pere marti wrote:
Make this experiment: put two coloured squares on a gray background. One of them is red-orange in hue (the warmest) and the other middle blue (the cooler). Make chrominance and luminance the same. You can use LAB mode for this. Which one appear to recede/approach? I don't think you can say.
Or another experiment -- take a landscape with a warm foreground and a cool sky - then edit it so that the sky is red and the foreground is blue. It will look otherworldly, but it will probably retain just as much depth.
I edited this by inverting the image on a second layer, then fading to color. I think it retains just as much suggestion of depth. Perhaps it's even better, because it's so otherworldly, and the sky looks more menacing. The two images have exactly the same luminosity, but somehow the blue looks brighter, and it contrasts more against the background. Strange, it's almost as if it looks more 3D than the first.
Its basic color theory which painters have used forever regarding warm colors coming forward and cool colors receding. Here is just the first quick link I found but I'm sure there are plenty more. It is also taught in any basic art class. No misconception at all.
woodyspedden wrote:
I have no disagreement with the comments here and thanks for the praise of the image, regardless of the 3D presence. It is too bad that you can't see the 22x36 print of this image. I believe you would then see that there is significant 3D. But no matter. In the end it is the final print which determines the worth of the work, regardless of reasons.
Thanks for all the commentary.......it is appreciated
Woody,
Thanks for submitting your fine work to such a critical audience. Based on comments in this thread (particularly brainiac and Son), I interpreted the scene to accentuate 3-D qualities. I will, of course, remove the image on request...
Copyright Woody Spedden
In capturing the scene directly, I would use a wide aperture, and select a time of day when the canyon was in darkness and the ledge in oblique light.
The Canyon image above is very different than the one posted back on page 36 and does look more 3D to me because the background is now majorly out of focus and the foreground has more detail. So, I guess there are two seperate images of this Canyon or what?
It may look a bit more 3D, but it also looks like it suffered a grievous Photoshop accident. The original is a far superior image. The enhanced 3D effect in this edited image is more than offset by how unconvincing it is overall.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Canyon image above is very different than the one posted back on page 36 and does look more 3D to me because the background is now majorly out of focus and the foreground has more detail. So, I guess there are two seperate images of this Canyon or what?
No, just one image, plus a Photoshop experiment by Rico.
I just want to say thanks to Woody and Jaap for sharing their excellent pictures - my criticism is definitely not meant to cause any offence.
The photoshopped canyon is making me feel a little bit giddy now, but there is still no depth in the rocks in the foreground. The injected contrast has separated the two planes, but those planes are still planes: the shrub seems no further than the scree before it. I still believe it is to do with how the lens renders light and shade. I don't know how or why lenses seem to differ in this respect but flare, glass types, polarization or UV transmission could have something to do with it. Some lenses are just punchy and 3D, and other lenses are less so.
I certainly don't think it is about image size. It is easy to see which images have it and which don't on this thread, so it is still visible at 400 pixels wide. When you look at my crap lens test shots it is clear to me that the right lens just has it and the left just doesn't:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Its basic color theory which painters have used forever regarding warm colors coming forward and cool colors receding. Here is just the first quick link I found but I'm sure there are plenty more. It is also taught in any basic art class. No misconception at all.
For an aproach to color theory, both artistically and scientifically, I suggest you http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/wcolor.html
Although it is not a photography site, you will find a great deal of valuable information and references not found anywhere in the internet. For the matter of our discusion you can take a look here: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color12.html
And here, in the section "the texture of space", you can find some interesting insights that can be applied to the 3D effect discusion: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect1.html#cues
brainiac wrote:
...It is easy to see which images have it and which don't on this thread, so it is still visible at 400 pixels wide. When you look at my crap lens test shots it is clear to me that the right lens just has it and the left just doesn't
I think you are wrong. You are showing us the flatening effect of diffuse light (on the left).
Andi Dietrich wrote:
that would be the same as looking throug a magnifying glass at a small picture
The correct answer should be "it depends on the image". I had put that short answer just to make you notice that you hadn't considered in your question the intended viewing distance. Let me elaborate: if you print smaller than the native resolution some detail (texture) is lost. This lost detail could contribute or not to 3D effect. So it depends on the image.
