Depp: they are beautiful. It is however not very 3d to me. Many flash photo's have a sort of layer effect, and these do too, but it is not convincingly 3d to me (perhaps because of the layer effect).
Second photo seems to be suffering from a harsh ND filter, am I right? Love the first photo completely btw
Obviously the lighting can give a layered effect,but the sun light on the water comes into play as much as the lighting.
A good eye there....the sun wasn't low enough yet,I can't recall if it was a .6 or .9 ND filter.
Not looking at the model,I would say the images are very three dimensional because of the sun light on the bow and the stern wakes give a very realistic effect,especially the second one....to my eye,I like the second shot better for 3d effect,but I like her pose in the first image much more.
Even though the image is somewhat cool...I find the color saturation of the model and her skin pleasing and add to the overall effect.
I've been looking in on this thread because I've observed a 3-D effect in photographs which I have always attributed to certain cameras / lenses -- I'm expecting to find an answer here .
I see it somewhat like Georg described -- a roundness to objects. His samples have the look to me. I don't think it correlates to things like selective focus which seem to represent another view of what the 3-D effect is, judging from examples posted.
Here's my contribution. The photo has no selective focus, pretty flat lighting, very little texture, but it has a strong 3-D look on my monitor. Of course, I'm prepared to hear comments to the contrary.
Lotusm50 wrote:
"3-D" is essentially is the illusion of a palpable 3 dimensionality in a 2-D photographic image. It can't be "defined" quantitatively. It's how it looks. Basically, I know it when I see it.
That's right. It doesn't actually exist except in the mind of the viewer. Since the mind in this case (IMHO) is wantingly influenced by the gear people think took the photo the whole thing is basically BS.
To me "I know it when I see it" becomes "I see it when I want to see it" for whatever reasons
You are very nearly there Bifurcator. Yes, the depth in a picture is of course not actual, but then again any picture ever taken is only a representation of a scene.
Everything we see is being processed by our perception. Wether this is a picture (the representation of a scene) of the actual scene itself. Simple optical illusion tests will show you this, and a good photographer knows how to use it.
That last bit is vital. With good use composition, planning, photoshopping and -indeed- gear that renders a scene in a convincing way a picture can have all the ingredients to allow the spectator to imagine (!) him/herself part of the scene.
Lens errors give away too early that the scene is just a photo, and therefore eliminating this factor is part of the process to give a scene a sense of reality and in some cases therefore depth.
This is not the complete story, because the picture is just the medium between the photographer and the spectator. If the photographer wants his audience to experience depth, he has to make sure the scene is convincing enough. Then its the turn for the spectator to imagine that he or she is part of the scene.
This communication between photographer and audience is what makes photography interesting for me personally. If you cannot see depth in a picture there are two things that might be the underlying problem. 1. The photo is simply not convincing enough, and spoils the imagination because it gives to much hints that it is just a photo. 2. The reason you don't experience depth might be because you are unwilling or unable to imagine regard the scene as actual and therefore don't experience it.
That some see depth in a photo might not be because people know with which lens the photo was taken, but because some people are actually open enough to imagine them being part of the photo. Sceptics are naturally unwilling to experience this, and therefore remain sceptical. That does not make it BS.
It is your own loss if you don't have the imagination it takes to experience something from a picture, which is the essential element of this art. It does however make me wonder why those people participate in such discussions and what their purpose is with photography.
biotar wrote:
You are very nearly there Bifurcator. Yes, the depth in a picture is of course not actual, but then again any picture ever taken is only a representation of a scene.
Everything we see is being processed by our perception. Wether this is a picture (the representation of a scene) of the actual scene itself. Simple optical illusion tests will show you this, and a good photographer knows how to use it.
That's true. Nothing our senses detect can exist to us without our brains. Taste, smell, sight, it's all brain based. In fact our eyes are just cordal extensions of the brain itself - literally, an outcropping of the brain. Vision actually occurs at the back of our heads - just a little above where our necks end.
But that's taking what I said a little too far and not really what I meant.
That last bit is vital. With good use composition, planning, photoshopping and -indeed- gear that renders a scene in a convincing way a picture can have all the ingredients to allow the spectator to imagine (!) him/herself part of the scene.
Lens errors give away too early that the scene is just a photo, and therefore eliminating this factor is part of the process to give a scene a sense of reality and in some cases therefore depth.
