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

The "3D" thread
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:47 am    Post subject: The "3D" thread Reply with quote

Every manual lens forum must have one, right? Laughing
So here it is! Very Happy

I begin with a photo that I managed _on purpose_ to make as 3D as possible, even if the light was not favourable at all for that.
I had a big help from the "Hollywood" Distagon 2/28, which is one of my "3D-maker" lenses:

Distagon 2/28 on EOS 5D
Lucca, Batoni exhibition advertisement:


You will notice what is my concept of 3D in a photo: not the "binoculars effect" (a focused foreground object over a blurred background),
rather a photo whose objects display dimensionality and where you can "feel the air" in between the objects.
It is a more subtle concept - but, in my opinion, the real one.


Last edited by Orio on Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:26 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
You will notice what is my concept of 3D in a photo: not the "binoculars effect" (a focused foreground object over a blurred background),
rather a photo whose objects display dimensionality and where you can "feel the air" in between the objects.
It is a more subtle concept - but, in my opinion, the real one

I agree and this is a brilliant sample for the air

This one is a classical 'binocular effect' (easy trick) however I feel 3D in the main subject
Especially her left hand who is like coming to me, maybe it's just in my head
planar 50:1.7 on ektar


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

those 3 sculptures are on the same plane but I have the feeling they are flying, like a optical illusion
planar 85:1.4 wide open

click here for more 3D samples with 85 1.4 wide open


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this one with distagon 35:1.4, more with the air definition of Orio

click here for more 3D samples with distagon 35


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1951 Biotar 1.5/75 on 5D @f5.6-f8


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lens= Zeiss Rolling Eyes Which one?


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Biogon 2/35 R d1 f8




PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ poilu: I agree about the hand, and the mask photo is fantastic.

@ Andy: you ought to post here your Biogon Paco picture please!
The man with cigarette one is excellent

With regards to blurred background: it's not "forbidden" Laughing it can also be there, the main point is that the foreground object over it should feel "round" and not like a cardboard figure.


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Makro-Planar 100

Carnaval in Loul


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here I want to show how tricky and difficult can be to obtain a 3D look, and how often unpredictable.

In the Lucca photo I posted in the beginning of thread, the lighting condition (flat diffused light) was against the 3D, yet the lens quality alone,
together with the composition (key factor) and the right aperture, made it.

In the following photo, taken with a Summicron-R 50 (another lens that is good for 3D), having the ideal lighting condition (strong lateral light) was not enough to obtain a true 3D look:



The problems are two: the perspective, which is almost frontal (so it's less intuitive), and the aperture, which is too narrow and flattens the different planes.
The image looks nice and bold, but the representation of volume is more committed to the interpretation of the viewer
(who "knows" that the flags are dimensional objects) than to the graphical representation.


Last edited by Orio on Thu May 14, 2009 1:22 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the contrary, this other image, taken only a few minutes before, with the same camera and lens, undoubtedly has some 3D:



The perspective is similar to the previous image (frontal)
so what really changes and "makes it" here, it's the aperture.
At this selected aperture, the Summicron creates a focused foreground objects and a background that is not focused but not really blurred either.
It maintains some degree of dimensionality which helps the whole photo to keep a whole perception of dimension instead of flatness.
What does it is also the high microcontrast, which gives "sparkle" to the objects (and which is what makes a lens more suited to 3D than another one)
At the same time, the difference in rendering with the foreground model makes it clear that there is air between the two.

My conclusions:

1- lighting is important but is not decisive

2- perspective is important but is not decisive

3- composition is a bit more important than previous two, but not yet decisive

4- lens "fingerprint" (microcontrast, mostly) is important and often decisive

5- lens aperture is important and is _always_ decisive

Of course, the more factors you make concur, the more 3D the look.
But most important of everything else, you've got to know your lens.
You need to know at what aperture your lens has the "3D sweet spot"
and you need to know how to use it with regards to the distances in the objects of the scene.


PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been looking at some Large Format portraiture work lately and that last image seems like it could fit right in. It's quite remarkable. It feel like my eyes are being tricked, looking at a miniature version of the world. Have you had the same success with your crop cameras, and would you add sensor size to the above list of important/not so important factors?


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

conor12 wrote:
I have been looking at some Large Format portraiture work lately and that last image seems like it could fit right in. It's quite remarkable. It feel like my eyes are being tricked, looking at a miniature version of the world. Have you had the same success with your crop cameras, and would you add sensor size to the above list of important/not so important factors?


I am not sure about that.
For sure, the larger the format, the shallower the DOF at the same focal lenght. But how that could translate in a more dimensional perception, it remains to be seen.
I personally think that in the 5D (with regards to comparison with APS-C format) it's the higher resolution and the better noise/signal ratio that can improve the dimensional perception, rather than simple sensor size.
For sure both noise and grain reduce the dimensionality, because they add a "bed of noise" that is the same regardless of the focusing distance.
A cleaner image results in a better perception of the differences in the distances, and this surely helps the perception of dimensionality to some extent.


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some examples I have found in my archive -- CZ Distagons only:

2.8/28

2.8/21 (only 1 picture -- number 9),

4/18 (only one picture -- number 3)

... and most of them Distagon 1.4/35..

CLICK on THE PCITURE to see the GALLERY Smile








tf


Last edited by trifox on Sun May 17, 2009 10:18 am; edited 6 times in total


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
2- perspective is important but is not decisive

I don't wholly agree with the statement, if I may beg to explain:

Orio, I think in the case of your image of the Batoni
advertisement, that perspective is decisive here. The
perspective is such that you have created diagonal
attributes to the image. Case in point is the advertisement
kiosk itself, which shows angular rather than planar
corners and faces.

