What lens/technique you use to create a 3D-looking picture

[hiep]

It might be an unusual question. I don't see a technique related forums, so I decide to post it here.

For me, the only technique to create a 3D-looking picture is to isolate the subject from the background; transition between sharp area to blurred out would impart the 3D feel. Some may say it has to do with the lighting. However, my recent visit to a digital rangefinders forums really makes me wonder if there are other techniques or it's just more like lens-specific.

Here is the thread i'm talking about:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56728

What amazes me about these pictures is that none of them look flat, at least to me. They really have the "pop" effect that I wouldn't expect from such shots. The lighting is not special. And when I look at pic #2, even the blurred out teddy bear gives me that 3D look. The golden urn shows unexpected depth as well.

I would love to know your opinions/techniques/comments/suggestions on this subject matter. Thank you.

[hiep]

These are some of my attempts to create a 3D look:

[Orio]

The 3D-effect (which I prefer to call "perception of roundness" POR for short) is a combination of different factors, some inherent to the lens, some not:

- quality of bokeh (especially the transition from IF to OOF)

- microcontrast

- colour density (a factor that many don't consider, but for me is important - washed out images tend to look flatter)

- illumination (mostly the direction is important)

- composition (an appropriate composition can enhance much the POR)

- exposure (a slight underexposure usually enhances POR)

- Depth of Field (DOF), it must not be too shallow, and neither too deep

- atmospherical effects (haze especially)

-

[Orio]

Hiep,
with regards to 3D-look and your second image, this is a common misconception, to mistake the 3D-look with what I call the "binocular effect" or if you prefer, the "stereo slide effect".

When viewing, with powerful binoculars, objects placed at different distances, you perceive the foreground ones like "cardboard flats" placed in front of a distant background.

The same perception can happen with stereo slides.

With normal photography, this mostly happens with narrow DOFS, when only the focal point, and the very near areas, are in focus - like in your second image.

This is not the true 3D-effect or Perception of Roundness (POR).
The POR is more like viewing a statue and being able to perceive the roundness of it.
This implies a DOF that is slightly deeper than what is obtained with a fast lens wide open.
It requires a graduality of the transition and the ideal DOF must be customly evaluated for each subject.

I will look in my archive to see some examples of what I mean.

EDITED TO ADD: in your third photo, the proximity of the different planes makes it more like a real 3D perception than compared with the previous two images. This shows you the way to make it: the point is not isolating a subject from the background - on the contrary, it is to make it part of it without flattening out the differences.
It's really a subtle art.
-

[poilu]

the best way to create a 3D-looking picture is to shot film

[luisalegria]

Those rangefinder pictures are terrific !

Member Orio has the factors, but still, there is something undefinable here. Everything has to come together somehow, and for me anyway, so rarely does.

Some other points - wide angles used at relatively short range emphasize perspective.

Thats part of whats going on with this rangefinder stuff. The guy is using a 21-35mm on (correct me if I'm wrong) full frame.

The other bit is the subject selection where you have unquestionably OOF before and behind, to the sides, etc. of a precisely focused image.

[Orio]

OK, this is not really a fair example to post, because it was obtained with a lens (the Hollywood Distagon) that is a champion of 3D effect... anyway:



If you look at the windowsill (the light grey base upon where the pot stands) you can notice that it is not fully in focus, nor totally blurred, but it digrades at both ends, from central (IF) to extremes (OOF)

This digradation enhances the perception of the depth.

The same can be said of the wall. It is not uniform, the parts near the window are less OOF than the extremes.

It is this gradient that creates the POR. Together, of course, with other factors.

The lens contributes in a decisive way with the microcontrast.

While the gradient of the OOF creates the POR at the large scale, the microcontrast creates the POR in the small scale.

It is thanks of the microcontrast, that you can "see a distance" between, for instance, the black iron potholder and the concrete base. Or between the leaves and the edges of the pot.

of course the lighting helps with this, but much of the merit goes to the lens. And this is the reason why I have spent good money to have two Hollywood Distagons in my arsenal...

-

[Orio]

I would like to add that composition plays a big role also. This diagonal composition, when you have long elements that are potrayed at different levels of OOF, enhances the POR, also adjuvated by the well-known ancient laws of perspective.
-

[Attila]

Wow! I would grab flowers out of my screen!

[Orio]

You can measure how the combination works, by the fact that you can also perceive the depth and empty space below the concrete base.
The lighting (shadow), the OOF gradation, and the microcontrast of what is above, and of the concrete itself, where you can feel the grains, all contribute to perceive a vertical depth (the most difficult to render in a photograph) in addition to the more obvious horizontal depth.

-

[Attila]

http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stereo/q-dos/q-dos.html

I have this lens , still untested

[Orio]

[Attila]

I guess you have right.

[hiep]

Wow, Orio. A picture definitely speaks a thousand words. A picture and an explanation are just priceless. Thank you for such detailed explanation and the list of contributed factors. It really broadens my view. I'm not going to say that I can utilize all of them at the moment, but at least I have something more to consider before snapping my photo.

Your picture definitely conveys the perception of depth and roundness. What aperture did you use for this picture? I will take a more careful look at your gallery to dissect the factors myself for better understanding. Thank you very much.

