The blue edge on the collar is either CA or, more likely the colour of blown out shirt under skylight as a blurred edge darkens it to within the sensor's range.
the doorhof is a signature scanned, nothing more :D
never mind, it was a play on words: how did you get the door off...it wasn't funny, I know...
I made the switch to the Mamiya AFD/II 645 and ZD back and finally got what I searched, the 3D look
So sensor size is indeed as expected very important, including light and contrast of course.
Not saying that your new ZD back is not a contributing factor but unquestionably, your superb lighting combined with the black background also plays a major role in the 3D look. In fact, that set up would make the perfect test to actually see the difference and contribution that the larger sensor makes compared to say a 5D(mounted with say a Zeiss 85mm 1.4) as regards the 3D look.
Frank,
Nice shots and unquestionable 3D look. Thanks for posting. Can you tell us how you did the lighting and/or post 5D shots with similar lighting so we can see how much difference can be had between the two?
Regards,
Eric
Great pics Frank. The colour and tone on your ZD back are excellent.
I am not seeing more 3D in those shots than the baby shot though. Since we are looking at web sized images, the greater resolution of the ZD isn't visible to us, so that may be the reason.
I think I'm more restrictive than most here with what I regard as 3D effect.
These portraits are wonderfully rich, detailed, and the lighting and exposure is masterful.
But they don't look 3D to me. None of them do. And as I've said many pages back, that is by no means a detractor from the quality of the photos. But a 3D effect is something different than what I'm seeing here, which is mainly exquisite photorealism and technical control. A 3D effect to me is the illusion that the subject is coming right off the paper (or out of the screen).
The only one of these portraits that approaches that specific effect for me is the baby, because it's the sharpest.
Again, they're all great -- but they don't meet my 3D threshold.
The lighting combined with that pitch black background pushes them to that 3D realm for me. They really pop off the screen. I think its that "richness" quality that some of us are seeing as a 3D effect. Likewise, if there was a large chome of these shots sitting on a light table, they would just come right at you.
I didn't shoot it for this thread, but this one is kind of interesting Doesn't seem to carry over onto a web-sized image quite as well as the large image does. I'm printing a 44inch wide print next week, to see how it looks nice and big.
DrPablo wrote:
I think I'm more restrictive than most here with what I regard as 3D effect.
These portraits are wonderfully rich, detailed, and the lighting and exposure is masterful.
But they don't look 3D to me. None of them do. And as I've said many pages back, that is by no means a detractor from the quality of the photos. But a 3D effect is something different than what I'm seeing here, which is mainly exquisite photorealism and technical control. A 3D effect to me is the illusion that the subject is coming right off the paper (or out of the screen).
The only one of these portraits that approaches that specific effect for me is the baby, because it's the sharpest.
Again, they're all great -- but they don't meet my 3D threshold....Show more →
I follow you a long way here. While the faces of the two boys have a nice 3D effect, the photos as such do not. There's simply nothing to relate the faces to, and the neutral black background is just that: neutral. It's up to the viewer to decide where to place it in the 3rd dimension.
A naturalistic background, with the right colours, lighting and blur, would have given a much more universal 3D effect, since it would have placed itself firmly in the background and the portraits in the foreground.
For me it is about the extent to which the eye is fooled into, or at any rate, can entertain the illusion that it is looking at a real object or space. Quite often photos fail to do this, even very sharp ones. I think it is the most important performance feature of any camera/lens system. It is the quality that allows one to forget photography and contemplate the subject itself.
DrP is right that it is an aspect of photorealism, but some aspects of photorealism, like textural sharpness or accurate colour are not enough to achieve the effect.
And I agree that Frank's talking baby shot seems to have as much, if not more 3D effect than the two portraits of boys.
DrPablo wrote:
I think I'm more restrictive than most here with what I regard as 3D effect.
These portraits are wonderfully rich, detailed, and the lighting and exposure is masterful.
But they don't look 3D to me. -snip-
Again, they're all great -- but they don't meet my 3D threshold.
Maybe not more restrictive, but we are all different. I have no problems seeing depth in the first "Boy portrait" by Frank. To my eyes it is 3D and the way my brain works I would say that from the chins and closer everything is in front of the monitor (or the paper perhaps).
I see depth. But depth does not equate to a 3D effect.
By 3D effect, I really expect to see a near optical illusion. Having depth is not enough for me. It's an experience I rarely have looking at online images.
In fact the one time I was completely swept away by it was at an exhibit of 40 or 50 original Ansel Adams prints. And it was mainly his 8x10 contact prints that did it, though some of his bigger enlargements had that effect too.
It was so powerful, so hypnotizing in this illusion of 3-dimensionality, that it has become a standard that few other things can live up to for me.
now I get it 
