Philber, I wouldn't say my argument was scientific either but just something I noticed after looking at a lot of "3D" images. Two other things I've noticed:
1. The larger you can view the image, the easier it is to see the effect. I think others have mentioned this.
2. For a given size image, viewing it on this site or Flickr diminishes the effect as opposed to opening it with a viewer on my desktop. Not sure if it's a color space issue or what. Any ideas?
siriusdogstar ... Separating subject from fore and background (in whatever manner achieved) presents its own attributes to help draw the viewers eye. That separation, while it may very well accompany & enhance an image ... it isn't the creation of the sense of 'Form'
Beverly makes a very nice pic for this weeks WA that has good color contrast separation from the background, but the subject still doesn't exhibit a 3D-ish 'Form'
Lotusm50 wrote:
Bifurcator -- Like I said, go review the thread. There is evidence of everything I've said. It has nothing to do with "wanting" to see it or not. That is insulting. I am quite capable of looking at an image objectively and dispassionately and assess its qualities.
I still think you are confusing 2 different qualities, or you just don't get it. 3D has nothing to do with depth separation in an image, and has nothing to do with either the "placement" or amount of DOF. You've given me NO evidence that it does, and the collection of images in this thread proves that it doesn't.
If you can't or won't see this, I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you any longer. You've got your mind made up and stuck in a preconceived notion and can't see past it. Good luck.
Oh, and tapping your finger at someone, "patiently" or otherwise (it is implicitly an impatient act), is rude....Show more →
Well this is troll bait. I think I'll not have any today but thank you for the offer. The level of self contradiction, belligerent denial, non-participation, and name calling has become embarrassing brash at this point. Kinda takes all the fun out of what's supposed to be a friendly discussion. Additionally it makes it impossible to actually discuss further with you. Bummer, I was having fun.
RustyBug wrote:
I took the tapping more as a friendly 'gauntlet thrown' in its presented context ...
although I could see it being misinterpreted (easy to do in text only form).
Yep, a little gauntlet throwing, a little eager anticipation. Sorry to anyone if it came off as otherwise.
100% crop
[_IMAGE_]
I realize there is some background blurring that would suggest DOF is present (duh) ...
but it is NOT the DOF that is creating the '3D-ish illusion' of form around the pin / latch on the scissors.
To me it's DOF with texture detail (local contrast} and tone variation (including color contrast) in for the assist on that play. I guess the shot is easy enough to reshoot without any DOF (like at F22 or more) in order to find out.
BTW ... this is a 2.9 in my book
Unless the viewers are seamstresses and tailors. Then it's a strong 8. IMO anyway. The 3D-ish pop is good and increases over time as I allow myself to become enveloped in/by the scene. It also doesn't produce that mental snap-shock which I get from looking at images containing an extreme flatness (very narrow DOF) and/or DOF blur amount.
siriusdogstar wrote:
has anyone mentioned color contrast in separating 3-D subject from fore and background?
Yeah, I mentioned it in #7 on this page and again just above. I think I remember it being mentioned some number of pages back as well. It certainly assists the affect. Lighting too to some degree BTW.
I'll take a 'strong 8' ... I just generically refer to my near misses as 2.9s (i.e. 2.9D is .1D less than 3D) ... thanks.
Maybe I will reshoot stopped down, although stopping down too much introduces diffraction, which may reduce some of the micro contrast that seems to be critical to getting the 3D-ish look ... could be a bit of a catch 22 ?? on this one ... let me think about how I want to approach it ... now where DID I leave that tilt adapter for Oly-EOS?
Well, I am with Lotus. 3D has little to do with DoF. DoF gives a sense of depth, which is of course also a 3D effects in a way, but what I see in Richard's Contax 35mm f/1.4 portraits has less to do with a sense of depth, and everything to do with a feeling of shape in the image. I see no 3D in the (otherwise great) couple swinging a kid in a field of dead leaves shot, nor in the moth shot. Both of those could have been a carefully printed poster placed in the middle of an environment.
To me, if there is no feeling of shape, there is no 3D, regardless of how much depth the DoF properties of the shot makes me aware of.
