Well I do not want to repeat what Tariq and DrPablo already said. I agree with them. I do not think that we need a very sharp lens for the 3D look, nor do we need photography to create 3D looking images at all...
cogitech wrote:
Rather, the optics make it a hell of a lot more likely that the 3D effect will be fully realised.
Of course. No one is arguing with that. Great optics will make a good shot better, a great shot greater, etc. But they're not going to turn water into wine, I mean a lousy shot is not going to turn into a gem just by changing the lens.
Look back again at my "castle" photo. The lighting is pretty nearly flat, no?
But you have to look closely at the photo and evaluate what the features are in the photo itself that create the effect you're describing.
1) You have a clear foreground and background.
2) The water looks 3D because there are all kinds of reflections off of it -- darker shadows, bright reflections from the sky, and reflections of the castle and the trees
3) The stonework on the castle has heterogeneous colors and shapes that have a distinct 3D shape in real life (that much is obvious), but they also attract interest.
4) There are broken clouds that recede to the horizon.
5) The foreground is red, the background is blue, and whether or not this red-blue stuff is real it still provides color contrast.
Most of this is compositional, and some of it is subject choice. The lens, I'm sure, plays a big role in resolving ripples in the water and the shingles on the roof, especially away from the center of the frame.
That said, this image, nice as it is, does not have a particularly prominent 3D effect in my mind. It is not one that in a blind "taste test" of images I would pick out as having a 3D effect. That's not a criticism of the image, the subject, the composition, or the lens. It's just my observation that the image doesn't strongly fit that description (your first flower shot with the CZ28 has much more of one in my opinion).
Imagine your picture at sunset, with the sun off to the left. Imagine how deep the shadows would be, how much richer the midtones would be, how much more prominent would be the contrast, how much more vivid the colors, and how much more striking the textures.
All I can say in that case, is size counts. What I mean is, when I look at the RAW file of that image (the castle) on my 20" widescreen LCD, from the right viewing distance, it truly feels as though I am looking through a window at a 3D scene, as it does with the whole series from that day.
I do agree, though, that *better* light would have gone a long way to enhancing the 3D effect. On the other hand, I don't think a lesser lens would have realized the 3D potential of the scene, (as slight as it was).
Cogitech, the Castle shot lighting is not flat at all. Look at where the shadows are falling. The Sun appears that it was at the top and right side of the Castle. Notice the modeling on the trees to the right and how the dormer windows on the roof of the castle cast a diagonal shadow which would be opposite of the light source(sun). Thats almost a classic 45 degree Rembrandt style lighting and definately shows texture and dimension. But, of course, you don't have to know that in order to appreciate it and intuitively see it as you have.
Cogitech, the Castle shot lighting is not flat at all. Look at where the shadows are falling. The Sun appears that it was at the top and right side of the Castle. Notice the modeling on the trees to the right and how the dormer windows on the roof of the castle cast a diagonal shadow which would be opposite of the light source(sun). Thats almost a classic 45 degree Rembrandt style lighting and definately shows texture and dimension. But, of course, you don't have to know that in order to appreciate it and intuitively see it as you have. Why do I always get the page turn error?
I can see what you are saying now, but you are right, it is more of an intuitive thing. I saw the shadows on the dormers, and now I see the variation in luminance on the cylindrical parts of the castle. I guess that is ultimately what tricks the mind into seeing 3D, but if I soften the photo, most of the effect disappears, IMO:
Maybe the subtle nuances of shadow on the stonework, etc., when resolved so well, is what really draws me "into" the 3D world of this photo when viewed large.
The modeling of the light is still the same though and the texture revealed as well. If the light had been from the front, the modeling would not have been there and this scene in real life AND in a 2D photo or Screen representation would definately look much flatter and less "3D". There is just no way to get around the laws of Physics as regards Light in the natural world.
By the way, the water really shows this "3D" modeling created by the lighting direction as well.
So, can "flat" light not reveal textures, contrast, etc. at all?
The human mind is pretty good at filling in the the missing pieces, so even if there is a slight hint of direction in the light, could it not be enough to cast enough shadow off *something* which might give our mind what it needs to fill in the 3rd dimension?
Even more interesting, are there some lenses that reslove the detail of those "slight hints", even when the lighting is not ideal? I think so.
Edited by cogitech on May 11, 2007 at 06:14 PM GMT
It definitely has a more 3D effect to me on my home monitor than the one I was using at work when I wrote my last post. The crispness is certainly extremely important to the 3D effect. But the shadows are extremely helpful at defining many of the features of the castle.
Isn't that what lens resolution is, deep down? It's contrast. The ability to discriminate two details, by definition, is the ability to perceive the contrast between them.
