Rob70
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I think right now this thread becomes more confusing. A while back I had started a similar thread (that ended equally confusing). Back then I asked about how to create images with this 3D illusion (not which lens to use), though.
It happened also then that very different definitions of 3D or 3D-Pop or verisimilitude were being discussed as being the same thing. They're not. Before discussing which lens does it or not, we should try and discern various kinds and then start to name image traits that help with the 3D impression. After that it should be quite easy to name lenses that do it best.
For me there are 3 different versions of 3D that need to be set apart:
1. Pop: The subject jumps out of strong blur. It seems to be in front of the unsharp area in the back, BUT the viewer can't feel the depth of the whole scene. The impression concentrates only on the subject being in front of the blur. Here the recipe is quite simple: Use a fast, sharp lens, get close, the larger the sensor, the easier.
2. 3D (illusion): This is the one I'm most interested in, because it's so difficult to create: To my understanding an example will likely show one subject, usually placed in the middle, that is set apart by some kind of transition, either sharpness to blur, contrast falloff, brightness, warm to cold color, etc.; most times it's about the blur. But unlike Pop, the blur doesn't make the background unrecognizable, to the contrary it's still recognizable quite well, only a little blurry. Often the images show some degree of vignette, which in my opinion helps quite a bit.
Even though I've identified many traits that the images that work for me have in common, it still is very difficult to create one. It only works once in a while.
I believe that this is the kind that most people refer to when they talk about 3D. The difficulty to create such images as a planned process is what leades to the reputation of this topic as being mythical or voodoo. It's also the reason why no one has provided a "test" for lenses that do it, because it is very likely that your testrun won't produce images with good 3D. I've tried several times and have failed.
Still some lens characteristics can be named, without being a guarantee:
A lens that can do sharpness falloff with subjects that are a few meters away would have to be relatively fast. Like stated before: it helps if it produces a vignette wide open. It would have to be sharp and contrasty with excellent micro contrast in the middle (where your subject is). Sharpness falloff towards the borders isn't a problem, to the contrary, it can help, which is why some lenses with field curvature have a special reputation in this area. A lens with smooth bokeh will help, because it's not distracting the attention that the subject needs to stand out (this may be one of the reasons, why it's difficult to create such an image: often there are too many distracting parts of the image that destroy the illusion.)
3. Verisimilitude: The third kind I find also very interesting, but to me it is much easier to grasp: It's about life-like rendition. The recipe for this seems to be easily named, too: Lenses with very good color reproduction, nicely balanced contrast and very good micro contrast can do it. Examples are sharp all over without being sharpened. Sharpness is very obvious, but not pronounced, like you can observe in philip_pj's images. It also works in black and white (or fake color), like the fascinating images of Audii-Dudii show.
Obviously it's a very interesting matter to many photographers, but not easily deciphered.
|