The whole tapping fingers discussion is ridiculous, please drop it.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Since not my own images I'll just link to page where there are two images which are '3d' but have everything sharp: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/785634/1
- cogitech's classic castle shot at writing #4
- bobring's cityscape with some tables & chairs in front area of picture at writing #21
I didn't find many of my own, which would not have used DOF as part of '3d', and don't have really good examples. I have shoot past years mainly with normal lens and short tele lenses, and I'm trying to leard wide angle lenses and large DOF.
OK, I see what you're seeing. That's an expanded definition from what's been discussed so far in this thread. I (and I think art and science educates too) call that perspective - which has to do with viewing angle, angle of view, composition, and focal length. In your example and the ones you linked to, the richness of the images are additionally assisted by micro-contrast (textures) and tonal variation.
For me these don't have that 3D-ish pop effect that comes from being able to "place" one's self in the image at only one point. Literally, no matter where my eyes focus within the perspective view I'm always immersed in the scene. I'm not saying this can't also be called "3D". I mean, as long as DOF is being called that then why not?
I'm going to go with the traditional definitions and descriptions of these image properties while accepting everyone else's right to accept an alternate (seemingly exclusive) interpretation. It's kinda weird in a very interesting way for me to watch this though. The feeling is akin to sitting in a class where the teacher directs the students to remove a page from their dictionaries and replace it with something she wrote on the board hurriedly. We're constantly redefining the nuances of our perceived realities I just like it better when those redefinitions are based on existing definitions is all - especially when those definitions are accompanied by working toolsets.
Nice image BTW!
carstenw wrote:
To me, if there is no feeling of shape, there is no 3D, regardless of how much depth the DoF properties of the shot makes me aware of.
I agree. DOF will have no affect at all when photographing an evenly lit mono-chromatic featureless surface or scene (ei. no shape). Like a perfectly blue cloudless sky will look the same no matter the aperture size, and in this example neither will the focus point, focal length, or any other aspects of perspective view have any affect.
I dunno if everyone can "get into" these or not but here's two more from me that may hold some mystique of a 3D-ish nature for the viewer:
carstenw wrote:
Well, I am with Lotus. 3D has little to do with DoF. DoF gives a sense of depth, which is of course also a 3D effects in a way, but what I see in Richard's Contax 35mm f/1.4 portraits has less to do with a sense of depth, and everything to do with a feeling of shape in the image. I see no 3D in the (otherwise great) couple swinging a kid in a field of dead leaves shot, nor in the moth shot. Both of those could have been a carefully printed poster placed in the middle of an environment.
To me, if there is no feeling of shape, there is no 3D, regardless of how much depth the DoF properties of the shot makes me aware of....Show more →
I agree. There are shots which differentiate strongly between the focussed plane and the unfocussed planes and yet the focussed plane seems to be entirely flat even though the focussed object can't have been. The 3D effect I am looking for in my lenses isn't anything to do with differential focus. It's all about whether the focussed object or space appear to contain depth, which can only be an illusion in a 2D medium. Some lenses seem to have a strong tendency to create this impression and some don't. Once you know what you are looking for you can identify it by comparison, and choose it by preference.
Leica lenses can produce all the DOF variations one wants, including ultra-thin (how thin can it get with a f:0.95 lens ?). This does not help them, as a general observation, generate a strong "3D" effect. Zeiss, as a general rule, do not defocus the background as much as some others, yet are credited with, generally, strong "3D". This should put to rest the theory that "3D" is all about DOF and background separation.
In order to contain "focused depth", as so aptly described IMHO by Richard, the lens has to capture micro-changes in shape and colour so as to reproduce a gradual transition. A lens that has less definition in this respect will reproduce a more brutal transition. In this case, the viewer would see more delineation, more separation, but less "3D". If that micro-information is not there, no amount of PP can bring it back, unless this old dog (me) needs to learn new tricks. Just my 2 cents.
I agree but to me that doesn't put anything to rest - rather it reenforces everything I've been saying. Hmm, maybe I'm not saying it right. Hmm, Oh well.
