Nill Toulme wrote:
Aw jeez Tad I didn't mean your shot — which I really like a lot and from which I don't think you should remove the branches at top. ;-)
It's just that whenever I hear "3D look" I think "cardboard cutouts oversharpening effect."
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Ditto. And just for the record, I don't think Tad's shot exhibits a mystical "3D effect", although I like it a lot.
To me, "3D look" and "film look" are empty phrases that are used the same way wine afficionados go on about a vintage having "hints of cinnamon pop-tarts and a nuance of slightly ripe pears that have been sitting on the counter for two days" or whatever. It's stuff that is used to describe intangibles about why someone likes an image that really has nothing to do with the camera at all.
Sheila's image, for example, is wonderful.. but if it looks "3D" it is because of the scene itself, not the camera.
charlesk wrote:
To me, "3D look" and "film look" are empty phrases that are used the same way wine afficionados go on about a vintage having "hints of cinnamon pop-tarts and a nuance of slightly ripe pears that have been sitting on the counter for two days" or whatever. It's stuff that is used to describe intangibles about why someone likes an image that really has nothing to do with the camera at all.
Sheila's image, for example, is wonderful.. but if it looks "3D" it is because of the scene itself, not the camera.
c
Yup, except that I will add that sometimes people use these phrases without any basis in an actual image (for instance, with respect to quick snapshot or test images), merely to pat themselves on the back for having excellent gear.
I think what we're calling 3D here are images that feature elements on several different planes to add plenty of depth.
Say there's a nice sunset on a beach: A novice photographer might just snap the sky and a bit of distant horizon, giving a '2D' flat image. A better photographer, may place an interesting seaweed-covered rock in the foreground, some rockpools in the middle distance and the sunset in the background. They may also select a wide-angle setting/lens to place further distance between the elements. Also important is what ratio of foreground-to-sky is chosen. More foreground produces a more tense, dramatic, vanishing-point effect, leading/speeding the eye towards the horizon, while a sky-heavy image will be feel calmer and relaxed.
charlesk wrote:
To me, "3D look" and "film look" are empty phrases that are used the same way wine afficionados go on about a vintage having "hints of cinnamon pop-tarts and a nuance of slightly ripe pears that have been sitting on the counter for two days" or whatever. It's stuff that is used to describe intangibles about why someone likes an image that really has nothing to do with the camera at all.
Although I would agree with the '3D look' part being intangible and based more on the scene than the camera, I do think that certain camera's files look more like film than others, regardless of the scene (especially B&W film). The original 1Ds stands out in my mind due to its rather unique luminance noise characteristics, which so many cameras since have apparently been engineered to avoid (via in-camera processing). The 1Ds' luminance noise more closely mimics film grain patterns than any other camera I've seen or used. Whether that's good or not is a personal thing; for me, leaving the luminance noise intact rendered exceptional detail, especially given its 'only' 11 MP.
The 3D-look from the photo is not seen by the eyes but by the brain.( the photo is on a good 2D plane, isn't it ) If the picture contains the hints, such as converging lines, far and near objects with familiar sizes, shadows, etc, your brain would perceive the 3D-ness.
ShutterLover wrote:
I think what we're calling 3D here are images that feature elements on several different planes to add plenty of depth.
+1, most of the 3D effect comes from composition, near / mid / far. 3Dness is further enhanced by rim / cross / natural lighting. Narrow DOF gives your subject pop, but not always 3D.
tcamper wrote:
Yeah, but your brain only processes information ,in this case, that it sees.....Even though it is on a two dimensional plane.
I think composition effects our "3D" perception much more than contrast, sharpness, color, let alone a lens or camera body.
Just my 2 cents.
Tad
Hmmm, you and I seem to say the same thing. Why the "BUT" necessary in your sentence ? This is what I said; "If the picture contains the hints, such as converging lines, far and near objects with familiar sizes, shadows, etc, your brain would perceive the 3D-ness"
While lighting, converging lines, DOF and object placement in the image can all contribute to the 3D effect of an image, I cannot dismiss the effect of certain lenses as others do. I owned a CZ21 for a while and nearly every image I shot with it had the 3D effect. The images are like looking through a window into a 3D world. Many of them seem as if you could climb right through into an alternate reality. When a lens produces this effect so nearly consistently, I can only conclude that it has something to do with the lens.
Pondria wrote:
The 3D-look from the photo is not seen by the eyes but by the brain.( the photo is on a good 2D plane, isn't it ) If the picture contains the hints, such as converging lines, far and near objects with familiar sizes, shadows, etc, your brain would perceive the 3D-ness.
And here is a good example of what you speak about. I posted this photo on the Nikon board. It was shot with a D200 with a Sigma 30 f/1.4. It is not a great shot but it certainly gives the sense of three dimensions. It was shot at f/1.4 in the middle of the day.
I think experience with lenses like the CZ lens that was mentioned lends a 3D effect that primarily has to do with microcontrast and the rendering of fine textural detail. This is perfectly fine for subjects in which that is an important element of the subject.
But it's entirely different from subjects in which directional lighting and composition play the chief role.
I tried this in that last thread on the subject, but no one participated -- but I offer again, I bet we can get plenty of 18-55 kit lens or 50 f/1.8 pictures with a majestic 3D effect if people want to post them.
I think that certain sensors tend to give different looks that don't have much to do with resolution or absolute sharpness. Nor do I think that the effect is particularly associated with depth, though pictures with sharp depth contrast can have the "pop" that the op was talking about. I certainly like the look of my 5D files compared with other camera look's taken of the same scenes in the same way that I used to love the different look of Kodachrome slide film.
) If the picture contains the hints, such as converging lines, far and near objects with familiar sizes, shadows, etc, your brain would perceive the 3D-ness. 