Lotusm50 wrote:
I think we know, intuitively, what a "3D look" is. Like pornography, I know it when I see it. ;-)
No, we don't. I read that big thread. Very few people could agree on what it was. For some it was simply shallow depth of field. For others it had something to do transitions from the in focus to out of focus images. Then there were those who claimed it in images which were shot at smaller apertures and didn't even really have a blurred background. Some thought it had to do with sharpening. Some though it had to do with lighting. Etc.
I've read people who think only Leica lenses have it. I've read some who think only Leica lenses DON'T have it. Zeiss has it, no this has it, no that has it.
I think it is far too general to speak of any "Zeiss look". I have used lots of them, and to me there are at least three distinct Zeiss "looks" which correspond to the major design types; Planar, Sonnar, and Distagon (Tessar is less distinct, to me).
Of these types, I have only ever really liked Distagon in its ultimate form (the 21) and the Sonnar 135/2.8 and 100/3.5.
The "Planar look" has never been one I liked much. The 85/1.4 in particular. The 100/2 certainly can produce some nice photos, but maybe that's all anyone ever shows us. Something tells me it is capable of some pretty edgy "electrified" bokeh.
With respect to colour, the only two similar Zeiss's I've owned are the Distagon 21/2.8 and 28/2.8. All the rest had their own personality. Some showing a tendency to bluish greens and muted reds ((85/1.4 Planar, 60 Makro), some very neutral, some warmer, like the 135/2.8 Sonnar...
So, no, I can't agree that there is a single "Zeiss look". In fact, there is much more of a "Minolta look" or "Leica look" than there is a "Zeiss look", IMO. Those two companies made a serious effort to make their lens lines draw very similarly and it is quite obvious to me that Zeiss did not. I guess the Zeiss lenses all had two primary goals; resolution and contrast. This may account for what so many people call the "Zeiss look", but I think there ought to be much more to a lens line's "look" than these two attributes.
kidtexas wrote:
No, we don't. I read that big thread. Very few people could agree on what it was. For some it was simply shallow depth of field. For others it had something to do transitions from the in focus to out of focus images. Then there were those who claimed it in images which were shot at smaller apertures and didn't even really have a blurred background. Some thought it had to do with sharpening. Some though it had to do with lighting. Etc.
I've read people who think only Leica lenses have it. I've read some who think only Leica lenses DON'T have it. Zeiss has it, no this has it, no that has it. ...Show more →
I agree. I'm at the point where I can make any lens "have it". It has far more to do with a combination of what you've mentioned above than it does with any lens manufacturer.
I think it has to do with the transition and how sharp the in focus portion of the photo is and its relation to the out of focus area. From looking over lots of images on Flickr, I really see the 3D effect strongly in Medium Format images.
bluetsunami wrote:
I think it has to do with the transition and how sharp the in focus portion of the photo is and its relation to the out of focus area. From looking over lots of images on Flickr, I really see the 3D effect strongly in Medium Format images.
The key is for most of the subject to be in focus... to "wrap the focus around the subject" and then for the DoF to fall off quickly enough to lift the subject out of the frame. Any proper combination of focal length, distance, aperture, lighting and background distance will do it. Having a "sharp" lens certainly helps, and presenting the photo properly (whether on screen or in print) can dramatically affect the impact of this effect.
kidtexas wrote:
No, we don't. I read that big thread. Very few people could agree on what it was. For some it was simply shallow depth of field. For others it had something to do transitions from the in focus to out of focus images. Then there were those who claimed it in images which were shot at smaller apertures and didn't even really have a blurred background. Some thought it had to do with sharpening. Some though it had to do with lighting. Etc.
We actually agree, but I think we're getting mixed-up on what we mean with the words we use. "Shallow depth of field" is not what "3D Look" is, per se. That would be one of the possible ways in which it might be achieved. What "3D Look" is, is merely an image that looks as if it is three dimensional.