Well, let's take an example: the moth shot. You said that shot had lots of 3D, I think it has none. It has a great sense of depth, but almost zero feeling of shape. The moth could be a flat cutout, and the wall is really flat. There is some feeling of texture, and lots of "pop", but no 3D shape, just the shape of the moth against the background. All IMO.
How would you describe the 3D you see in that shot?
Maybe our vocabulary is just different. I use 3D *only* about the feeling of shape, not about depth.
Some photographers have become adept at producing 3d images; the correct conditions "pop" for them when they look over a scene -- angle, lighting, perspective, "feel", all the factors we're trying to define as 3d. If that is correct then can any lens produce 3d?
Reality 3d uses two eyes and a brain to superimpose the two images; stereoscopic vision is 3d by definition.
Revealing experiment: make a frame with hands, close one eye, and look through the frame. 3d? why? the brain easily fills in 3d visual cues.
I think Visual Illusions present in 2d image produce 3d visual cues. (resource: http://www.visualillusion.net/ ). We know about macro and micro contrast; color layering is also a factor. still studying...
I also think the less the brain has to work to fill in using 3d cues, the more widely the image is perceived as 3d. Corollary, the brain has to work harder to see 3d in an unreal image, such as 16x20 fly.
I wonder how lens' telecentricity affects 3d. (telecentric refers to maintaining dimensions of objects front-to-back of dof).
I wonder how lens' telecentricity affects 3d. (telecentric refers to maintaining dimensions of objects front-to-back of dof).
The more orthographic the projection the less depth - where contrasting lines and recognizable curves play a part in the composition. That's geometric shape. A telecentric lens is a compound lens which has its entrance or exit pupil at infinity. DOF Blur to me is the foundation for this effect that people are calling "3D". Earlier a link was offered to a castle shot by cogitech (pictured just below) as an example that for Samuli Vahonen has this "3D" attribute. To me it shows the opposite and I see no 3D-ishness at all - as is being discribed and exemplified in this thread.
How would you describe the 3D you see in that shot?
Maybe our vocabulary is just different. I use 3D *only* about the feeling of shape, not about depth.
Your description of my image perfectly describes the majority of images in this thread where people are agreeing that they can "really see the 3D". There are a few like the thread spool above where the object itself also contain "depth cues" (DOF/Shading) and where that depth contrasts (seems out of phase) with the BG and/or FG depth the 3D-ishness is even more apparent (according to those who have commented on the images in this thread).
A good example of this is the "happy couple swinging Junior" shot. Perfectly paper flat people with no focus depth at all in the midst of an almost racked looking shot (Racking is a filmographers and cinematographers term for faking or creating depth and/or parallax motion by layering and blurring multiple layers or footage.). I literally feel as though I could reach into that image and peal the flat people out of the scene just like pealing a sticker off of a large backing.
My brain recognizes two conflicting aspects immediately. The first is the DOF - my eyes can't naturally produce that DOF if I were in the scene myself in place of the camera so I want to reject what I'm seeing but the lines (tree line and vertical trunks) and recognizable curves (the contour of the ground) are perfectly recognizable and realistic. This confusion or "mental conflict" is the first and most critical component in designating an image as being "3D" - from what I'm understanding from people using and describing "3D" as an image aspect. This foundational (to being "3D") aspect of an image is 100% reliant on DOF and focus point within a real and recognizable scene. So I draw from this that it's all about DOF and things like micro-contrast, Bokeh, color contrast, lighting, and subject geometry while important to enhancing the overall affect (either by creating more brain conflicts or adding to the reality) are just assistants to the DOF in producing what I think people mean when they say "3D'. In this image the Bokeh is granular where my eyes are not and the lighting on the people doesn't match the scene in terms of highlights and color contrast == more brain conflicts == more assistance to the DOF "3D-ishness".
Here's Bruce Sawle's image again - the one I'm describing above.
