Does anyone have a good process for making 2D photos look 3D in Photoshop or Adobe After Effects? I have done some of this with limited success, but would like to get more 3D into peoples faces or in the smaller details within pictures.
If you have the camera that's compatible, you can try their 3D Lens in a cap. My Leica, unfortunately, is not and I already emailed them and they said you can't use a thread adaptor for their lens. Oh well.
Edit: Looks like they no longer sell the screw type single 3D Lens in a cap. Maybe the body mount version might fit my camera. Might try emailing them again to see.
Lyle took you pretty literally and suggested a way to make "real" stereoscopic 3d images. I suspect, however, that you may just be requesting info on how to give 2d images a 3d feel. If so, that is a topic that is always of interest to me as well. I am not an expert but in the interest of "sharing notes", here are some comments and suggestions:
Every once in a while there are threads here on FM about the quest for the "3D look". These threads often start in the Canon, Nikon, or alternative forums and are often related to the characteristics of a lens. They can be pretty interesting to read through, however, because they get you thinking. The Alternative Forum in particular can often take these threads into some pretty detailed and scientific territory. Here are some examples:
In terms of experts, Mac Holbert from Nash Editions is the guru often mentioned. Unfortunately, he hasn't written a book on the subject that I know of. He seems content with applying his expertise to his print business or perhaps his workshops. Here is a link to Nash Editions and to a PDF he makes available on the site:
Once in a while you might also find hints regarding his techniques from interviews. Here is an example where he mentions that the eye expects saturation to be stronger in the foreground than the background:
What you can find to some extent are instructions from Photoshop gurus on what they have learned from Mac. Both Martin Evening and Jefe Schewe have included "light sculpting" examples in their books. Here is an excerpt from "The Ultimate Workshop" book that Martin and Jeff authored together:
Beyond that, I'll say that I believe that there can be several things that contribute to the "3d-look" in photographs. Most of these can be influenced both when the photo is taken (camera, lens, composition, lighting, etc.) and in post-processing.
Sharpness, blurring, and DOF
I believe all of these can contribute to enhancing a 3D feel to the photo. Of the 3, proper sharpness of the subject being focused upon may be the most important. That means all of the following can play a role:
- Proper focus
- Keeping the camera still
- Using shutter-speed to stop subject movement
- Using a good lens
but also good capture, creative, and output sharpening in post-processing. I think Output Sharpening may be particularly important because you need to consider your output medium (print, monitor, etc.) and the probable viewer-to-image distance. I think the difference between many "average" images and "eye-grabbers" on the web is proper sharpening for viewing online.
Light and Shadow
There is little doubt that light and shadow play big roles in cuing the eye as to the form of an object. This can be influenced with composition and lighting during the shoot or it can be enhanced in post-processing with "light-sculpting" techniques that I mentioned above. I have found also that occasionally applying a subtle vignette to an image can also kick the "3d-ness" of an image up a notch or two.
Color
Color is possibly the least obvious of the "3D enhancers". When I ran across Mac Holbert's interview that I linked earlier, I was surprised myself with his tip that depth might possibly be enhanced by selectively altering saturation.
There are also differences in the way the eye focuses on different colors. Create a blue square in Photoshop and then insert a smaller red square inside it and take a look at the resulting image (a darkened room may help). You will see an exaggerated version of what I am talking about. You can take advantage of this sometimes with your composition (a person with a light, tanned face against a blue background, for example) or in post processing by performing selective warming or cooling of image elements. Sometime back I found a good paper on the web about color's impact on depth perception:
Composition can play a role in setting up the previous 3 categories but I think it may be able to contribute to "3D-ness" in its own way in some situations. Leading the eye with a strong s-curve or diagonal can be very effective.
If I get a chance, I'll try to post some examples that I think show the above to some extent. Also, I just want to repeat that I don't consider myself an expert on creating images with the "3D look". It just happens to be something I find interesting so I thought I would share my thoughts. I also fully realize that not all people see the "3D-ness" of an image in the same way or "strength". There definitely seems to be a subjective element to the effect.
Well, I hope that that is somewhat close to what you were asking about.
P.S. - Just came across this post in the People Forum (warning: lingerie). I think both of the pics he posted use many, if not all of the elements I mention above. One of the commenter's even said "I love how they POP!., almost look 3D".
lol; I do tend to do that (it's a guy thing). Cool info Dennis. Yes, DOF is the trick to give dimension to photos for sure. Also, you can try to do tilt shilft effect which, even though you get a toyish looking result, it really does look 3D to me.
Understandably, this is a 2D medium and anything that is "3D-ish" is the illusion of something that presents a greater sense of realism regarding depth & form.
DOF itself is mostly related to the range of focus vs. oof and does not always incoporate the elements of perspective, contrast, composition and numerous other factors that ... along with DOF ... render the 2D with a more "3D-ish" emotive from the viewer.
As such, 3D is not necessarily a bad way to describe the illusion ... but it is an improper way to discuss DOF.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Why do people call this DOF effect 3D. I don't get it.
It's just depth-of-field. 3D is a bad way to describe it.
3D effect and "DoF" are not the same thing. 3D effect can be found in photos with infinite DoF. Sometimes the use of DoF can contribute to the overall 3D effect, but it is not a requirement and it does not automatically create a 3D effect in any image.
Yeah, but to echo a very large body of messages already posted about this topic: "3D" is a made up term that relies on a number of already defined and commonly used terms and additionally is relative to the person viewing the image (speculative). What is "3D" to one person may or may not be to another. A lot of the most recent discussion on the topic has to do with the brilliance of a lens. Also micro and local contrast, resolving power, Modulation Transfer Function and sharpness - to name but just a few.
Every term in the history of language was a made up term, so that argument is invalid. Additionally, the term 3D already exists in other 2D mediums ... already understood to be an attempt to represent and yield an illusion that elicits an emotive response similar (possibly not fully achieving) to the actual experience.
"Trompe L'Oeil is a French term literally meaning "to deceive the eye." It dates back as far as 400 B.C. and was part of the rich culture of the Greek and Roman Empires. It is artwork that attempts to be so realistic that the viewer is fooled into thinking that actual three-dimensional objects are being displayed rather than a two-dimensional representation of those objects."
NOTE: Why would Photoshop have a 3D menu if the term is 'made up' I'm trying to create a 3D object in Photoshop CS4 Extended, but I'm having problems. I create a blank canvas, and when I try to create "New Shape from Layer", the entire 3D menu is grayed out. What am I missing that is preventing me from creating a simple 3D object? I've done it before, but for some reason, I can't figure out how to do it again.
The degree of which this illusion is capable of yielding such an emotive response in our medium is HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE ... and HIGHLY VARIABLE as it also has some dependency on the viewer in conjunction with the presented medium.
ripkoken ... without having a repeat of some rather intense dialogue on the subject, in this particular thread, the recommendation to visit the Alternative Gear & Lenses forum is a worthy one (IMHO). Some of the more recent dialogue has turned its attention toward PP, which I think is what you may be interested in ... as I was looking in this Forum for more of the same.
There are a few folks over there that are pretty intense & passionate about the subject ... admittedly striving to better understand the issues that might be of interest to you as we/they aspire to develop a more concrete level of understanding & practical application within our medium.
Eyeball ... thanks for the links.
Bifurcator has also presented a nice collection of 3D-ish drawings as well (especially the last two, imho), that might be of interest to show that the illusion of 3D-ish is more than simply a matter of DOF, albeit in a different 2D medium ... while many others have contributed pics on the matter as well.