This is not the complete story, because the picture is just the medium between the photographer and the spectator. If the photographer wants his audience to experience depth, he has to make sure the scene is convincing enough. Then its the turn for the spectator to imagine that he or she is part of the scene. ...Show more →
In the case of 3D I liken it to a con. In a con the grifter presents lies+truth as truth alone and if the participating mark believes it then the grifter can use the mark. In this case to sell goods and services. It's based on untrue powers of suggestion though. Nothing anyone has posted in this thread looks any more or less "3D" to me than any other good photograph that makes use of DOF and micro-contrast.
This communication between photographer and audience is what makes photography interesting for me personally. If you cannot see depth in a picture there are two things that might be the underlying problem. 1. The photo is simply not convincing enough, and spoils the imagination because it gives to much hints that it is just a photo. 2. The reason you don't experience depth might be because you are unwilling or unable to imagine regard the scene as actual and therefore don't experience it.
That some see depth in a photo might not be because people know with which lens the photo was taken, but because some people are actually open enough to imagine them being part of the photo. Sceptics are naturally unwilling to experience this, and therefore remain sceptical. That does not make it BS.
It is your own loss if you don't have the imagination it takes to experience something from a picture, which is the essential element of this art. It does however make me wonder why those people participate in such discussions and what their purpose is with photography....Show more →
To me that does indeed make it BS. As an adjective or description I can agree to terms like "3D-ish", "deep", or phrases like "it almost looks like 3D", "I feel almost as if I'm there", etc.. And nearly any common equipment can produce the effect. To try and pass off "3D" as an optical quality like Bokeh, CA, and etc. is disingenuous at best. More commonly phrased, It's BS!
So, I like 3D-ish looking images just as much as anyone. I dig the proper use of DOF and micro-contrast to create the effect. But let's call a spade a spade without the con. I don't need to romanticize these image qualities by making up terms that don't actually apply and I think it's intellectually dishonest for anyone to try and do so - regardless of how "interesting" the accompanying hyperbole sounds. Just my opinion (and no I'm not weak enough to be pressured into accepting this as non-BS ).
I don't think the term 3D is an attempt to con anyone or romanticize anything ... it's simply a term being used to describe a 'set' of optical qualities / characteristics that when combined produce an effect ... somewhat akin to how the terms "High Key" or "Glamour" describe those styles as well ... they aren't quite as tangibly defined as CA, but they are accepted as the term to define that 'set' of combined qualities ... i.e. not BS or deceptive ... merely descriptive.
RustyBug wrote:
I don't think the term 3D is an attempt to con anyone or romanticize anything ... it's simply a term being used to describe a 'set' of optical qualities / characteristics that when combined produce an effect ... somewhat akin to how the terms "High Key" or "Glamour" describe those styles as well ... they aren't quite as tangibly defined as CA, but they are accepted as the term to define that 'set' of combined qualities ... i.e. not BS or deceptive ... merely descriptive.
I would normally agree with that [honest!] except for two things. 1) 3D in its various forms, does actually exist apart from this "set of qualities" - which I won't even go so far as to call "optical". Terms like "High Key" or "Glamour" do not have a real life outside of those descriptions. and 2) the way it has been extensively used on this site in the past to make others or themselves feel good or bad about the equipment they own or the abilities of the presenter slash operator.
I can't speak for others who may or may not be trying to justify equipment, but I do know that I have different/specific glass that I will use when I want to TRY & achieve this effect. My success rate is sometimes what I call a 2.9 vs. a 3D, where I just missed the mark from what I intended ... but I still have my "go to" glass when I desire to create this effect.
NOTE: That includes glass from 5 different manufacturers at varying focal lengths ... IMHO ... it's more about optical design/engineering more so than Brand X. I have some glass from those same mfr's that doesn't even come close to producing this, they simply have a different drawing style due to the different optical design. Some designs / materials simply achieve it better than other designs.
As far as the 3D term vs. the fact that it exists in reality ... the movie & entertainment industry uses the term and it also is only an illusion ... even if it uses a different technology to induce the illusion. I see no reason to render the term inappropriate, especially in the "3D-ish" variety ... which in itself admits it is not actually 3D, i.e. implied illusion, so for me there is no deception, no BS.
