telyt wrote:
Bright colors in the subject + muted background colors will show a 3D effect.
Not necessarily. It might help, but alone will not really be responsible for producing 3-D effect. Enough example all through this thread to illustrate this.
Cableaddict wrote:
OK, do you guys REALLY not see a difference in the two Buddah shots?
Really?
That's frightening to me. Here's a tip: Look only at the blue roll of tape. Or, look at the entire pic as a whole, and see which has more depth & "pop." If you don't see a difference, you need to find a new hobby!
Landscape test coming soon.
Not sure what those two images were supposed to prove, to submit those pancakes to showcase levels of plasticity is frightening. From a guy who is so quick to call other people's images 'flat', well now that's really frightening.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Not necessarily. It might help, but alone will not really be responsible for producing 3-D effect. Enough example all through this thread to illustrate this.
It's one of the basic principles you'd learn in a color theory class in art school. How 'bout you point out some photos which (in your opinion) don't show the 3D effect? The ones I see with 3D fit the color theory.
telyt wrote:
It's one of the basic principles you'd learn in a color theory class in art school. How 'bout you point out some photos which (in your opinion) don't show the 3D effect? The ones I see with 3D fit the color theory.
There are 34 pages of images in this thread, Don't have time to go through them for you. Examples that don't fit your scenario are plentiful.
You can also readily find a multitude of examples of flat images with bright color subjects and muted backgrounds.
Let me make one point. How do you then explain 3-D qualities in B&W photographs?? 3-D-ness in photographs does not need color, it is independent of color. How do explain 3-D in portrait? The last time I checked, skin colors are not brightly colored. Certainly color may assist or accentuate 3-D-ness but it is clearly NOT predominately dependent on a the color arrangement you describe, or color generally.
Apr 06, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think Doug (telyt) has a point, but I think it is more general than just colors. 3-D certainly seems to me to be enhanced when the foreground object is in brighter light and the background is in somewhat darker light. This of course works for portraits and black and white as well. Here are a few examples from this thread:
These differences in lighting seem important to helping create a 3-D effect, but they are definitely not sufficient to create it. I think in addition to strong difference in lighting between the foreground object and the background you also need excellent local contrast in the foreground object and a quick fall off in sharpness from the edges of the foreground object. There are also a number of other cues that come from composition that can enhance 3-D as well. It is a complex mix, but in my view, Doug's point is certainly part of the mix.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think Doug (telyt) has a point, but I think it is more general than just colors.
I think Telyt's point takes us back to the issue of what we are talking about when we say "3-D". Telyt's scenario of a brightly colored subject subject and muted background can aid the perception of "depth" in the image -- the perception of space separating the subject and background. But that this is not what this thread has been about from the beginning. Rather it is about the perception of a 3-Dimensional form, or "plasticity" to use another term that's been adopted to describe it and differentiate it from the perception of depth.
To illustrate the an extreme version of what telyt suggested, I created the following image: http://boncratious.com/images/colordepth.jpg
Is there 3-D in this? One may perceive some space between the bright green tree and the muted gray-brown background of trees in line with telyt's suggestion. But IMHO, there is no 3-D in this image as we are defining it in this thread.
Steve Spencer wrote: It is a complex mix, but in my view, Doug's point is certainly part of the mix.
+1 about the mix of factors.
The point of bright vs. muted (not necessarily dark) is somewhat in regard to tonal values (which equally apply it B&W).
Our brains are conditioned to atmospheric haze being a condition of distance, therefore when we see those muted tones in the background, our brains associate distance. Similarly our brains are programmed to see cool colors (i.e. blue sky) as being distant, so when we have cool colors in our backgrounds and warm colors in our subject/foreground, it fosters/enhances (not create) the interpretation of distance between the two. Again, this fosters / enhances (not create).
The multitude of other factors (perspective, scale, angles, etc.) combine as well to contribute (not singularly create) how our brains associate & interpret the effect.
Of course, these are part of the 'art' side of the equation, which can be accomplished with a paint brush or a pencil medium as well as the photographic medium. Understanding & using the 'art' techniques to combine with the photographic equipment (micro-contrast, etc.) can improve the effect significantly ... OR ... can counter-oppose & reduce the effect when not taken into consideration.
Learning about the art/brain side of it is a worthy endeavor to improve upon ... my .02
With regard to the issue of plasticity vs depth ... I think the issues of scale & perspective (art side still) probably have a greater contribution than than color does.
I also think it is a very different endeavor when trying to produce 'landscape' 3d (i.e. no foreground/background separation) vs. tabletop/floral/portait/sports/etc. 3d (foreground/background separation).
