I tried to do a picture which has a bit of a 3D look with 3 different lenses and I can not tell there is much of a difference between the pictures. Maybe some of you will see the difference, can anybody really tell which shot was taken with a Zeiss?
I would like to know where the 3D looks comes from and what the photographer would need to do to get some 3D out of his pics. Thanks for sharing your know-how
It could be something as simple as lack of haze in the blacks, or higher contrast. I imagine a lens can't easily increase contrast so my view is that high contrast is probably a good thing in a lens. I am going to try to put my money where my mouth is and say that I like the righthand one of the three, but they are so similar that it could just be variation across my monitor. They are really too small to judge good lens performance.
From my post in the AIT:
'I was just wishing someone would do this test. I'd say the far left photo is the Zeiss. The 3D effect is subtle but it seems to have the most.
I agree that the effect isn't always that prominent in any given photo. It seems to me that under certain conditions the Zeiss will give the look but just not in all lighting or to the same degree.'
I also notice that the 3D effect often diminishes rapidly when decreasing image size.
The other day I was wondering if the effect could be drawn out by increasing contrast in PS (well Gimp in my case). So I took a full size photo (link below) from a 70-200/4 IS and gave the contrast slider a shove. The photo looked a lot better but certainly didn't give the 3D pop that the Zeiss glass often gives.
:~) Mind games are apparently en vogue. Of course I can't tell which one has been taken with Zeiss. To my eyes though the picture on the left (the 1st?) looks best. Better micro contrast, a bit lower overall contrast, it simply appear with richer gradations to me (most evident on the foreground). The tonal palette also appear richer. Green is on the yellow-ish side but it gives that lush appearance of the greenery. Not sure how much the above contribute to the 3D look but it certainly makes a picture more intriguing to the mind's eye and more believable.
TeamSK jay wrote:
.... and gave the contrast slider a shove. The photo looked a lot better but certainly didn't give the 3D pop that the Zeiss glass often gives.
Good point. Coveted lenses (well, at least some of them) excel in acutance and micro contrast, qualities that cannot be achieved in post processing via USN, contrast increase, etc.
i think if ten people answered this you would get 9 disagreements, FWIW I think its a multiplicity of image attributes. Vital contributors are contrast, acuity, and resolution; the base camera requirements
Contrast is important, in my experience this is best from quality glass. Of course is also contributed too by the sensor and imaging engine. You can even recover some via post processing, so that has a role too.
We have spoken elsewhere about the sensor/lens based acuity of an image. We can fake this a little with UM, but like all things it is better to have this attribute in camera; sharp refined edges, hopefully without anything in the way of black/white edging
Resolution too provides the basis for acuity to engage the substance of the image, and chip density has improved markedly over the years. And this on its own it can exert a lot of travel for the strength of detail of an image. But this is mostly a reserve for the previous attributes, and is not solely able to provide 3D punch.
That said, you can fake these attributes at varying levels of success with Post Processing. Most photographer's would have a process that appeals to them to lift the flatness of an image. But experience shows that done without skill, or pushed beyond a given images limits reverses the process to a failing mush as we have seen.
Microcontrast, tonal separation, color separation, linearity, good out-of-focus rendition. I am of the opinion that there are "no secret ingredients, only fresh ones". For instance, the Pentax A* 135/1.8 I used to own was very three-dimensional, but the other Pentaxes I own lack those qualities except the last and look pretty 2D. I have a hard time imagining Leica or Zeiss engineers set their design goals to be producing three-dimensional images. They probably channeled their efforts to accuracy and three-dimensionality falls out as a consequence.
I know that sharpening is required to counter the effects of the anti-aliasing filter but excessive sharpening kills three-dimensionality. A really sharp lens with minimal or no sharpening produces the most three-dimensional results.
just a poor example for a photograph to which post processing is applied for an amount of 3D. The reflections on this well known container are not apparent before PP.
E-300 Konica AR 40/1.8 at F8 iso100
Hopefully I'm not off topic but this discussion started in the AIT with Andi asking for examples of 3D photos so I thought I'd show two more that I think are good examples - but from the Tamron 17-50:
I believe 3D effect has to do with DOF. It appears when the background of a shot is very slightly out of focus— not enough for bokeh to appear, but enough so that the forground sticks out, is separated from the rest by it's additional sharpness. Some people pretend that canon bokeh is too "dreamy", "impressionistic" for this to happen....I'm not sure, but it's true it works particularly well on Leica lenses.
Lighting also plays an important role... both of the effects are apparent on the lighthouse shot posted above, and the DOF does it on the first Tamron shot posted.
belsha wrote:
I believe 3D effect has to do with DOF. It appears when the background of a shot is very slightly out of focus— not enough for bokeh to appear, but enough so that the forground sticks out, is separated from the rest by it's additional sharpness. Some people pretend that canon bokeh is too "dreamy", "impressionistic" for this to happen....I'm not sure, but it's true it works particularly well on Leica lenses.
It seems logical that a 3D effect is achieved by tricking the brain into viewing a flat 2D image as though it is being seen in real life 3D with your own eyes. When you look at something only the area you are directly looking at is in focus, other areas are out of focus. So an out of focus rendering which looks the same as seen in real life would seem to add the most to the illusion.
I can absolutely say that the out of focus areas of the Tamron look just like when I take my glasses off. But on the other hand the Zeiss doesn't look so much like that.
For me it's light & DOF that create the 3D look. I have several shots taken on the same day (at around the same time) with different DOF (but with the same lens) and at slightly different angles to the sun. Some look 3D, some look as if the subject as been superimposed on the shot afterwards (even though it's there in the raw file!) and others just look normal and/or flat.
I think it is a function of the lens, but it also has to do with subject matter (DOF, distance of subject/backround, lighting), and post processing. Sharpening the entire frame can reduce the effect, but specifically just sharpening up the already sharp portion can increase it.
a lot of the look really depends on the light. sometimes it's very apparent, in both the cz 50/1.4 and my 135L, but sometimes, not so much. it seems to have the most effect stopped down a little bit. 2.8-3.2 for the 135L, and 2.0-2.8 for the 50mm.
beautiful example Rico, nice M4 too
thats where Im at, 3D within the subject
some others have this quality too
while bokeh examples work, it isnt always a matter of that
particularly if the subject looks a little 'digital flat'
for me PP recovers those situations
