Tariq Gibran wrote:
More important then lens choice is likely going to be simply employing the elements of classic design principles to create the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface:

http://www.wiu.edu/art/courses/design/depth.htm


This was my premiss in most of my comments in the "what is 3D" thread. Not a lot of folks agreed - especially zeiss owners.

hxpham wrote:
I think the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has a pretty interesting, somewhat three-dimensional look.

http://hoangxuanpham.tumblr.com/

I think that first one is a good example of using the DOF rolloff to suggest that the subject is not completely flat. DOF isolation without the rolloff or transition often makes the subject in focus look flat, but superimposed or "cut out" like a figure in a popup book. There may be an impression of depth (a distance scale in the image) but not of volume of the subject.

I think the first Sigma shot could have a stronger 3D effect with stronger microcontrast and higher sharpness (usually seen on Zeiss lenses) and perhaps a bit of vignetting.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
While the examples are certainly over dramatized for emphasis, the principles have been used to much more subtle effect since the Renaissance. I think it's highly likely that the photo's many consider to exhibit 3D rendering employ some of these "artistic tricks".

For a lens to add to the effect of 3D, I think the image must first contain some of the above principles with the lens perhaps accentuating the illusion. As an example, I have noticed that many of the Zeiss lenses I have used really do something special with warm colors, particularly red, and also pump up the color contrast of most other colors. High acutance and micro-contrast also serve to enhance the graphic qualities of an image. This combo is likely what people refer to when they state the lens has a lot of "pop". Thus, this "pop" would over dramatize the effect of, for instance, warm colors coming towards us, particularly when combined with intensified graphic overlaps (microcontrast and acutance at work) and atmospheric backgrounds (atmosphere including out of focus backgrounds and weather conditions such as haze). Toss in a dark background combined with side lighting to emphasize volume and texture in your subject and you have some pretty compelling 3D.

I agree with this, but also with what Carsten and sebboh have said. Because the amount of perceived depth varies quite a lot from person to person, this suggests to me that the (subconcious) evocation of memories of previous experiences is a big factor.


@Bif: I think most Zeiss owners will agree that the lighting/contrast and the nature of the subject are much more important than the effect of lens, but the question from the OP is which lenses will do best in emphasizing the factors that may suggest depth. Most Zeiss owners will agree that Zeiss lenses are best at doing this, on average. They usually deliver the effect in a more convincing way than lenses that have a flatter rendering, less microcontrast etc.

Contax N85 ...

Paul Yi wrote:
Contax N85 ...




Did the guy just walked into the photo? My dream lens.

That photo has overlap, leading lines, size-perspective (both trees and walkers) in addition to narrow dof, contrast in the focus areas etc.

Hard to say if it is the composition or the lens that helps the most..

Thanks...

It was taken with Contax N Digital....

Paul, you do it with different lenses actually almost with every lens, so i doubt it's the lens or your PP that creates the 3D effect, it seems like partial sharpening? You know i love your shots

Uzay,
I'm not really familiar with post processing....
I'd love to learn how to do partial or selective sharpening though ...

Paul Yi wrote:
Uzay,
I'm not really familiar with post processing....
I'd love to learn how to do partial or selective sharpening though ...




Paul, one day i want to sit with you and learn the magic

Does this image have any 3D feeling?

prosep wrote:
Does this image have any 3D feeling?

Maybe a bit in parts, but overall no. This is a good case of the composition inhibiting 3Dness --- the top half of the photo is just a flat black block; perhaps with more light/detail there, the perspective lines would help "connect" the top to the bottom half and make the depth more apparent.

mpmendenhall wrote:
prosep wrote:
Does this image have any 3D feeling?

Maybe a bit in parts, but overall no. This is a good case of the composition inhibiting 3Dness --- the top half of the photo is just a flat black block; perhaps with more light/detail there, the perspective lines would help "connect" the top to the bottom half and make the depth more apparent.

Thanks for your feedback. I'll be more careful next time. It was a handheld shot and I think, I was concentrating too much on the benches while shooting as I was sure that part of the image would show some 3D.

Umm, can I play?
I think this has the elements of POP. Yashica 50mm F2 ML on Canon 7D, wide open.

Definitely, this thread needs more images and less hot air! Good one! Bokeh looks a little distracting but not too bad! I love the colors! Here's one from me:

Nikkor AF 18-70mm f3.5G ED @70mm WO.

Your irrepressibility might win the day yet, Bif.
To the above, Paul uses Zeiss lenses in natural settings. Yes, composition is always important but the lens does the heavy lifting. Post work really cannot be heavy-handed with most Zeiss images, they are already very colourful, sharp and contrasty.

Film does well for 3D, due I think to the random distribution of grain and dye cloud elements. Here is one for the thread - Mamiya 7 65mm f4, at f11.

Interesting thread. After quickly going through these pages, a few stood out to me as having this 3D depth.

First page, second shot by Makten.
Paul Yi's 4th shot
Andens shot of the wall
Denoirs 2nd Shot
Bifurcators shot on last page.

Interesting to note, most had metallic subjects that looked 3D to me.

Nice word usage Philip. Nice coleus too!

also for me some pictures create the illusion of 3D for me. from my lenses it is:

rokkor 85 1.7 (probably due to the strong difference in sharpness between focus and background)



and some pictures with the ultron 40 2.0 at 2.0, also very very sharp in focus. here it is especially, that you image some 3D effect due to a consequence of the perspective:







- L.

LeadyGonzales wrote:
also for me some pictures create the illusion of 3D for me. from my lenses it is:

rokkor 85 1.7 (probably due to the strong difference in sharpness between focus and background)



Definite POP to that one! Like it.