If you enlarge beyond native resolution and view from proper distance it wouldn't matter. It would be seen as intended. Then, if you approach, in a way you are in front of a different image. You can adapt to perspective change, but you perceive a crop instead of the full image, and the more you approach the softer. If this afects 3D look, it also depends on the image... but expect that it detracts more than not, because of the softening.
pere marti wrote:
For an aproach to color theory, both artistically and scientifically, I suggest you http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/wcolor.html
Although it is not a photography site, you will find a great deal of valuable information and references not found anywhere in the internet. For the matter of our discusion you can take a look here: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color12.html
And here, in the section "the texture of space", you can find some interesting insights that can be applied to the 3D effect discusion: http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/perspect1.html#cues
Pere
We will just have to agree to disagree then. Your links all go to the ideas of one person and on our point of contention is contradictory to modern thinking and teaching on the subject and only his one opinion. "Nearly all the information on this site is based on my independent research and personal painting experience." Enough said.
You know, after writing the above and looking at the links, I have to admit there is some very good, insightfull information there. The Authors points about Lightness and Chroma as key to the perception of depth created by color makes a lot of sense. He, by the way, also praises Joseph Albers elsewhere for his contributions. So, I will humbly retract the above criticism. A point is made why traditionally in painting, the particular pigments which were used did indeed turn out to render Warm colors with more chroma and lightness and cool colors the opposite.
Edited by Tariq Gibran on May 17, 2007 at 01:54 PM GMT
Good leading lines and textures are most often the key from my perspective. A properly composed image will lead you in which immediately begins the 3D effect and the textures provide a sense that you are a part of the image once you have begun the journey into it. While it is possible to have a 3D effect without the texture aspect (I have seen some stunning high contrast black and whites that had incredible depth), it is not possible to have one without the proper composition.
>>...it is clear to me that the right lens just has it and the left just doesn't...
>I think you are wrong. You are showing us the flatening effect of diffuse light (on the left).
You may be right Pere. When I have time I am going to shoot exactly the same shot with a pair of lenses which I think differ in 3D effect. It is an interesting experiment.
Huge thread, and I am only on page 5, so maybe someone has already posted something to this effect, but I recall a thread a while back here where someone posted portraits done with the Leica Apo-180/2 and a similar but older Zeiss lens, and the general consensus was that the Leica had nicer bokeh and the Zeiss had more contrast and a stronger 3D effect, IIRC. The ensuing discussion focused on the 3D look and some comments were made about the cause being the nature of the bokeh transition. It has to do with the speed of transition close to the plane of focus. The Leica transitioned much faster, which gave it an incredibly creamy bokeh, but lost the 3D look.
The images I have seen here which have a 3D effect have it because of other causes, like perspective or lighting which really accentuates shape. These are separate from a lens-caused 3D look.
It was I who faced the luxurious but painful decision between the Leica 180 f2 and Zeiss 200 f2, and you are quite right that even though the Leica was slightly better in most regards, I switched to the Zeiss because I felt it looked slightly more 3D. Since then I tested my Zeiss against a Canon 200 f1.8 and switched again. All I need to do now is test my Canon against the Leica, 'upgrade' for a third time, and the virtuous circle will be complete. Perhaps my local dealer or the Maurits Escher society will give me some sort of medal.
DrPablo, I think that the explanation for the 3D look in Ansel Adams prints is at least partly in the size of the presentation. Larger images are more believable somehow. FWIW, here are some things which I think contribute to a 3D look: micro-contrast, bokeh, size of presentation, perspective, lighting, colour. Not all need be present. However, Andi was asking about a 3D look caused by the lens used. Few of the above have anything to do with that, except micro-contrast and bokeh, and to a smaller extent, the colour effects given by the lens.
Based on comments in this thread (particularly brainiac and Son), I interpreted the scene to accentuate 3-D qualities. I will, of course, remove the image on request...