alot of people claim shots that are '3d' but i hardly ever see it (except for a few of Paul Yi's c/y 100/2 image samples)

does this have '3d' ?

Not to me, but, what is that on the plate?

"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.

It is quite rare to see it. It is the feeling that you can stick your hand in the photo and feel the real shape Your photo has depth, but not 3D feeling.

It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.

It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.

Don't buy in to all the hype.

It's a subjective perception of recognizable depth in a photograph.

Subjective being the key adjective.

Sam N wrote:
Don't buy in to all the hype.

Yes, do buy into all the hype, it is all it's cracked up to be

Sam, please show is a photo with lots of 3D from a lens which normally has none.

Carsten - which lenses have it in your opinion? On Leica forums, all Leica lenses have it. Here, Leica lenses don't (in fact, they seem to lack any resemblance of it), but all Zeiss lenses have it.

i see. so the lesson is just because one person sees it, they shouldn't expect others to see it as well.

lemme try to process it to have 3d tonight when i get home. i have a feeling that increasing saturation and sharpness of the donut while increasing shadow and contrast of the background would give what a few people would claim is a 3d effect.

the thing on the plate is a green tea donut i had at Mr. Donut while visiting tokyo. it was really tastey.

Tim,

I don't think Leica lenses particularly have it, in general, although I will try to provoke it in the next little while, just to see. They have great subject isolation though. The two lenses which I often see it in are the Contax 35/1,4 (close up) and Contax 100/2 Planar. Lots of Zeiss lenses don't have it, at least that I have seen. My Hasselblad 110mm f/2 has it (a Zeiss lens), but then it is very similar to the 100/2 Planar.

The Leica S2 lenses seem to have it, although there are few samples so far.

Sam N wrote:
It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.

It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.


I totally agree with you, I think that lighting is the most important component to give that "3D feel"

Andrea, do you have an example of 3D with a lens which isn't famous for it? A link to someone else's shot would be fine.

At some point, *someone* who claims that it is not dependent on the lens is going to have to put out. I am not against being convinced, but I have never seen it yet. All the best examples of 3D in that big thread are from lenses which are known for it.

Is this 3D? To me, it has some 3D-effect. But I might be wrong.

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.

She definitely does pop out of the background, but I don't get much of a sense of what her actual form might be (although I can surely imagine it). In one or two of those shots she could even be a cutout, in front of the background. The sense of depth is something that many lenses can render, and IMO Leicas excel at this, but actual 3D feeling, less so.

I have to add that it seems to be very individualistic. Some people see 3D where others don't.

I agree with those who have said that 3D image give you this feeling of space within the image. Theres images that pop, that has two planes that sort of work with each other (one being pushed out the other relegated to the background)... but then there's the 3D images that feel like there are seamless layers within the image itself (where the sense of space comes from).

I think DoF contributes to this when its rolling off slowly (from in focus to out of focus). But this doesn't explain why images with a tremendous amount of DoF are able to give a feeling of 3D too.

I think this photo looks 3d to me.... it is not mine, it comes from cogitech using a Rokkor 58/1.2 as seen in the "Rokkor 58/1.2 love thread" http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/828743


if that's not 3d, can someone show me what is.

JimU, that donut is really weird, but I like the way it looks. Your photo isn't 3D, especially because no part of the donut is in sharp focus. Only the front part of the white plate is in focus.

I would suggest looking at some of Art Wolfe's work to get that 3d feeling, at least in IMHO.

Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1

Here is his gallery, wonderful stuff: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#mi=1&pt=0&pi=4

James R wrote:
I would suggest looking at some of Art Wolfe's work to get that 3d feeling, at least in IMHO.

Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1π=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1



No offense to Art, but that doesn't even look like photography to me. It appears to have been created with "DAZ 3D - Bryce".

From what I've used, C/Y Planar 100 and Leica Apo 180/2.8 had that distinct 3-D look.
I'm sure there are other lenses that can do that.

First one is from the Leica Apo 180/2.8
The second one is from the Planar 100/2.0

Spada, the image has a lot of depth to it, but what is it in the image whose shape your fingertips can almost feel, while looking at it? The depth is mostly caused by perspective, DoF, and so on. The 3D look is something else.

There is a thread on 3D here, with a few good examples:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/530337

The first shot for me with some 3D is the soapy baby on page 2. Several of the others have a great sense of depth, but no feeling of 3D form. With the baby's head, I can almost feel the roundness. The girl's portraits by Frank Doorhof on page 8 are also not bad for 3D. You get a real sense of the curvature of her forehead in the first shot. Then again, that is medium format for you.

Another page with some good examples, this time Richard's B&W portraits with the Contax 35/1,4:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/385342/113

cogitech wrote:
James R wrote:
I would suggest looking at some of Art Wolfe's work to get that 3d feeling, at least in IMHO.

Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1π=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1



No offense to Art, but that doesn't even look like photography to me. It appears to have been created with "DAZ 3D - Bryce".



You pushing DAZ? I'm sure Art would find a compliment in your criticism.

carstenw wrote:
There is a thread on 3D here, with a few good examples:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/530337

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).

He is wrong His picture is good though.

All sorts of factors matter, but the lens DEFINITELY is part of the deal. I think it has to do with micro-contrast, but I'm not really sure. Here are three pics that show a per-lens difference really well. (sadly, a lot is lost when making them small enough for FM posting, the differences in the original TIFFS are huge)

Yes, the sun is slightly different in each, but I see this type of 3D variance in all shots with these lenses. Observe much the front plants stand-out from the rear shrubs. Look at how fine the Planar is, and how obscenely flat the Canon 50/1.4 is. Again, the difference when viewing the TIFFS is much greater.

Just a down & dirty 50mm -ish, f/2.8 test: Planar, Canon, Mamiya 645