I think your "3-D" effect has more to do with geometry than it does with a "pro" vs "non-pro" body or lens. I shot this with a Canon 300D and the Canon 55-250mm zoom.
after messing with a 5d last year, i had always wanted to be able to do full length body shots that had that 3d effect and doing that on a 40d crop body was not very easy.
i picked up a sigma 30m 1.4 and even with that it had to just the right scenario to make it happen. after a week of frustration with front focus it got returned.
now have a 5d2
mh2000 wrote:
More DOF. Just using very shallow DOF does not makes something jump out and say WOW! I'm 3D!
>>What changes would you suggest to generate a stronger 3D-ish feeling?
The 3D has much to do with the composition and the type of lens you use...I think this is very 3D. It has to be literally convey the "feeling" that the subject is in front of you....
Here is a landscape shot of a Manhattan bridge....no bokeh.....Is shot with a Carl Zeiss 21mm ZE lens and 1dmarkIII. The Carl Zeiss is known to produce 3d looking shots under the right condition because it can enhance the micro-contrast of the subject and able to control the blue highlight much better. It has certain film look to the shot too.
If anyone says that you can only get the 3D effect from a 1 series camera, they are a fool.
I wonder if a 30D is really the top cropper picked by pros. My 7D seems to do the "3d" effect just fine. Then again, I may know how to work my equipment so I wouldn't make a "only 1 series can get 3d" statement.
Here is another one taken with a 30D with a Tamron 17-50. I like this shot because I felt like grabbing my markIII....flash was bounced off the wall behind me.
Tri Tran wrote:
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.
I think you meant to say subjective...
DavidP wrote:
I believe (and I suspect that you would agree, at least mostly) that what people describe as "the 3D effect" can be explained by a combination of lighting, DOF, perspective, and/or accutance/sharpness/contrast. And that's why I think the term "3D" isn't needed, and only confuses the matter. People should simply point out which of those things they're talking about.
Actually, I think it's easier to just say '3D'. Up until this thread, everyone (well, maybe except for one person) knew what you were talking about when you used the term '3D'...
I'm honestly surprised that lighting didn't come up more often as an integral (I daresay required) aspect of giving this 3D illusion in a digital image. You can capture an image of a three dimensional object using the same super-fantastic Alt lens, camera, f/stop, etc., and merely by changing the direction of the lighting you can cause a flat, 2D image to become significantly more '3D' (the egg image posted in this thread is a good example). Although a few people peripherally mentioned 'lighting' in their laundry list of factors, I don't think its significance can be so casually overlooked, as it has been throughout this thread. Allowing me some latitude here, it could be that Alt-lens users are a bit more discriminating when it comes to shooting images, and thus these 'magical lens qualities' are at least partially determined by subject matter. (Woops, did I say that out loud?)
Although I fully agree that pro-level bodies have nothing to do with this elusive '3D' effect, I must submit that the individual characteristics of different sensors can and do contribute to the effect of 'popping' limited-DOF subjects from their backgrounds (in addition to the oft-mentioned DOF differences with different formats). I believe a sensor that is inherently noisy even in the OOF areas will confound the 'popping' of the subject, as it's almost like looking through a dirty window (which decreases the brain's perception of depth, even though that depth still exists beyond the dirty window). Same goes for PP using selective sharpening for the same effect.
There are so, so many subjective factors here, and it's been quite interesting to see all the different takes on the images posted. Thanks for the ride!
