Frank: Wow, unquestionable 3D - Winner!

Not saying that your new ZD back is not a contributing factor but unquestionably, your superb lighting combined with the black background also plays a major role in the 3D look. In fact, that set up would make the perfect test to actually see the difference and contribution that the larger sensor makes compared to say a 5D(mounted with say a Zeiss 85mm 1.4) as regards the 3D look.

I have used this setup MANY times with the 5D with the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 f2.8 L and it doesn't come close

Frank,
Nice shots and unquestionable 3D look. Thanks for posting. Can you tell us how you did the lighting and/or post 5D shots with similar lighting so we can see how much difference can be had between the two?
Regards,
Eric

Same light setup one large octa as main and one striplight as fill. Only the head is tilted a bit less



Or just browse through www.doorhof.nl/portfolio

Great pics Frank. The colour and tone on your ZD back are excellent.

I am not seeing more 3D in those shots than the baby shot though. Since we are looking at web sized images, the greater resolution of the ZD isn't visible to us, so that may be the reason.

I really enjoy this thread.
Frank; the first picture, the redhead, is very striking and the 3D effect so well demonstrated.

thank you,

I think I'm more restrictive than most here with what I regard as 3D effect.

These portraits are wonderfully rich, detailed, and the lighting and exposure is masterful.

But they don't look 3D to me. None of them do. And as I've said many pages back, that is by no means a detractor from the quality of the photos. But a 3D effect is something different than what I'm seeing here, which is mainly exquisite photorealism and technical control. A 3D effect to me is the illusion that the subject is coming right off the paper (or out of the screen).

The only one of these portraits that approaches that specific effect for me is the baby, because it's the sharpest.

Again, they're all great -- but they don't meet my 3D threshold.

The lighting combined with that pitch black background pushes them to that 3D realm for me. They really pop off the screen. I think its that "richness" quality that some of us are seeing as a 3D effect. Likewise, if there was a large chome of these shots sitting on a light table, they would just come right at you.

I didn't shoot it for this thread, but this one is kind of interesting Doesn't seem to carry over onto a web-sized image quite as well as the large image does. I'm printing a 44inch wide print next week, to see how it looks nice and big.

the thread:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/544062


the image:

DrPablo wrote:
I think I'm more restrictive than most here with what I regard as 3D effect.

These portraits are wonderfully rich, detailed, and the lighting and exposure is masterful.

But they don't look 3D to me. None of them do. And as I've said many pages back, that is by no means a detractor from the quality of the photos. But a 3D effect is something different than what I'm seeing here, which is mainly exquisite photorealism and technical control. A 3D effect to me is the illusion that the subject is coming right off the paper (or out of the screen).

The only one of these portraits that approaches that specific effect for me is the baby, because it's the sharpest.

Again, they're all great -- but they don't meet my 3D threshold.

I follow you a long way here. While the faces of the two boys have a nice 3D effect, the photos as such do not. There's simply nothing to relate the faces to, and the neutral black background is just that: neutral. It's up to the viewer to decide where to place it in the 3rd dimension.

A naturalistic background, with the right colours, lighting and blur, would have given a much more universal 3D effect, since it would have placed itself firmly in the background and the portraits in the foreground.

For me it is about the extent to which the eye is fooled into, or at any rate, can entertain the illusion that it is looking at a real object or space. Quite often photos fail to do this, even very sharp ones. I think it is the most important performance feature of any camera/lens system. It is the quality that allows one to forget photography and contemplate the subject itself.

DrP is right that it is an aspect of photorealism, but some aspects of photorealism, like textural sharpness or accurate colour are not enough to achieve the effect.

And I agree that Frank's talking baby shot seems to have as much, if not more 3D effect than the two portraits of boys.

I hope this thread never stops

Frank, more detail about the baby lighting setup? I'm fascinated by this look, and the Jill Greenberg "shiny" look

DrPablo wrote:
I think I'm more restrictive than most here with what I regard as 3D effect.
These portraits are wonderfully rich, detailed, and the lighting and exposure is masterful.
But they don't look 3D to me. -snip-
Again, they're all great -- but they don't meet my 3D threshold.

Maybe not more restrictive, but we are all different. I have no problems seeing depth in the first "Boy portrait" by Frank. To my eyes it is 3D and the way my brain works I would say that from the chins and closer everything is in front of the monitor (or the paper perhaps).

regards,

I see depth. But depth does not equate to a 3D effect.

By 3D effect, I really expect to see a near optical illusion. Having depth is not enough for me. It's an experience I rarely have looking at online images.

In fact the one time I was completely swept away by it was at an exhibit of 40 or 50 original Ansel Adams prints. And it was mainly his 8x10 contact prints that did it, though some of his bigger enlargements had that effect too.

