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

note:

These are all done with DXo's raw converter, set to auto-sharpen. It typically nails 90% of my pics, so I really trust it.

If you manually add extra sharpness AND contrast to the canon pic, it does get better. However, the Planar pic still will have more 3D, sort of a "roundness" to the various plant stalks, etc. The differences do become much smaller, though.

Interesting.

Your thoughts on this?

I'd love to see similar comparisons by others.

Ι'm terrible with noticing differences between lenses, most of them look pretty much the same to me, so keep that in mind.

To me "dimensionality" has to do with the format and the term 3D is the best term I can find to describe the difference between 35mm and larger formats. 35mm always looks flatter to me, regardless of lens, post processing or aperture used. That doesnt necessarily make it worse in my eyes, just a different type of drawing.

Cableaddict wrote:
note:

These are all done with DXo's raw converter, set to auto-sharpen. It typically nails 90% of my pics, so I really trust it.

If you manually add extra sharpness AND contrast to the canon pic, it does get better. However, the Planar pic still will have more 3D, sort of a "roundness" to the various plant stalks, etc. The differences do become much smaller, though.

Interesting.

Your thoughts on this?

If you shoot at large apertures and you want to make your subject pop, never sharpen the bokeh. Make a layer in photoshop, sharpen the background layer only (somewhat aggresively) and use a soft brush with the "eraser" tool and low opacity on the top layer to sharpen your subject only. Carefully though, just like painting, and use even lower opacity as you move towards the bokeh

weezintrumpete wrote:
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.

Cableaddict wrote:
Your thoughts on this?


The lighting conditions are changing and there's more light on the stalks in the 1st shot. The Planar seems to have more saturated colors and considerably better contrast.

Typically OOF objects are behind the plane of focus, so the way the stalks are rendered doesn't seem too important, but I don't really see more "3d" in any of the pics.

100mm Planar / 1Ds2 in truly crappy light... early afternoon, overcast.

here's my 1 minute re-post processing job to try to create 3-d. i think i over did it with lowering the mid-tone levels.

before:


after:

To make a shot with good 3D-ness there are several variables:
1) You need a sharp lens...This is essential or the edges of your subject will simply blend into the background.
2) You need to use the right aperture...Stop down to much and you will lose 3D-ness as all the focal planes blend together.
3) You need to be a certain distance from your subject. This will vary on the focal length of the lens being used.
4) If possible you should ensure that the background is a good distance away behind your subject so allowing it to be thrown out of focus.
Simply resorting to using a fast lens and/or aperture will not guarentee 3D-ness as some of your subject may be out of focus and this will ruin the effect (your tea tree donut pic shows this problem).
One of the best lenses for 3D-ness IMO is the Carl Zeiss 180mm f2.8 "Olympic" Sonnar.
Heres a sample with really good 3D-ness taken with it...Its a reporter talking to the Mayor of Hanwell a Hanwell Carnival:

Nice example John.
Alf also make some very good points there.
Here are a couple samples from my Planar 100 (thanks John ) which I think have a little 3d-ness to them:

Some lenses are designed to have a 3D effect. Zeiss is notably known for trying to enhance the 3D in all its lenses, at the expense of making some other compromises to the image quality. In wide angles for instance, I notice more field curvature in 3D lenses than others, which affects the corner sharpness. In my opinion this is the most important factor and one of Zeiss' secrets. Another observation is that there is a sense of distortion in the image center, as if things are a bit inflated, compared to other lenses which are perfectly rectilinear. So, imo, 3D is an optical "trick" in which Zeiss seems to excel.

Wow! Your first shot is amazing, Edward!

Thank you so much Phil

This is the ZA 135 taken a few months ago.

Arrrrgh! That is what I did not want to read!

Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't pretend to have any sort of formulae for creating the elusive 3D effect...

I do: get a Contax 100 f2 and 35 f1.4 and take pictures. Their 3D effect will never let you down.