Lotusm50 wrote:
+1 The 2 people actually look more like flat cardboard cut-outs positioned in front of a background.
There's nothing more 2D than a tele shot from a few metres away. It flattens everything, and it doesnt matter if its a $50k lens straight out of the *ss of the Konig of Bavaria. Its a simple matter of perspective.
Spyro P. wrote:
There's nothing more 2D than a tele shot from a few metres away. It flattens everything, and it doesnt matter if its a $50k lens straight out of the *ss of the Konig of Bavaria. Its a simple matter of perspective.
brainiac wrote:
Really? My 200 f1.8 always delivers a great 3D look:
Yeah I know you call this 3D but we're talking about different things. To me this is flat with bokeh, same as the other photo above. Yours is sharper, has better light and subject and no jpeg artifacts, so its a much better photo overall, but I still cant tell from looking at the photo if the hand or the nose is closer to the camera.
When I said 2D above I mean looking at a photo and not being able to tell what is close and what is far, which happens the more you move away from your subject. Example:
Right photo taken with 24mm lens, left photo taken with 50mm lens from 2-3 steps back. If I moved a few more steps back and used a 200mm lens the cd cases would appear same size and next to each other, which is false, and what I call flat and 2D. Thats what I was talking about and its obviously not a property of specific lenses but a property of focal length (or to put it more accurately, the distance from subject that it commands). I still think it is relevant to the discussion though, as because of this tele lenses start with a disadvantage in rendering a photo with depth.
Didnt you have a photo of a guy from really close with a 35mm zeiss lens? That was 3D (because of the distance), but it was also unflattering because the guy's nose looked like it was going to pop out of the screen. Some things are better left 2D
Alf Beharie wrote:
To make a shot with good 3D-ness there are several variables:
1) You need a sharp lens...This is essential or the edges of your subject will simply blend into the background.
2) You need to use the right aperture...Stop down to much and you will lose 3D-ness as all the focal planes blend together.
3) You need to be a certain distance from your subject. This will vary on the focal length of the lens being used.
4) If possible you should ensure that the background is a good distance away behind your subject so allowing it to be thrown out of focus.
Simply resorting to using a fast lens and/or aperture will not guarentee 3D-ness as some of your subject may be out of focus and this will ruin the effect (your tea tree donut pic shows this problem).
One of the best lenses for 3D-ness IMO is the Carl Zeiss 180mm f2.8 "Olympic" Sonnar.
Heres a sample with really good 3D-ness taken with it...Its a reporter talking to the Mayor of Hanwell a Hanwell Carnival:
Have to go against the tide here, and say that to my eye, this picture definitely DOES have a three D effect. The faces perse, DO NOT themselves exhibit much dimensionality, but the picture taken as a whole definitely does. I see three very different levels of separation here, provided by, what I think, are three primary factors in creating the effect ......... color, brightness, and focus.
The two figures are clearly and crisply separated from the background spatially. Both color and DOF are at play here. Bright colors attract the eye, dark one's don't. The background is much darker than either of the figures, in effect, pushing the background farther back, and bringing the figures farther forware. The DOF provides additional spatial layer separation
Both foreground figures are brighter than the background, but the figure on the right is wearing a white collar, the brightest part in the picture, which pulls the eye and visually separates him from the center figure, in addition to the fact that he gives the impression of being slightly closer.
Yes, the lighting seems flat, dulling any three D modeling effect on the faces themselves, and other parts of the shot. But I definitely see three very separate spatially different layers in the photo ......... background, center figure, and rights rigure, which definitely give a sense of dimension to my eye.
hfillmore wrote:
Have to go against the tide here, and say that to my eye, this picture definitely DOES have a three D effect. The faces perse, DO NOT themselves exhibit much dimensionality, but the picture taken as a whole definitely does. I see three very different levels of separation here, provided by, what I think, are three primary factors in creating the effect ......... color, brightness, and focus.
The two figures are clearly and crisply separated from the background spatially. Both color and DOF are at play here. Bright colors attract the eye, dark one's don't. The background is much darker than either of the figures, in effect, pushing the background farther back, and bringing the figures farther forware. The DOF provides additional spatial layer separation
Both foreground figures are brighter than the background, but the figure on the right is wearing a white collar, the brightest part in the picture, which pulls the eye and visually separates him from the center figure, in addition to the fact that he gives the impression of being slightly closer.
Yes, the lighting seems flat, dulling any three D modeling effect on the faces themselves, and other parts of the shot. But I definitely see three very separate spatially different layers in the photo ......... background, center figure, and rights rigure, which definitely give a sense of dimension to my eye. ...Show more →
I think we aren't disagreeing here, just use the terms somewhat differently. I use the term '3D' only when I get a real sense of being able to "feel" the shape of the objects or some object in the photo. In this photo, I get a sense of depth, but I don't get the feel of any shape. Everything in the photo could be a cutout. In fact, the two gentlemen in the photo don't even have a clear depth-relationship. The guy on the left could easily be talking to someone standing in front of the guy on the right, but outside the photo.
pdmphoto wrote:
Sorry, but I have to agree on this one. I have seen some good 3d shots from the Canon 200/1.8's, but this isn't one of them.
I also agree. I don't feel any shape in this photo. In fact, in the comparison photos of the same girl (your girlfriend, Richard?), one with the 50L, one with the 200/1,8, I also don't really see any 3D in the 200/1,8 shot. Maybe it is just because of the small size of the image on my screen.
carstenw wrote:
I think we aren't disagreeing here, just use the terms somewhat differently. I use the term '3D' only when I get a real sense of being able to "feel" the shape of the objects or some object in the photo. In this photo, I get a sense of depth, but I don't get the feel of any shape. Everything in the photo could be a cutout. In fact, the two gentlemen in the photo don't even have a clear depth-relationship. The guy on the left could easily be talking to someone standing in front of the guy on the right, but outside the photo....Show more →
Yes. I agree with Carsten completely. There is "depth" separating the figures from the background but there are no 3-D qualities as I use the term. 3-D in this context means the ability to convincingly and palpably convey the illusion of 3-D dimensional form in the 2-D image. The 2 figures here are very flat and do not give the impression of 3-Dimensional form, shape or mass.
This, to me, epitomizes a very flat, 2D look. Some of the images you have shown with in the previous thread are much better "3D" examples. I'm thinking of the close shot of a man taken with your 35 1.4 and the girl jumping on the trampoline.
weezintrumpete wrote:
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.
WT21 wrote:
That first pic. How do you get that? Is it technique, pp or equipment? I take nice shots, but this kind of "3D effect" definitely eludes me.
I dont see any 3D effect with the above image...Looks totally 2D to me as it has no depth.
I posted this image as an example of Zeiss 21 sharpness, but it's a good one
for the "3D look". It's f13, no depth of field trick which has nothing to do
with 3D effect. It's more of a combination of contrast and color rendering.
snowboarder wrote:
I posted this image as an example of Zeiss 21 sharpness, but it's a good one
for the "3D look". It's f13, no depth of field trick which has nothing to do
with 3D effect. It's more of a combination of contrast and color rendering.
Nice example. It certainly shows the typical Zeiss contrast. The direction of the light also plays an important role in creating the texture and dimension of the rocks n this shot. Then you have the warm lighting/color of the rocks contrasted against the blue of the water (warm colors advancing, cool colors-and white - retreating).