There other elements here that rely on perspective to
complete the dimensional look:

1. The curvelinear falloff of the curb, actually disappearing
behind the advertisement, only to appear again on the other
side. My "brain" tends to interpret dimensionality because
my attention follows the "flow", and thus tells me that there
is space behind the advertisement.

2. The diagonal attributes mentioned above about the
advertising kiosk.

3. The vanishing horizon line that is perceived because of
the convergence factor of the street - and even more so, with
the convergence of the buses. I feel that the blue bus to the
left of the kiosk maintains equanimity with the horizon point in
relation to the other buses, and in fact it seems to be almost
moving from front to back, which furthers the perceived
dimensionality.

4. The progression of the trees, as they get smaller and smaller.

5. Even the diagonal fall-off of the patches and water stains
in the sidewalk add to the dimensional aspect.

6. Something a little more esoteric, is the fact that this image
is full of tensions. Tensions between hard and soft, cold and
warm, rounded and angular. While not necessarily
providing dimensionality on their own, I think they work
synergistically with the vanishing points to augment dimensionality.

I think that these factors show perspective is decisive at times.


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm loving the thread and where it's going so far (great sample photos, great analyses).


I would have to say, that "Aperture" per se should not be so important as depth of field (DoF). I have a feeling that what one wants to achieve is a very fine-tuned controlling of the DoF so that it engulfs the entirety of your subject (rather than only parts of it, in which case you get the stereotype selective focus "Bokeh shots") but not much more. For that, obviously for closer subjects you would need to stop down further (F4, 5.6, even 8) while for normal distance (whatever that means) you want a good f2-2.8.

Of course, contrast becomes important as well, and I think that has to be the reason why a lens like Orio's Distagon is great.


I think what it boils down to in one word is the ability of the lens and the beauty of coposition to "isolate" the subject in the field of view. What some people call "popping out".


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I noticed most about Large Format work. The ability to have distant subjects completely but exclusively within the plane of focus. They really do pop out at you.


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

conor12 wrote:
This is what I noticed most about Large Format work. The ability to have distant subjects completely but exclusively within the plane of focus. They really do pop out at you.


medium format has also the capability to create very a nice 3D effect...

tf


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
Orio wrote:
2- perspective is important but is not decisive

I don't wholly agree with the statement, if I may beg to explain:


Larry, when I say "important but not decisive" I mean exactly this, it is important (not denying that at all), but it's not decisive because I can obtain images with a 3D look even using a frontal perspective, see the image of the flag juggler for example.

On the contrary, the aperture factor seems decisive because even with a very deep perspective, I can obtain a flat image if I use a wrong aperture.
Of all the factors that concur to a 3D looking image, only the right aperture seems to me as the one you can not really do without.


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm... I think the most important factor to achieve a good tridimensionality in a shot is not the aperture, it's the light.

Look how in a lot of portraits it's used a backlight or a kicker to keep the subject separated from the background.

This issue was already well known by the good painters of the past. If you notice the paintings that really comes alive are the ones where the artist managed to work with light to create a "live 3d effect" on a bidimensional surface. Just a name: Caravaggio.


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Laurence wrote:
Orio wrote:
2- perspective is important but is not decisive

I don't wholly agree with the statement, if I may beg to explain:


Larry, when I say "important but not decisive" I mean exactly this, it is important (not denying that at all), but it's not decisive because I can obtain images with a 3D look even using a frontal perspective, see the image of the flag juggler for example.

On the contrary, the aperture factor seems decisive because even with a very deep perspective, I can obtain a flat image if I use a wrong aperture.
Of all the factors that concur to a 3D looking image, only the right aperture seems to me as the one you can not really do without.


Orio, I went back and looked at the flag juggler, and pondered your statements. And...I changed my mind. Shocked Your explanation and point of view proved your point. THANKS for continuing that discussion.

(Of course, usually when I'm not correct, and I don't get my way, I tend to drop to the floor and kick my feet in the air and scream and swear. That is very effective in making people feel bad if they don't agree with me). Laughing


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it is any secret to get 3D, just use Zeiss optic
it is very difficult not to get 3D with most Zeiss lenses
however not everyone see 3D because it is a brain illusion
personally I see the right part of this pic near the umbrella in 3D (I have a Zeissy brain)
distagon 28:2


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
I don't think it is any secret to get 3D, just use Zeiss optic
it is very difficult not to get 3D with most Zeiss lenses
however not everyone see 3D because it is a brain illusion
personally I see the right part of this pic near the umbrella in 3D (I have a Zeissy brain)


I agree and it's evidently in your picture, which I like, everytime.


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carlsson wrote:
I agree and it's evidently in your picture, which I like, everytime

thanks Carlsson!
your pic 'Carnaval in Loul' is full of color and details
interesting you took such a lens in crowd
have you other pics of the event with such nice costumes and subject


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
interesting you took such a lens in crowd
have you other pics of the event with such nice costumes and subject


Hi Poilu,
sure I have some pics from the event. I took the makro-planar because at this time it was my only reliable tele-lens and of course I was on the hunt for zeiss-colors Smile
I was really satisfied by it's performancem most of them taken between f2.8-4. It was my first "carnaval", teased by Orios great series.

four pics from the carnaval infante - the carnival for children
http://eldaco.net/upload/hdri/carnaval1/index.html

the real event, carnaval in Loul
http://eldaco.net/upload/hdri/carnaval2/index.html

hope you like them! Smile

forgot to mention, in the second gallery are two pics, taken with the hollywood. All other are M-P pics.