As I indicated, I know what it is, but I an unsure how 3D look is achieved -- whether it be by shallow depth of field, or out of focus transitions, sharpening, lighting or whatever. It is intuitive and perceived by the mind without explicit analysis. Like I said, I know it when I see it, and we agree that it is not clear how a particular lens achieves the effect of making images look 3 dimensional.
Oh I wasn't saying we are disagreeing or agreeing. I don't think I've ever defined what the 3D look is, if some lenses have it, or anything.
I was just saying that if you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers as to what it is. Which means there are going to be probably 10 different ways on how to achieve it.
And yes, some people, not me, were saying the 3D look is achieved with a big telephoto and shallow depth of field. I just prefer to call that shallow depth of field.
Since we're having trouble defining the 3D look, wouldn't a comparison help to clear it up a little? Can someone post two identical shots, one with a Zeiss and one with a different brand at the same focal length and aperture?
I was debating posting this image in this thread (for the 3D look) but it was not taken with a Zeiss lens. It was taken with my Canon EF 50/1.4 on a Rebel XT. I increased the Field of View by taking a bunch of different frames and stitching them together in a pano software. A single Frame is the general area of his face (the image was 1:1 ratio and was cropped to portrait)....
I agree with cogitech's post about the DoF being wrapped around the in focus object/subject which is happening here with the subjects head. If there was more contrast and objects in general within the background, the 3D effect would probably be more pronounced.
I don't think can we actually "define" what the 3D look is -- other than to say that the image appears 3 dimensional in effect.
I think what is at issue here is what is it about certain lenses that seem to be more prone to creating a 3D look, what causes a 3D look, and/or what are the factors responsible for it.
A comparison of images taken with different lenses might be useful the illustrate the extent to which the different lenses can or can not create a 3D look.
Of course, this thread is about a "Zeiss look", which users claim to include 3 dimensionality (among other qualities) and is illustrated by a number of the images posted.
We had that great thread from April 2007 about 3D look. Andi, I think, started it asking where that 3D look comes from...
Now if I recall everything correctly there were, more ore less, some consensus about shallow DOF (but not mandatory), good microcontrast, the right colors (warm for the sharp part, darker and/or cooler for the background) and of course a motif offering something to work with.
Please note my memory is like an old fading cheap print from the 70's these days.
cogitech wrote:
The key is for most of the subject to be in focus... to "wrap the focus around the subject" and then for the DoF to fall off quickly enough to lift the subject out of the frame.
"wrap the focus around the subject"
"lift the subject out of the frame"
I like these two descriptions, because this is what makes images appear more 3D to my eyes, that kind of "layered" effect, which isn't limited to just the subject (but is strongest there).
For me, an image is 3D if its various parts appear to be layered on top of each other, with some distance or depth (not DoF; rather more like physical distance) in between the layers. Zeiss lenses seem to have the ability to "pull apart" the various distances in a photograph, presenting them more like individual, overlapping layers. Maybe it's because of Zeiss' strong contrast. Dunno. But the effect is there more so than other lenses I've shot with.
edit: Richard's image represents what I'm trying to explain. There are four layers there: nose, eyes, ears, everything in behind. And the transition between the layers is such that they appear to be further apart than they actually are. This could be explained by a whole bunch of factors (ex. focal length, aperture, etc.), but I bet a different 35/1.4 wouldn't look quite as 3D.
I've never, ever been able to see the 3D look so attributed to Zeiss till it got to this thread and I'm seeing pictures jumping out of my screen every second!
Is there no Zeiss 50mm that is good at f1.8 and stopped down as well as good bokeh throughout?
Anyone got any N 100mm (I can't do manual focus, screwed up eyes) portraiture work to share? Is MF using focus assist actually useable with a very well calibrated 5D?
Its really, really hard to accurately describe what the 3d look really is, I myself had a hard time believing it. Now that i've gotten myself a zf 35/2, i'm noticing that my images have a certain pop to them (and no, this isn't me trying to justify an expensive lens, I also purchased a mint nikkor 35/1.4 a while back and never noticed that same pop with it)
One of the most 3D shots on the old 3D thread was a hyperfocal shot of bluebells in a wood. Everything was in focus, but it still had that unmistakable sense that you could reach into the image and pluck one. I don't know why everyone keeps thinking it's something to do with differential focus. I have used lenses which are masters of differential focus, but don't produce a noticeable 3D look. Leave differential focus out of it. Some lenses make the scene look 3 dimensional even when everything is in focus.
