The "3D" thread

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

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.

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

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

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

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

click here for more 3D samples with distagon 35

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

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

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

Lens= Zeiss Rolling Eyes

Which one?

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

Biogon 2/35 R d1 f8

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

@ 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.

Carlsson · Joined: 26 Jul 2008 Posts: 793 Location: Portugal

Makro-Planar 100

Carnaval in Loulé

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

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.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

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.

conor12 · Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 129 Location: Dublin

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?

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

trifox · Expire: 2014-05-29

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

Laurence · Expire: 2016-06-19

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.

rawhead · Expire: 2014-04-29

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".

conor12 · Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 129 Location: Dublin

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.

trifox · Expire: 2014-05-29

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

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.

Laurence · Expire: 2016-06-19

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

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

Carlsson · Joined: 26 Jul 2008 Posts: 793 Location: Portugal

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

Carlsson · Joined: 26 Jul 2008 Posts: 793 Location: Portugal