The first shot for me with some 3D is the soapy baby on page 2.
Funny that the poster of the soapy baby pic says this: jvarszegi:
I am more convinced than ever before that the "3-D effect" comes simply from use of DOF, perspective, and sometimes judicious use of a tilt-shift lens (similar to the "toy miniature" effect).
These are all done with DXo's raw converter, set to auto-sharpen. It typically nails 90% of my pics, so I really trust it.
If you manually add extra sharpness AND contrast to the canon pic, it does get better. However, the Planar pic still will have more 3D, sort of a "roundness" to the various plant stalks, etc. The differences do become much smaller, though.
Ι'm terrible with noticing differences between lenses, most of them look pretty much the same to me, so keep that in mind.
To me "dimensionality" has to do with the format and the term 3D is the best term I can find to describe the difference between 35mm and larger formats. 35mm always looks flatter to me, regardless of lens, post processing or aperture used. That doesnt necessarily make it worse in my eyes, just a different type of drawing.
These are all done with DXo's raw converter, set to auto-sharpen. It typically nails 90% of my pics, so I really trust it.
If you manually add extra sharpness AND contrast to the canon pic, it does get better. However, the Planar pic still will have more 3D, sort of a "roundness" to the various plant stalks, etc. The differences do become much smaller, though.
Interesting.
Your thoughts on this?
If you shoot at large apertures and you want to make your subject pop, never sharpen the bokeh. Make a layer in photoshop, sharpen the background layer only (somewhat aggresively) and use a soft brush with the "eraser" tool and low opacity on the top layer to sharpen your subject only. Carefully though, just like painting, and use even lower opacity as you move towards the bokeh
weezintrumpete wrote:
I am under the strict opinion that it really doesn't have much to do with the lens, but all to do with the situation as mentioned above (distance to subject, distance from subject to background, etc).
For example, here are (IMO) some VERY 3D-like shots (look how she "pops" off the screen) with a lens that is not known for it's "3D rendering" abilities.
These are good examples in the use of color to enhance perspective. In color theory, warm colors such as red and orange come forward while greens and blues retreat. I don't pretend to have any sort of formulae for creating the elusive 3D effect but combining many of the elements others have mentioned can't hurt. Side and rim lighting would help create dimension. Increasing micro-contrast either by the lens used and/or post production techniques could also aid in the illusion of dimension.
The lighting conditions are changing and there's more light on the stalks in the 1st shot. The Planar seems to have more saturated colors and considerably better contrast.
Typically OOF objects are behind the plane of focus, so the way the stalks are rendered doesn't seem too important, but I don't really see more "3d" in any of the pics.
To make a shot with good 3D-ness there are several variables:
1) You need a sharp lens...This is essential or the edges of your subject will simply blend into the background.
2) You need to use the right aperture...Stop down to much and you will lose 3D-ness as all the focal planes blend together.
3) You need to be a certain distance from your subject. This will vary on the focal length of the lens being used.
4) If possible you should ensure that the background is a good distance away behind your subject so allowing it to be thrown out of focus.
Simply resorting to using a fast lens and/or aperture will not guarentee 3D-ness as some of your subject may be out of focus and this will ruin the effect (your tea tree donut pic shows this problem).
One of the best lenses for 3D-ness IMO is the Carl Zeiss 180mm f2.8 "Olympic" Sonnar.
Heres a sample with really good 3D-ness taken with it...Its a reporter talking to the Mayor of Hanwell a Hanwell Carnival:
Some lenses are designed to have a 3D effect. Zeiss is notably known for trying to enhance the 3D in all its lenses, at the expense of making some other compromises to the image quality. In wide angles for instance, I notice more field curvature in 3D lenses than others, which affects the corner sharpness. In my opinion this is the most important factor and one of Zeiss' secrets. Another observation is that there is a sense of distortion in the image center, as if things are a bit inflated, compared to other lenses which are perfectly rectilinear. So, imo, 3D is an optical "trick" in which Zeiss seems to excel.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Some lenses are designed to have a 3D effect. Zeiss is notably known for trying to enhance the 3D in all its lenses, at the expense of making some other compromises to the image quality. In wide angles for instance, I notice more field curvature in 3D lenses than others, which affects the corner sharpness.
Do you see field curvature in the ZA 135? It's got nice 3-D qualities as shown in your own images, yet from what I understand (and see in its MTF's) its got a pretty flat field.
I for one think the lenses are playing a large role. I have 2 Canon lenses (70-200 and 300/4) and just don't use them because they consistently look flat and uninvolving to me. A good lens can make simple snapshots pop out irrespective of lighting conditions.
Here is a snapshot from the weekend of a friend's baby with bounced, diffused on-camera flash. Zeiss 85/1.4 N-Planar stopped down to f4.0. http://boncratious.com/images/CuteBaby1.jpg