Lenses like the ZF 35 f2 and Contax 100 f2 produce 3D effect pretty much without fail, close-up, or at infinity, shut down or wide open. You just can't miss. Every time someone posts a shot from those two it leaps out at you. Compare the ZF 35 to a Leica R 35 f2, even in cheap 6x4" prints from a shoddy lab, and you can see that one lens has a much stronger tendency to make a scene look 3D. It really is in the lenses. That's my experience, and it's the first thing I look for when testing a lens, because I think it makes pictures more exciting, interesting and immersive to look at. I'm not saying only the CZ travel agency can take you there, after all, a Rokkor has pretty good 3D too, but the CZ lenses have more than their fair share of this quality. It almost looks deliberate ;-)
I agree with the peeps who associate 3D look with micro contrast. Cogitech's popular shot of the castle building in the middle of the lake (made with Distagon 21mm) has everything in focus but it still 'pops' at you as if you were looking out of the window, so thin DOF around the object is not a prerequisite for 3D feel.
But that's not all I guess, micro contrast alone will improve edge contrast and determine where the object stands out of or blends in with the rest of the scene (could be the background or the surroundings), but some Leica lenses do have amazing amount of micro-contrast (seen from the tonality of foliage shots) yet still fail to reproduce that dimensional look Zeiss lenses seem to be born with. So there must be something else at play here.
I'm glad you piped in brainiac. You were the one I was thinking of as the strong champion against "shallow DOF = 3D". If I recall, you liked how the edge of the almost in-focus areas had a darker halo around them? In your shot at the top of the page, I'm talking about the area where the man's lower right jaw (left in the picture) meets the background.
I can see where shallow DOF, where the subject is in focus but everything else is out by just the right amount can be interpreted as 3D looking. The table shot 2 posts above is a perfect example. In my mind, it's very similar to the effect you get with tilt-shift lenses to induce the miniature look.
BUT, I don't think that's what some people are talking about by the 3D effect. If it was, all you'd need is the right focal length, the right subject distance, and the right aperture. And we wouldn't have to separate the 3D effect from DOF effects.
I've also seen some people refer to lighting as being integral. I think that was mentioned here in this thread too. Nice strong warm light on the subject, possibly from the side, darker background, etc.
By the way, if you poke around the internet, you find a lot of Leica users claim their lenses have the 3D look when others don't. I thought this explanation was funny: linky link.
Now, if you had to press me, I would guess that it has something to do with local contrast/sharpness cues. This is something that lenses obviously have an impact on, BUT so does sharpening (which is just increasing local contrast), lighting, DOF, and the scene contrast. There's a lot of variables there. Maybe some lenses are better at this (read: better designed lenses that have good macro and micro contrast and are well corrected), but there are still a ton of other factors which can conspire to give you or not give you this 'look'.
I'm still not really seeing it though. I'd like to see the same scene shot with two different lenses so you could point it out to me Otherwise, it's like Leica 'glow'. What is that? As far as I'm concerned, the EF 50/1.4 has tons of Leica glow wide open, and I can't say that I like it. Call it for what it is - lower contrast and flaring.
Richard and Leon make good points. There definitely are shots with everything in focus which do show the "3D-effect", and more often than not it is Zeiss lenses that do it.
I think they might also agree that the 3D effect can be conjured up through pure technique, and that a proper combination of selective focus, resolution, contrast, subject-camera-background distance can certainly provide this effect.
I'm willing to concede that some of these Zeiss lenses make it far more likely to get the 3D effect "by accident", but I think other factors cannot simply be dismissed.
Otherwise, it's like Leica 'glow'. What is that? As far as I'm concerned, the EF 50/1.4 has tons of Leica glow wide open, and I can't say that I like it. Call it for what it is - lower contrast and flaring.