Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 11

13 14 15 end

Archive 2009 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

wimg
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #1 · p.12 #1 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Hi Dan,

The simple bit was really about my first statement

. Indeed, nothing to do with lens or body per se. I guess I could have made it more clear that the simple bit was that first statement

. And to a large extent we say the same thing, from that POV.

However, I do think that choices of tools, apart from composition etc., may make a contribution, because of the way things are rendered differently. I also do think, that this doesn't mean you can just go and get a specific body-lens combination and be assured of this 3D-effect. Essentially, getting a 3D-effect which is viewed as such by many people, but not necessarily all, is hard work, by the photographer, with all of his or her talent and equipment, including the stuff back where the images get processed and/or printed.

It is just that good tools do help, and I was thinking out aloud which and what that could be. So do camera and lens help? I think they may, even though they do not create the 3D effect unaided. I noticed a considerable improvement in the quality of my files when going from 40D to 5D, so there must be something in this, at least for me

. The same with the glass I selected for specific purposes. This all helps in the process of getting better images, and AFAIAC, as a consequence, to me also in getting 3D-like images. Of course, this may wel be different for every single photog out there, none of us are the same, and we all do things differently.

I do think that the single most significant effect on the creation of a 3D effect, other than the photographer's visualisation and lighting skills, is the way an image is PP-ed.

BTW, I am glad it was worth more than 2c, especially with the way prices are rising and all that

.

Kind regards, Wim

gdanmitchell wrote:
Wimg...

If it takes 12 paragraphs in the forum it probably isn't "simple," and it is at least 13 cents worth... ;-)

I do think it could be, uh, simpler?

What some people like to refer to as "3D effect" is some subjective sense of depth in the photograph that suggests to them that objects that are not in the same plane or a narrow range of distances. Objective things that contribute to this subjective impression include DOF choices, focal length choices, composition choices, elements of composition and form, color and texture juxtapositions, differences in luminosity of several types, and perhaps more.

I...Show more →

Nov 29, 2009 at 08:49 PM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #2 · p.12 #2 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Can we "collect" all images so far posted in this thread, that seems to exhibit the "3D Effect"? Maybe we can see some kind of pattern - maybe it's all Alt lenses, maybe it's all Pro bodies.

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:26 PM

pingflood
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #3 · p.12 #3 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

saaketham wrote:
Can we "collect" all images so far posted in this thread, that seems to exhibit the "3D Effect"? Maybe we can see some kind of pattern - maybe it's all Alt lenses, maybe it's all Pro bodies.

I'll toss a couple in here (posted in the alt thread) since I feel somewhat responsible for this whole mess with that off-handed comment about "3D" on that fateful thread... For the record, both with 1Ds2 and Zuikos (first 24/2.8, second 50/1.8). I have my 1Ds2 and a 50D, and the 1Ds2 + Zuikos (24, 28, 35 and 50) seems to generate the "3d look" more often than not, while I don't have a single shot from the 50D like that.

http://beyondthematrix.com/VH0M8473.jpg

http://beyondthematrix.com/VH0M8320.jpg

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:30 PM

Tri Tran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #4 · p.12 #4 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Hi Pingflood, I do not see any 3D with your second image. The first one does though.

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:33 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #5 · p.12 #5 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

brainiac wrote:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/no3d.jpg

Hardly what I'd called controlled shots. The lighting is changing tremendously in those shots.

But more importantly, IMO, is that none look more 3D than others.

Edited on Nov 29, 2009 at 09:53 PM · View previous versions

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:46 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #6 · p.12 #6 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

wimg wrote:
I think it is simple.

An image has a 3D effect if it fools the viewer into thinking it is 3D.

What do you mean by that, though?

I've NEVER been fooled into thinking a 2D photo is 3D.

And yet I can also tell practically any photo of a 3D object is a photo of a 3D object, not a 2D object.

So, have I been fooled, or not?

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:48 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #7 · p.12 #7 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

cgiff wrote:
Some images just look more like windows into a scene than others,

Have you ever seen a photo of a 3D object that you didn't think was of a 3D object?

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:50 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #8 · p.12 #8 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

gdanmitchell wrote:
What some people like to refer to as "3D effect" is some subjective sense of depth in the photograph that suggests to them that objects that are not in the same plane or a narrow range of distances.

But I'd ask again, have you EVER seen a photo of a 3D scene/object that you didn't think was 3D?

If so, perhaps some examples would illustrate this lack of 3D-ness, which in turn would illustrate 3D-ness.

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:51 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #9 · p.12 #9 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

pingflood wrote:
For the record, both with 1Ds2 and Zuikos (first 24/2.8, second 50/1.8). I have my 1Ds2 and a 50D, and the 1Ds2 + Zuikos (24, 28, 35 and 50) seems to generate the "3d look" more often than not, while I don't have a single shot from the 50D like that.

http://beyondthematrix.com/VH0M8473.jpg

http://beyondthematrix.com/VH0M8320.jpg

So, did you try to take those same two shots with your 50D?