It was so powerful, so hypnotizing in this illusion of 3-dimensionality, that it has become a standard that few other things can live up to for me.

3D: a near optical illusion? I need to see some samples. Meanwhile...a snap at ISO1600

zhangp wrote:
3D: a near optical illusion? I have a feeling some of it may be the "Emperor's New Clothes" type deal? I know it's hard to judge things with a web-sized image, but I honestly don't see anything 3d/magical in most of the images posted here. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded because I work with all types of images and image processing every day (photo and 3d).

zhangp wrote:
3D: a near optical illusion? I need to see some samples.

Of course it's an optical illusion.

These shots are, in fact, 2D.

So if they look convincingly 3D, then it is an illusion.

The problem is, very few of these, however good, however vivid, make me think I'm looking at a 3-dimensional scene.

Here's one of the few of mine that make me feel that way (though it's much more vivid with the 11x14 print in hand -- because the pennies are something like 3x life size.

Leica glass, preferably older:

Leica M8, Tele-Elmarit 4.0, wide open:

Testing -"an optical illusion"

B/W version

one more try

The third looks the best from a 3D point of view, because both the spine and the face of the book are sharp. So you actually have focus in two planes, and that is really important to a 3D effect. The noise is a bit distracting, though, because it attracts attention to an out of focus background that should be totally smooth.

I would like to submit to your attention this photograph I took this early morning, about one hour after dawn:

View of the hills around hometown

Taken with EOS 5D and Leitz Elmarit-R 135 (last version)

And consider that the JPG conversion kills about 50% of the perception I have from the 16bit TIF.

I have personally begun to realize a few environmental conditions that help a lot the perception of roundness:

1) Light direction, the more lateral the usually better - although I have seen very "round" images even with frontal lighting

2) having different "wings" in the framed scene, at different distances

3) the "aerial perspective" of Leonardo heritage (haze in the background distance)

4) Having round or cylindrical objects in the frame (e.g: a tree trunk; a human face; etc.)improves the perception of depth for the whole image; Cubic objects, even of greater physical depth, help this perception less. Other wise said, a small trunk or human face can help more than a huge wall, ever if the wall is at slanted position in the frame. Of course this is also related to the points "a" and "d" (more below)

There are of course photographers choices and conditions that are equally and probably even more important:

a) with regards to point 2 above, it is important to have a lens that has a smooth gradual transition from focused to blurred. The smoother the transition, the greater the depth perception

b) Having a photo with a low macrocontrast and a high microcontrast not only helps a lot, but is also a key element apparently

c) provided that the other conditions are there (especially point "a"), some wisely applied sharpening does enhance the effect of the microcontrast and thus boost the depth perception. it is important, however, that the sharpness is not so strong to also bring out too much detail from areas that are placed in a different scene wing. This also works in relation to the following point "d"

d) the DOF is a very important choice to make. And of course it varies with the lens you use, so it's difficult to make an overall rule for that. Based on my experience, however, I'd say that neither extremes (wide open or too narrow) work well. When wide open, you end up flattening the perspective too much, and make things visually end on one same "image plane" where they would actually be separated by good distance.
When stopped down too much, you also have a similar consequence of flattening, because having too many objects at different distances in perfect focus, also flattens the perspective. Opposite action, but same consequence.
The best "3D" results seem to be obtained for me at moderate apertures - I would say in the range from f/2.8 to f/5.6

e) White balance: with regards to point 3 especially, I have found out that warmer tones tend to reduce the depth perception, while cooler tones tend to enhance the depth perception. This has of course to do with the fact that the air actually has the blueish colour of the sky, so to have a cooler tint to the image means to reinforce the impression that there is more air amongst the objects.
This of course does have to be subtle, because if the cool cast is too heavy, it will have the opposite consequence of flattening the perception of the space, because the stronger the cast, the more it reduces the number of different colours in the image. This is also related to the following point "f"

f) Having a greater number of different colours in the image seems to enhance the perception of depth, although slightly. Of course the placement of colours also matters: having warmer colours in the front and cooler colours in the background helps to keep things within the Leonardo aerial perspective rule

g) Exposure: based on my experience, I have noticed that slightly underexposed images render more perception of depth for the foreground objects especially, and in general for the focused objects. I have not thought about this much to analyze the reason why - yet it's something that I can visually appreciate in my tentatives. Perhaps this is linked much to point "b", as it seems that the more microcontrast a lens can render, the more pronounced is the depth effect of the underexposure of the focused subject and foreground.

h) ISO, the lower the better. I find that image noise or grain can largely kill even the best achieved depth perception result.

OK these are more or less the results of several weeks of tentatives and reasoning. Maybe there is something else that escapes my memory now, but mostly i'd say that this is it for the current state of my research.