Bifurcator wrote:
Your description of my image perfectly describes the majority of images in this thread where people are agreeing that they can "really see the 3D". There are a few like the thread spool above where the object itself also contain "depth cues" (DOF/Shading) and where that depth contrasts (seems out of phase) with the BG and/or FG depth the 3D-ishness is even more apparent (according to those who have commented on the images in this thread).
A good example of this is the "happy couple swinging Junior" shot. Perfectly paper flat people with no focus depth at all in the midst of an almost racked looking shot (Racking is a filmographers and cinematographers term for faking or creating depth and/or parallax motion by layering and blurring multiple layers or footage.). I literally feel as though I could reach into that image and peal the flat people out of the scene just like pealing a sticker off of a large backing....Show more →
I suppose then that we are really dealing with two schools of thought regarding the definition of 3D, because nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote, yet you used the term 3D in a situation where I would not have.
The feeling of being able to reach into an image I describe as having depth, and any lens could do that under the right circumstances. In particular, Leica and Zeiss lenses can do that equally well.
What I describe as 3D is the feeling of being able to reach into a photo and feel the shape of some object in it (a non-flat object, otherwise the two definitions collapse into one). Richard's close-up Contax 35mm f/1.4 portraits give me that feeling of being able to feel the roundness of the subject's cheek, for example.
A third concept is that of texture. An example would be the feeling of being able to reach into a shot and feel the roughness of a wall, or of stubble.
All three concepts require good lenses though. A little smearing or poor micro-contrast can ruin them all.
The three for me are orthogonal, i.e. completely separate and at least in theory, independent. A shot may contain one, two or three of the above independently of each other.
I find that people often label shots having depth as being 3D, although this is not how I describe them. However, the people who I know around here with most experience and knowledge (doesn't mean that I am right, of course, just that I feel that I have some support in my opinion) consistently do not "mix" depth and 3D-ness in that way.
With respect to the image posted immediately before this post, I would say that it has depth and texture but no 3d.
If I understand your general meaning properly I agree that the three descriptions (and more) are or can be independent. But none of the others alone (for me) sync up with the descriptions and images being offered up "3D" - In each example DOF has been the foundational attribute - or other viewers had trouble designating them as being "3D". Well, except recently when Samuli Vahonen subjectively expanded the definition. I 'm personally not seeing that though.
As to jcmarney's shot here, I can get into it. If there was just a little more detail on the surface of the nettles and branch it would have even more "3D-isness".
We have? I missed it. Sorry about that. But actually all of the definitions for "3D" as presented here in this thread are new and unprecedented - in the scheme of things. I think that's part of the problem - for me anyway. It's all in good fun though. I don't mean "problem" as in an actual problem. Wait, did that make sense?
Bifurcator wrote:
We have? I missed it. Sorry about that. But actually all of the definitions for "3D" as presented here in this thread are new and unprecedented - in the scheme of things. I think that's part of the problem - for me anyway. It's all in good fun though. I don't mean "problem" as in an actual problem. Wait, did that make sense?
Subjects look like they could be peeled, yet subjects themselves have no 3d qualities, they look flat.
Ack, now nothing looks 3d to me
Just like when a photography book informed me I might not see skylight, but the camera does. Now I see the blue-colored skylight lighting as the camera sees it...
siriusdogstar wrote:
Corollary, the brain has to work harder to see 3d in an unreal image, such as 16x20 fly.
I agree that our brains 'pre-programmed' sense of perspective may come into play here.
I have had images that I shot intending to achieve some 3D-ish and come away with a "Man, that didn't turn out the way I wanted it to." But, THEN, when I cropped in on the image ... the 3D-ish came alive in a way that was "Now, that's more like it."
Not always a full 3D-ish, but at least improved to a 2.9D-ish, hence my thinking that the brain's perspective is involved as well ... not to take away from all the other necessary photographic attributes, but a part of that 'system' approach ... which could be why some people see it, when others don't ... my .02
The level of self contradiction, belligerent denial, non-participation, and name calling has become embarrassing brash at this point. Kinda takes all the fun out of what's supposed to be a friendly discussion. Additionally it makes it impossible to actually discuss further with you. Bummer, I was having fun.
