it, and often you will find lens 3D effect. Here's an example: http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/85_3D_labelled.jpg
This is why I use the Contax 35 f1.4 and not the Canon. The Canon is certainly sharper in the corners, but it has soft bokeh instead of neutral bokeh.
I agree the last shot is quite amazing. I have personally found that photographing people levitating usually doesn't work (might have something to do with the cosmic forces in play). Anyhow, this shot nailed it.
