Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

"3D" effect?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:44 pm    Post subject: "3D" effect? Reply with quote

Some pictures appear very real, or three-dimensional. Photographers call it often 3D effect. It can be reached in different ways. Some of these methods can be:

photographic skills (like composition)
judgment of proper camera-object-background distance
some wide-angle lenses
medium or large format cameras
lens with uniform resolution and low CA (for infinity shots)
lens with good bokeh
foveon
... and many others

I use the last three because they can be bought (and cheaply) Laughing


Could you share your "3D" pictures? Smile


for start, here are some my old pictures of which other users told anything 3D-ish (best enlarged)...

S-M-C 50/1.4


Vivitar VMC S1 28/1.9


Vivitar 35/1.9


eMC Pancolar 80/1.8


Volna-9 50/2.8


S-M-C 85/1.8


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Here is my contribution:

SMC Takumar 35/2


Meyer Orestor 100/2.8


Tamron SP 90/2.5


Really like the picture taken with the Vivitar 35/1.9 ...

Best regards


PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My favs are the little hut taken with the 1.8/85 and the flower shot taken with the Viv 1.9/35.

I think there is a difference between a genuine 3D-effect and the result of a soft bg rendering due to a narrow DoF.
The latter is easy the first very hard to achieve.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some of them look like they can scratch the dust off my monitor. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
My favs are the little hut taken with the 1.8/85 and the flower shot taken with the Viv 1.9/35.

I think there is a difference between a genuine 3D-effect and the result of a soft bg rendering due to a narrow DoF.
The latter is easy the first very hard to achieve.


I agree
According to all my art books 3D effect is rendered by lighting tones and perspective.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been told a few times that this image shows a good 3-D
effect, possibly because of the fine microcontrast from
the medium format lens?

I think that the overlapping leaves on the Trilliums themselves,
with their brighter edges, combined with the random
shadowing on the surfaces, creates
a definite feeling of dimension.

Rolleiflex 6006
Zeiss Planar 2.8/80
Velvia 100F





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that this image shows a depth that can be attributable to
a dimensional effect, because the trees are diagonally receding
away from the camera from left to right.
This might be from the perspective angle of the camera to the trees,
sort of what Rob was indicating from the art books.

Though the image is almost graphic in nature, there is still a
sense of "distance" from the foreground tree to the background
tree. Perhaps because the background tree is partly covered
by a singular element in front of it. Or possibly because of the
receding falloff of light in relation to distance?

I'm suggesting also that maybe because you can see much more
contrast when looking into the foliage of the left hand near tree,
and then less contrast in the more distant tree because of the mist
and snow falling, that this can provide a dimensional effect as well.

Yashica Mat 124
Yashinon 80/3.5
Ilford Pan-F 50


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, Larry, if there is an object (or moer) in the shot that leads from the front to the background increasingly getting softer, this helps a lot with the 3D effect.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
I agree, Larry, if there is an object (or moer) in the shot that leads from the front to the background increasingly getting softer, this helps a lot with the 3D effect.


Yes, although the effect is pretty subtle with the snowy trees image, I've seen that effect add to the 3-D effect on other images.

Looking at indianadinos' image of the pink rose really shows the "overlapping" effect of light values; the petal's edges are lit up and tend to make a good contrast against the darker subsequent background petal.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is my contribution

Distagon 2.8/28

Distagon 3.5/15


PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:00 pm    Post subject: Colour combination creates 3D? Reply with quote

This one seems to have 'depth'?



PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice ones really!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also somewhat 3dish 135mm soligor
edit:...100 posts..time surely flies when you are enjoying yourself Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice flower. Is it this one ?



Jupiter 11A 4/135 wide open with "glass" adapter giving a FL of ~150 mm on a crop camera.

Is this in "3D" ? Probably not in the spirit of this thread. And yet the flower is clearly lifted away from the foliage behind it.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many thanks for all of these nice pictures! Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does this qualify?



Or this one, with the CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8?



PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:
Nice flower. Is it this one ?



Jupiter 11A 4/135 wide open with "glass" adapter giving a FL of ~150 mm on a crop camera.

Is this in "3D" ? Probably not in the spirit of this thread. And yet the flower is clearly lifted away from the foliage behind it.



Exactly the same ,its a climber and it's taking over the whole back yard Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty wrote:
Exactly the same ,its a climber and it's taking over the whole back yard Smile


I have to visit the local Tropical House to see it. It's called Ipomoea mauritiana. For UK members, it's a member of the same family as "bindweed".


PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if these are good example of 3D effect or they fill criteria of 3d..

I just know that Contax Distagons are able to do it..

No special technique had been used on these pics:


Distagon 28




Distagon 28




Distagon 28




Distagon 18




Distagon 35



tf


Last edited by trifox on Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can see this one from my friend David taken with Leica Summicron -R 35/2

I love the 3D effect Shocked

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidguimaraes/2904998973/in/set-72157607019402305/


PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

contax 50 1.4


PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see you've been in Lucca, Trifox. Smile
I love that city.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keith G is right - for 3D you need one of those old 3D cameras which take two photos at once. Unfortunately I can't get my eyes around his images, but I know what a kitchen looks like so it's not great loss.

I've been trying to work out from this thread what people consider the "3D effect" to be. There seem to be several different interpretations:
1) very shallow DoF, so that the object is effectively isolated from foreground and background.
2) Landscapes with almost infinite DoF so your eye can wander across it without being fixed on one distance
3) Wide angle, close-up shots, where the distortion of the subject appears to elongate it and the foreground is unnaturally large with the background disproportionately small, particularly where the foreground is brighter than the background
4) High contrast, particularly when associated with very shallow DoF or Wide angle images.
5) The use of leading lines to draw the eye back into the picture (probably in combination with one of the other three things).

Is that right? Am I missing anything?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope. I just end up with three churches. It's like the 3D dots puzzles that enjoyed a brief moment of popularity 10 or 15 years ago - some people get it almost instantly, others just can't see it at all.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PaulC wrote:
Nope. I just end up with three churches. It's like the 3D dots puzzles that enjoyed a brief moment of popularity 10 or 15 years ago - some people get it almost instantly, others just can't see it at all.

I get it, but end up with a headache, especially that last one - it's too dark. I also suspect there's no money in looking like Ben Turpin any more.

There are a couple of freeware programs which dotify an image to produce one of those 'grams.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The dotted 3D pictures worked for me, but this does't... maybe I would need a bit more distance from my CRT, but my tortoise wouldn't be happy to find me i her aquarium Confused