Perception of roundness

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

I am much interested lately in what many people calls "3D effect" and which I prefer to call "roundness" or better "perception of roundness".
I have given a lot of self reflective analytical thought about what i like in photography from the merely aesthetical point of view. I came to the conclusion that the aesthetical quality that most often captures me is precisely this perception of roundness. Which isn't just bokeh and isn't just lighting and isn't just sharpness and isn't just macro-contrast, but a combination of all these things. And the composition also.
It is not merely one quality of a lens, rather, the interaction of several lens qualities with the human factor, which is decisive.
I have invested quite a lot of money (compared to my resources) in buying lenses that help me in this stylistic research. Now I am experimenting in order to try to master this difficult stylistic quality. The subject, for me, remains the most important part of the photograph. If I am not interested in what I shoot, my shots come out boring. But I want to develop a stylistic side also. And hopefully in the future, if I don't become too old in the process Laughing

, I may be able to join the thematic and the stylistic aspects, which is what separates the good photographers from the normal photographers.

I have made a simple test with my Distagon 2/28 yesterday, trying to ake advantage of the lens qualities and at the same time, of the rainy day also. This Distagon model can be really seen as the real last one of the glorious dynasty of manual German lenses. It is the last creation of Erhard Glatzel before he retired. It is an incredibly complicated lens, that uses a lot of glass, some of which of almost impossible technical quality, and has one floating lens inside to optimize focusing in all positions, from closeup to infinite.

This gives the lens a unique character, that the following Zeiss 28mm model, the 2.8/28, designed by his alumnus Walter Woeltche, does not have anymore, being more similar to the concept of the Japanese lenses.
The reason why they say this is really the last German manual lens of the tradition, is because with Woeltche, who took the place of Glatzel in command of the Zeiss lens engineers, sort of resigned to the modern day lens design, and in fact, for the first time in history, he, a German engineer, copied, for the Planar 1.2/55mm, the optical scheme of a Japanese lens, the Canon lens 1.2/55mm of 10 years before.

Some info about Glatzel here:

http://www.zeisshistorica.org/Glatzel.html

And about this "last of the Mohicans" Distagon here:
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Glatzel-2-28/00_pag.htm

Sorry the above link is Italian but with an online translator you will be able to understand. The link contains the designs of all the prototypes that Glatzel made before the final version of the lens.

So back to my little test, here is the image, the idea was to see how focusing at full aperture on a near object, I could create the perception of roundness taking advantage of the fact that in a 28mm the DOF is such that even the blurred parts often maintain a clear readability. As for lighting, I hoped that the glare created by the fallen rain could help somehow the perception of roundness, which I think was a successful concept:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5125/balconyjs8.jpg

Of course the shot is not much. I have seen online samples of "3D effect" photographs that were close to perfection. My hats off to the authors. It is really a difficult technique to master. I am just at my first steps. The wide angles are really a difficult instrument to master. They give you a lot of spacial definition compared to tele lenses (which tend to flatten everything), but at the same time, they make working with the bokeh very difficult. So you have to find a balance. You don't want to have everything sharp when you are after a roundness effect. Yet you must have something sharp, else you would not notice the spacial distance. The key is how to handle the spaces in between. it is difficult. You must have a lens that helps, but it is not enough, you must set up a composition that is effective, and a lighting that enhances the roundness. I have bought the lenses (too many of them!), now I have to work out the human factor. Which I can not buy!

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Hi, Orio!

This is a really fascinating thought and a captivating text interesting links. Thanks for sharing.

I like to congratulate you on your Distagon. What a fantastic lens!

And I would like to agree to you. I think a completely creamy bokeh (where you can't identify a thing in the bg) is nice in some situations, but sometimes you need a softer changeover from sharp to blurred which results in a very "natural" effect, similar to the way our eyes see and helps to create the "3D-impression" or "roundness" as you call it.
This is way I understand it.

Carsten

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Another test, always 5D but this time with the Distagon 1.4/35, using black and white, trying to create a blurred perspective for the initial depth, then relying on the difference in focus to separate the other planes of the image.
The focus is on the tree lower left:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5010/vtgowd4.jpg

Two considerations that I think are worth making after this test:

1- having the focused main element below the horizontal axis of the camera seems to help the perception of depth.
Apparently, having to divert the look from the "escape point" created by the wall in the foreground, in order to find the focused object, creates the psychological sensation of movement - and whatever suggests movement, enhances the perception of dimensions.

2. apparently, to remove the distraction of colours helps with the perception of the depth. I often noticed that the black and white photos seem to give a deeper perception of depth compared to coloured photos.
I am not sure about the reason. Perhaps the pure volumes created by the greys are not distracting as the element colour which can be perceived as flattening ??

I would be interested in your thoughts on the above points, and on the subject in general.

I find this kind of analysis very interesting. Perhaps you find it terribly boring! I hope not Embarassed

[/i]

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

As to 1: I like to agree. These are methods that painters have used for centuries.

As to 2: I don't know if it really is a result of the b&w conversion. It rather is a matter of how to use contrasts.
The further away something is the less saturated are the colours and the less intense is the contrast of objects.
You see what I mean easily when you image a view of a wide landscape: trees and meadows that are close are intensely green, those that are at the horizon rather show a pale green. So a reduction of saturation and contrast in the distance also will help to create a sense of depth.

Carsten