davidearls Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
Interesting thread.
I think we all wish there was a magic formula consisting of camea body, lens, f-stop, shooting distance and light conditions that produces 3D, but I think that overlooks the skill of the photographer in producing the image - which includes a lot of things that happen both before and after the shutter is pressed.
To my eye, the first of these images has, at best, a "little 3D", but the second has "big 3D", and guess what!!!??
They are the same image. The first image was processed to produce the second. It had some color contrast enhancement and sharpening applied. To my eye, the second image reveals the tiny spaces that make up texture; the first does not. It's the presence of the "tiny spaces" that make 3D to me. Large subjects in shallow depth of field do not make 3D, to me.
Obviously the lens used (a Zuiko 55 f1.2, stopped down) captured all the "3D parts" but they didn't just appear, they had to be revealed - "dusted off", if you will, in PP. I'm not going to say that A) the Zuiko 55 f1.2 is the consummate 3D lens or B) every image ever captured by any lens can be processed to get the 3D effect.
So whether 3D "exists" in an image is, in large part, the answer to the questions the photographer poses to himself: does this image contain 3D? How do I get it?
JMO


|