biotar wrote:
You are very nearly there Bifurcator. Yes, the depth in a picture is of course not actual, but then again any picture ever taken is only a representation of a scene.
Everything we see is being processed by our perception. Wether this is a picture (the representation of a scene) of the actual scene itself. Simple optical illusion tests will show you this, and a good photographer knows how to use it.
That\'s true. Nothing our senses detect can exist to us without our brains. Taste, smell, sight, it\'s all brain based. In fact our eyes are just cordal extensions of the brain itself - literally, an outcropping of the brain. Vision actually occurs at the back of our heads - just a little above where our necks end.
But that\'s taking what I said a little too far and not really what I meant.
That last bit is vital. With good use composition, planning, photoshopping and -indeed- gear that renders a scene in a convincing way a picture can have all the ingredients to allow the spectator to imagine (!) him/herself part of the scene.
Lens errors give away too early that the scene is just a photo, and therefore eliminating this factor is part of the process to give a scene a sense of reality and in some cases therefore depth.
This is not the complete story, because the picture is just the medium between the photographer and the spectator. If the photographer wants his audience to experience depth, he has to make sure the scene is convincing enough. Then its the turn for the spectator to imagine that he or she is part of the scene.
In the case of 3D I liken it to a con. In a con the grifter presents lies+truth as truth alone and if the participating mark believes it then the grifter can use the mark. In this case to sell goods and services. It\'s based on untrue powers of suggestion though. Nothing anyone has posted in this thread looks any more or less \"3D\" to me than any other good photograph that makes use of DOF and micro-contrast.
This communication between photographer and audience is what makes photography interesting for me personally. If you cannot see depth in a picture there are two things that might be the underlying problem. 1. The photo is simply not convincing enough, and spoils the imagination because it gives to much hints that it is just a photo. 2. The reason you don\'t experience depth might be because you are unwilling or unable to imagine regard the scene as actual and therefore don\'t experience it.
That some see depth in a photo might not be because people know with which lens the photo was taken, but because some people are actually open enough to imagine them being part of the photo. Sceptics are naturally unwilling to experience this, and therefore remain sceptical. That does not make it BS.
It is your own loss if you don\'t have the imagination it takes to experience something from a picture, which is the essential element of this art. It does however make me wonder why those people participate in such discussions and what their purpose is with photography.
To me that does indeed make it BS. As an adjective or description I can agree to terms like \"3D-ish\" or phrases like \"it almost looks like 3D\", \"I feel almost as if I\'m there\", etc.. And nearly any common equipment can produce the effect. To try and pass off \"3D\" as an optical quality like Bokeh, CA, and etc. is disingenuous at best. More commonly phrased, It\'s BS!
So, I like 3D-ish looking images just as much as anyone. I dig the proper use of DOF and micro-contrast to create the effect. But let\'s call a spade a spade without the con. I don\'t need to romanticize these image qualities by making up terms that don\'t actually apply and I think it\'s intellectually dishonest for anyone to try and do so - regardless of how \"interesting\" the accompanying hyperbole sounds. Just my opinion (and no I\'m not weak enough to be pressured into accepting this as non-BS ).
Jan 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #7987314 « what is '3d' ? »
).