This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009what is '3d' ?
p.1 #1what is '3d' ?
alot of people claim shots that are '3d' but i hardly ever see it (except for a few of Paul Yi's c/y 100/2 image samples)
does this have '3d' ?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2045/2312073234_694fd1bcba_b.jpg
does this have '3d' ?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2045/2312073234_694fd1bcba_b.jpg
Oct 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM
p.1 #3what is '3d' ?
"3-D" is essentially is the illusion of a palpable 3 dimensionality in a 2-D photographic image. It can't be "defined" quantitatively. It's how it looks. Basically, I know it when I see it.
Oct 28, 2009 at 10:28 AM
p.1 #4what is '3d' ?
It is quite rare to see it. It is the feeling that you can stick your hand in the photo and feel the real shape 
Your photo has depth, but not 3D feeling.
Your photo has depth, but not 3D feeling.Oct 28, 2009 at 10:59 AM
p.1 #5what is '3d' ?
It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.
It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.
Don't buy in to all the hype.
It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.
Don't buy in to all the hype.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM
p.1 #6what is '3d' ?
It's a subjective perception of recognizable depth in a photograph.
Subjective being the key adjective.
Subjective being the key adjective.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:17 AM
p.1 #7what is '3d' ?
Sam N wrote:
Don't buy in to all the hype.
Yes, do buy into all the hype, it is all it's cracked up to be
Sam, please show is a photo with lots of 3D from a lens which normally has none.
Don't buy in to all the hype.
Yes, do buy into all the hype, it is all it's cracked up to be
Sam, please show is a photo with lots of 3D from a lens which normally has none.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:23 AM
p.1 #8what is '3d' ?
Carsten - which lenses have it in your opinion? On Leica forums, all Leica lenses have it. Here, Leica lenses don't (in fact, they seem to lack any resemblance of it), but all Zeiss lenses have it.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM
p.1 #9what is '3d' ?
i see. so the lesson is just because one person sees it, they shouldn't expect others to see it as well.
lemme try to process it to have 3d tonight when i get home. i have a feeling that increasing saturation and sharpness of the donut while increasing shadow and contrast of the background would give what a few people would claim is a 3d effect.
the thing on the plate is a green tea donut i had at Mr. Donut while visiting tokyo. it was really tastey.
Edited on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:29 AM · View previous versions
lemme try to process it to have 3d tonight when i get home. i have a feeling that increasing saturation and sharpness of the donut while increasing shadow and contrast of the background would give what a few people would claim is a 3d effect.
the thing on the plate is a green tea donut i had at Mr. Donut while visiting tokyo. it was really tastey.
Edited on Oct 28, 2009 at 11:29 AM · View previous versions
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM
p.1 #10what is '3d' ?
Tim,
I don't think Leica lenses particularly have it, in general, although I will try to provoke it in the next little while, just to see. They have great subject isolation though. The two lenses which I often see it in are the Contax 35/1,4 (close up) and Contax 100/2 Planar. Lots of Zeiss lenses don't have it, at least that I have seen. My Hasselblad 110mm f/2 has it (a Zeiss lens), but then it is very similar to the 100/2 Planar.
The Leica S2 lenses seem to have it, although there are few samples so far.
I don't think Leica lenses particularly have it, in general, although I will try to provoke it in the next little while, just to see. They have great subject isolation though. The two lenses which I often see it in are the Contax 35/1,4 (close up) and Contax 100/2 Planar. Lots of Zeiss lenses don't have it, at least that I have seen. My Hasselblad 110mm f/2 has it (a Zeiss lens), but then it is very similar to the 100/2 Planar.
The Leica S2 lenses seem to have it, although there are few samples so far.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:27 AM
p.1 #11what is '3d' ?
Sam N wrote:
It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.
It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.
I totally agree with you, I think that lighting is the most important component to give that "3D feel"
It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.
It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.
I totally agree with you, I think that lighting is the most important component to give that "3D feel"
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM
p.1 #12what is '3d' ?
Andrea, do you have an example of 3D with a lens which isn't famous for it? A link to someone else's shot would be fine.
At some point, *someone* who claims that it is not dependent on the lens is going to have to put out. I am not against being convinced, but I have never seen it yet. All the best examples of 3D in that big thread are from lenses which are known for it.
At some point, *someone* who claims that it is not dependent on the lens is going to have to put out. I am not against being convinced, but I have never seen it yet. All the best examples of 3D in that big thread are from lenses which are known for it.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM
p.1 #13what is '3d' ?
Is this 3D? To me, it has some 3D-effect. But I might be wrong.
Oct 28, 2009 at 11:41 AM
p.1 #14what is '3d' ?