When you look at lpm tests, or even tests of the resolution of the human eye, resolution plummets as inter-detail contrast goes down. A Zeiss lens that resolves 200 lpm with 100% contrast might resolve only 30 lpm with 50% contrast. But the higher intrinsic contrast of the lens allows it to get more out of the variable contrast in real world scenes, whereas other lenses will fall short.
Interestingly, Velvia does the same thing. It's a high contrast film, and it can pull tremendous contrast out of scenes you thought were boring and dead. It's a great film for when you've missed the sunset by 10 minutes. Point is that great lenses (and great film) will provide sharp microcontrast in less optimal lighting than bad lenses will. But this can only be taken to a certain limit, I mean a great lens won't save a hopelessly flat photo; and if the lighting is perfect even a camera phone can make an image look 3D.
cogitech wrote:
So, can "flat" light not reveal textures, contrast, etc. at all?
Well, there's more at work than mere shapes and contours. I mean there is different reflectivity of things, so even in flat, uniform lighting something can look lighter/darker. There are plenty of times when I go out and shoot in lighting with a 1 or 2 stop dynamic range (by spot-metering) and I can both take reasonable photographs and avoid slamming face first into trees.
But the right lighting will provide more contrast, and it will give longer shadows -- and longer shadows will of course trace the contours of the surface onto which they're cast.
Even more interesting, are there some lenses that reslove the detail of those "slight hints", even when the lighting is not ideal? I think so.
Sure. That's what makes them better, and what allows them to render textural details in less ideal settings.
But to be sure, the ability to produce a 3D image is not a unique and exclusive feature of good lenses. If you choose your lighting, subject, and composition right, you can do it with almost any lens.
Anyways, as interesting as this is (I'm really learning a hell of a lot here, guys. Thanks!) my wife just got home from a shoot and we are shooting a wedding tomorrow, so I *really* need to get my shit together.
DrPablo wrote:
But to be sure, the ability to produce a 3D image is not a unique and exclusive feature of good lenses. If you choose your lighting, subject, and composition right, you can do it with almost any lens.
Very, very good news. Back to the drawing board (after the wedding).
Good luck at the wedding! I'm working overnight in the hospital and then I fly to NC for an interview tomorrow so I need to get my shit together myself.
By the way, here's an interesting photo to think about. I'd just posted it elsewhere and I thought it would be interesting to share. This is a macro I took on 4x5, using a Cambo Legend and a Nikon 120 f/5.6 AM ED Macro. It's more or less a 1:1 macro on the film size. I shot it and printed it in black and white (on HP5+) and then toned the print (on warmtone paper) in selenium to give it the color.
Anyway, I have a flat subject, a coin. But there is so much textural detail in the coin that you feel like you could scrape your fingernail over the surface. I've also used DOF to not only create the illusion of depth, but give a sense that the penny in focus is floating over the others. Finally, I used directional lighting to create a clear highlight and shadow on every tiny detail. Point is, a multifactorial approach (including an utterly brilliant lens) to create a 3D effect even for a fairly flat subject.
Wow, this thread really took off from the last time I was here. So many great points have been made since then that it's difficult for me to comment on the ones but here are a few:
a) First, I agree that "per-pixel clarity" isn't the best description of the phenomenon in question because prints obviously exhibit 3D and don't have pixels per se. What I was trying to get at was that each point of light (and on an LCD monitor I believe we can define that as a pixel) stands on its own, and seems to "float" out in its own space.
b) I also agree that we can see 3D in real life and that lighting conditions (skiing analogy) play a significant role.
c) Paul, the castle shot is just amazing, and I don't think softening the shot removes any of the 3D (though sharpening obviously accentuates the 3D). I don't know if you'll remember, but I asked to see the RAW file when you originally posted the images as I wanted to see with my own workflow if I could produce the same results.
DrPablo wrote:
But to be sure, the ability to produce a 3D image is not a unique and exclusive feature of good lenses. If you choose your lighting, subject, and composition right, you can do it with almost any lens.
Oh yes, and I think the kit lens shot (flower) I posted earlier speaks to this point.
The penny in focus was on top of a pen cap. I shot this several months ago, but as I recall I used an aperture of f/16 or f/22. Believe it or not, I exposed this for about an hour. The reason is that I needed a lot of bellows draw for the 1:1 magnification (which really increased exposure requirements), I was shooting f/16 or f/22 under dim lighting, and I had to deal with film reciprocity failure.
I knew you had the penny propped up on something like that, wish I'd have said something! And I like the way they're all heads. Very nice setup and interesting capture technique.
And I like the way they're all heads. Very nice setup and interesting capture technique.