I'd love to see results of similar shots (lighting, subject, aperture, etc) that you didn't think were 3D.

Nov 29, 2009 at 09:53 PM

Tri Tran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #10 · p.12 #10 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Why do we have to go all the trouble doing controlled test to prove anything to you?
Like I said 3Dness is purely objective, for some no matter how many examples, would refuse or doesn't have the ability to see it.

Nov 29, 2009 at 10:07 PM

cgiff
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #11 · p.12 #11 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP wrote:
What do you mean by that, though?

I've NEVER been fooled into thinking a 2D photo is 3D.

And yet I can also tell practically any photo of a 3D object is a photo of a 3D object, not a 2D object.

So, have I been fooled, or not?
haha, David, you might be playing devil's advocate at this point (that's the only logical explanation in my eyes) but you're taking the word "3D" a bit too literally. We all know that an image of a person is of something that is 3-dimensional. And we know that a photo is 2D. But have you ever looked at one of those cheesy posters from the early nineties that, if you stare at it the right way, it appears to "pop" out at you? Surely everyone who looked at one of those knew it was a 2D medium, but it LOOKED 3D.

Or maybe you're one of those people who could never see it

Sorry to get tangential, but at this point you seem pretty determined to never "get it" anyway.

Nov 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #12 · p.12 #12 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Well .. so far, what I've gleaned from this thread ...

- nobody can describe what this 3-D effect is
- we cannot agree on what exactly this 3-D effect is
- it doesn't take a "Pro-Body" (sorry, the dude who mocked my 30D

) to get this effect
- it seems easier to get what more people call the 3D effect with very bright lenses (f/2 or brighter?)
- most alt lenses used here are very bright lenses, and this explains that "effect" in more photos from alt lenses
- we all love to argue

Nov 29, 2009 at 10:54 PM

pingflood
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #13 · p.12 #13 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP wrote:
I'd love to see results of similar shots (lighting, subject, aperture, etc) that you didn't think were 3D.

Well, I can tell you this: I have around 10k shots from the 1Ds2, and around 5k from the 50D, and a bunch from the FF camera shows the "look" (incidentally, not a single one taken with Canon glass) while not a single one from the crop body does. So, based on this I am drawing a personal conclusion that what makes the images look "3d" to me comes from using a) larger sensor and b) a certain group of lenses. Not out to prove anything, just sharing my experience.

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:09 AM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #14 · p.12 #14 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

So medium format and large format bodies should always produce this effect then?

From what I've seen so far .. it has more to do with the lens, the aperture used, the background, the subject size, the subject-to-background distance, contrast, the depth of field (too shallow DOF nor too deep DOF work, somewhere in between lies the sweet spot) and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the body.

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:21 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.12 #15 · p.12 #15 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP wrote:
Hardly what I'd called controlled shots. The lighting is changing tremendously in those shots.

But more importantly, IMO, is that none look more 3D than others.

I think 3 looks significantly less 3D than the others, and particularly with reference to 2. The lighting is not changing 'tremendously' between 2 and 3. In fact it hasn't changed at all.

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:25 AM

pingflood
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #16 · p.12 #16 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

saaketham wrote:
So medium format and large format bodies should always produce this effect then?

No, I said FF + certain lenses are prone to producing it in my limited experience.

I shoot plenty of MF and LF but have not really noticed it there, however most of the time I am stopped down pretty far.

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:43 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #17 · p.12 #17 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Tri Tran wrote:
Why do we have to go all the trouble doing controlled test to prove anything to you?

I'll get back to you on that one.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:01 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #18 · p.12 #18 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

cgiff wrote:
But have you ever looked at one of those cheesy posters from the early nineties that, if you stare at it the right way, it appears to "pop" out at you? Surely everyone who looked at one of those knew it was a 2D medium, but it LOOKED 3D.

Or maybe you're one of those people who could never see it

Actually, only one of those ever "popped" into 3D for me . . and it never did again.

Maybe that's the problem . . . I'm not staring cross-eyed the right way at all these photos to see the 3D-ness of them.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:03 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.12 #19 · p.12 #19 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP wrote:
Actually, only one of those ever "popped" into 3D for me . . and it never did again.

Maybe that's the problem . . . I'm not staring cross-eyed the right way at all these photos to see the 3D-ness of them.

Try this one:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/soph3d.jpg

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:07 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #20 · p.12 #20 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

brainiac wrote:
I think 3 looks significantly less 3D than the others, and particularly with reference to 2.

#2 looks underexposed relative to #3, IMO. Or, at the very least, has the shadows "blocked up" relative to #2. Almost as if the camera/lens combo of #2 couldn't capture as much dynamic range as the camera/lens combo of #3.

I'd prefer #3 (the one with more dynamic range), because I can always go into Photoshop and compress the dynamic range to get something more like #2. Granted, one could use curves to go from #2 to #3, as well, but I've always felt it more important to capture a larger dynamic range in the scene to begin with, even if that means the image looks a bit more "flat".

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:08 AM

1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 11 12 13 14 15 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.