I am under the strict opinion that it really doesn't have much to do with the lens, but all to do with the situation as mentioned above (distance to subject, distance from subject to background, etc).
For example, here are (IMO) some VERY 3D-like shots (look how she "pops" off the screen) with a lens that is not known for it's "3D rendering" abilities.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3754720813_251b727818_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/3755521078_79a257f2b2_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3754720041_8a33960db5_o.jpg
For example, here are (IMO) some VERY 3D-like shots (look how she "pops" off the screen) with a lens that is not known for it's "3D rendering" abilities.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3754720813_251b727818_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/3755521078_79a257f2b2_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3754720041_8a33960db5_o.jpg
Oct 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM
p.1 #15what is '3d' ?
She definitely does pop out of the background, but I don't get much of a sense of what her actual form might be (although I can surely imagine it). In one or two of those shots she could even be a cutout, in front of the background. The sense of depth is something that many lenses can render, and IMO Leicas excel at this, but actual 3D feeling, less so.
I have to add that it seems to be very individualistic. Some people see 3D where others don't.
I have to add that it seems to be very individualistic. Some people see 3D where others don't.
Oct 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM
p.1 #16what is '3d' ?
I agree with those who have said that 3D image give you this feeling of space within the image. Theres images that pop, that has two planes that sort of work with each other (one being pushed out the other relegated to the background)... but then there's the 3D images that feel like there are seamless layers within the image itself (where the sense of space comes from).
I think DoF contributes to this when its rolling off slowly (from in focus to out of focus). But this doesn't explain why images with a tremendous amount of DoF are able to give a feeling of 3D too.
I think DoF contributes to this when its rolling off slowly (from in focus to out of focus). But this doesn't explain why images with a tremendous amount of DoF are able to give a feeling of 3D too.
Oct 28, 2009 at 01:01 PM
p.1 #17what is '3d' ?
I think this photo looks 3d to me.... it is not mine, it comes from cogitech using a Rokkor 58/1.2 as seen in the "Rokkor 58/1.2 love thread" https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/828743
if that's not 3d, can someone show me what is.
JimU, that donut is really weird, but I like the way it looks. Your photo isn't 3D, especially because no part of the donut is in sharp focus. Only the front part of the white plate is in focus.
if that's not 3d, can someone show me what is.
JimU, that donut is really weird, but I like the way it looks. Your photo isn't 3D, especially because no part of the donut is in sharp focus. Only the front part of the white plate is in focus.
Oct 28, 2009 at 01:05 PM
p.1 #18what is '3d' ?
I would suggest looking at some of Art Wolfe's work to get that 3d feeling, at least in IMHO.
Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1
Here is his gallery, wonderful stuff: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#mi=1&pt=0&pi=4
Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1
Here is his gallery, wonderful stuff: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#mi=1&pt=0&pi=4
Oct 28, 2009 at 02:01 PM
p.1 #19what is '3d' ?
James R wrote:
I would suggest looking at some of Art Wolfe's work to get that 3d feeling, at least in IMHO.
Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1π=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1
No offense to Art, but that doesn't even look like photography to me. It appears to have been created with "DAZ 3D - Bryce".
I would suggest looking at some of Art Wolfe's work to get that 3d feeling, at least in IMHO.
Here is one example: http://www.artwolfe.com/index.php#at=0&mi=2&pt=1π=10000&s=18&p=0&a=1
No offense to Art, but that doesn't even look like photography to me. It appears to have been created with "DAZ 3D - Bryce".
Oct 28, 2009 at 02:07 PM
p.1 #20what is '3d' ?
Spada, the image has a lot of depth to it, but what is it in the image whose shape your fingertips can almost feel, while looking at it? The depth is mostly caused by perspective, DoF, and so on. The 3D look is something else.
There is a thread on 3D here, with a few good examples:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/530337
The first shot for me with some 3D is the soapy baby on page 2. Several of the others have a great sense of depth, but no feeling of 3D form. With the baby's head, I can almost feel the roundness. The girl's portraits by Frank Doorhof on page 8 are also not bad for 3D. You get a real sense of the curvature of her forehead in the first shot. Then again, that is medium format for you.
Another page with some good examples, this time Richard's B&W portraits with the Contax 35/1,4:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/385342/113
There is a thread on 3D here, with a few good examples:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/530337
The first shot for me with some 3D is the soapy baby on page 2. Several of the others have a great sense of depth, but no feeling of 3D form. With the baby's head, I can almost feel the roundness. The girl's portraits by Frank Doorhof on page 8 are also not bad for 3D. You get a real sense of the curvature of her forehead in the first shot. Then again, that is medium format for you.
Another page with some good examples, this time Richard's B&W portraits with the Contax 35/1,4:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/385342/113
Oct 28, 2009 at 02:20 PM