Let's go shoot, I need the practice.
P.S. Don't engineering & art schools teach students to produce 3D drawings (oxymoron, I know), i.e. understood to be the best possible presentation of a 2D medium for the most effective representation of a 3D scene / object? This too is only an illusion, but those who can do it well, are highly regarded and well rewarded. Why would our 2D medium be any less so?
Bifurcator wrote:
....
But that's taking what I said a little too far and not really what I meant.
...
Nothing anyone has posted in this thread looks any more or less "3D" to me than any other good photograph that makes use of DOF and micro-contrast.
...
To me that does indeed make it BS. As an adjective or description I can agree to terms like "3D-ish", "deep", or phrases like "it almost looks like 3D", "I feel almost as if I'm there", etc.. And nearly any common equipment can produce the effect.
I feel that much of the disagreement comes down to semantics. I don't feel inclined to discuss this, so lets just call it 'depth' then for the sake of the argument.
While I agree that nearly any common equipment CAN produce the effect, I note that the effect is consistently stronger with some lenses. There is no reason why this shouldn't be so, while you agree that making use of micro contrast is part of the effect (only part note!). I like to stress once again that equipment is only part of the whole process. As said, things like composition, photoshop, the scenery itself and most important imagination come into play.
Depth therefore is indeed no intrinsic characteristic of any lens, but it does facilitate the feel to some extend.
I work in videogames, and we recently added a chromatic aberration render effect which, in screen space, puts a little blue on one side of object edges and a little red on the other. It's improved the look, utterly surprisingly, and the image pops a little more. It has more of a 3D look, surprisingly.
Very interestingly, we spend a lot of time mimicking lens faults - flare, CA, vignetting, bloom - all the 'perfectly imperfect' stuff to make it look less CG and more real. Around 10-15% of our graphics processing budget goes to these types of tasks.
So while lens designers are trying to take it all out, we're trying to put it all in.
adamM wrote:
I work in videogames, and we recently added a chromatic aberration render effect which, in screen space, puts a little blue on one side of object edges and a little red on the other. It's improved the look, utterly surprisingly, and the image pops a little more. It has more of a 3D look, surprisingly.
Very interestingly, we spend a lot of time mimicking lens faults - flare, CA, vignetting, bloom - all the 'perfectly imperfect' stuff to make it look less CG and more real. Around 10-15% of our graphics processing budget goes to these types of tasks.
So while lens designers are trying to take it all out, we're trying to put it all in....Show more →
Wow thats really interesting Adam!
Seems like we became used to images rendered by lenses, and accept these characteristics to represent the real thing.
I imagine it helps making a scene lest artificial by this
adamM wrote:
I work in videogames, and we recently added a chromatic aberration render effect which, in screen space, puts a little blue on one side of object edges and a little red on the other. It's improved the look, utterly surprisingly, and the image pops a little more. It has more of a 3D look, surprisingly.
Very interestingly, we spend a lot of time mimicking lens faults - flare, CA, vignetting, bloom - all the 'perfectly imperfect' stuff to make it look less CG and more real.
Same here, I work in Visual Effects for commercials & feature films, a good chunk of composting is all about adding the imperfections, internal lens glares/ghosting, glints & flares, subtle bluring and smearing of colors,, and other oddities that really take good CG renders to the next level! You need good CG to start out with though Sometimes it can be taken a little to far, but when it's nailed right, it looks so good Live action guys do their best to minimize these effects, and we do our best to add those effects so that they meet in the middle to match the live action.
i generally try to stay away from 3d discussions because while i can often see what people are talking about when they say a given image has 3d quality i think it's something one has to look for to notice. the average person (non-photographer) notices very different things about an image than i do, and whether i find an image to have wonderful 3d quality or not has little bearing on what other people think of it.
that said, i was processing a bird picture a while ago and somehow did something to it that made the bird in the image seem to have much more depth and "3dness" to me. i have no idea what exactly i did but i was quite surprised since extreme telephoto generally seems to flatten everything. in any event, i wanted to know if anyone else sees this in the image or if it is just a side effect of me spending to much time staring at it. what i'm talking about here is a sense of depth and shape of the bird not the obvious separation from the background. anyway here it is: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2607/4108862633_a71de5121f_b.jpg
let me know if you see it too.
.
).