[Laurence]

I think that microcontrast plays a huge role here. And it is interesting, because microcontrast by its very nature is not always consciously attenuated so that it jumps out at us. Rather, I think that our eye-to-brain interface somehow modulates microcontrast and "adds it all together" to contribute mightily to the 3-D effect.

So...what am I trying to say? Well, that microcontrast is SUBTLE, but it is HUGE!

[vilva]

Subtle differences are the key, perhaps augmented with a continuum of degrees of being more and more out of focus. A total, abrupt isolation will very easily destroy all perception 3-dimensionality. I have taken photos of the same subjects with different lenses at different apertures and have begun to think that actually it is better to use surprisingly small apertures, f/8 or even f/11, which more easily create the required degree of subtlety.

Here are four examples with the 133 mm Cooke Aviar at f/8 on 350D, without counter-examples. First a statue in front of a building, distance about 50 m:



Here the building is almost in focus, in better focus than in my other similar photos, clearly a part of the scene, but enough OOF to be perceived as not physically connected with the statue. "Within" the statue there are enough subtle focus differences to make it appear not flat, but still the right arm is in better focus than the building. The uncoated lens adds a degree of "fog perspective", rather subtle but still there, even within the statue.

In the second example we have a similar structured foreground with subtly varying degrees of focus and a connected background, clearly a part of the scene and not something we have wanted to exclude. We have a natural 3D relationship between all the parts of the photo, nothing artificial or forced.



In the third example we have a partial continuum, which would be destroyed by a larger aperture, which would drop part of the background away, out of perception. Here nothing is totally lost, not even the windows of a building 750 m from the camera, things just gradually dissolve, there is a feeling of being there:



and in the final example we have a complete continuum:



This is, of course, just my present understanding, at least partially in step with what Orio already stated. The Aviar doesn't have the micro-contrast of the Hollywood Distagon, but at least at f/8 it can create the necessary continuums without undue distractions, in my opinion.

Veijo

[Orio]

[hiep]

Thanks Veijo for those excellent shots. I think so far I find a few common themes: micro-contrast and large enough DOF to impart the transition.

Thanks Orio for the your suggested FL and aperture combination.

I'll try out these techniques this coming weekend at a local botanical garden.

Thank you all for all the replies so far. It's very helpful for me and others, who are interested in this subject.

[Orio]

I suggest you to make experiments with human statues first. They are the easier subject and one where you can practice the effect of different apertures, angles (if you can go around them 360°), lighting.

Flowers are a difficult subject because they require closeup and the closer you get, the narrow the DOF becomes, and the more difficult to "impart" the 3D-ness is.

Another good subject are things that hang from a wall, like my vase, or in general, subjects where you have different elements at different distances with one continuing element (such as a wall, a fence, or like in Veijo's picture, a line of tables...)
-

[LucisPictor]

Guys! What an excellent discussion of that topic!!

[LucisPictor]

BTW, do you know Russel's Theory of Perception?
A nice read for photographers: http://tinyurl.com/4svxgh

[ChrisLilley]

[bob955i]

This one taken with a Flek 2.4/35 @ f8 or f11 is similar to Veijo's last image of complete continuum and also has the haze that Orio mentions:

You can hopefully see the effect at it's strongest on the right hand side where the trees intersect with the island and from there on the image gets slightly softer but never obviously OOF and one gets the beginnings of distance haze.

[Orio]

Example of "flat cardboard" "binoculars" effect that, as Veijo commented, really kills the perception of roundness:



The above image has a decorative value, but surely no "3Dness".

Look at this one instead:



Very similar, if not identical, situation, but in the case above we also have some plants slightly behind the main subject, that are slightly blurred, but not as much as the background. This very simple, very small difference is enough to change the perception. The image does not look really 3Dish, but does not look totally flat anymore, either.

A consideration to make, that is probably obvious but worth noting: the first image is made with a tele lens, the second image is made with a 38mm lens (The MIR-1 now owned by Andy). With a tele lens, the "risk" (which can also be a pursued value) of the flat cardboard effect is high. With a wide angle lens, the chances to make a 3D-looking image are higher (although without the guarantee of success).
-

[vilva]

There are two kinds of 3D effects, those which are immediately, instinctively 3D, and those which require an "analysis". People and man-made, regular objects in the OOF region create very easily a 3D effect as long as the bokeh, confusion, doesn't turn into chaos. Nature is much less forgiving in this respect as there is a degree of chaos to begin with, it is often necessary to analyze the scene in order to be sure about the depth relationships.

In the example photos by Orio, the buildings in the second photo help to establish the 3D perception very effortlessly because there is a clear contradiction between perception and expectation. In the first photo, one has to concentrate, to analyze. Similarly, in my Botanical Garden photos, at least in my mind, the 3D effect in the next photo isn't any too obvious because all the small things on the ground are a natural chaos, being OOF doesn't create a contradiction.



The in focus region can be "intellectually" quite flat and still create a 3D effect with very small focus differences if the OOF background supports it, contains something immediately recognizable so that one's mind can snap into the 3D perception. Here is an example:



The background is very much OOF but still contains familiar forms, one doesn't have to cogitate. This is the secret of "good" bokeh. Bokeh isn't dissolution, turning into chaos, it is just confusion, things are transformed but not destroyed. Both these photos were taken with the Aviar at f/11 on 5D.

Today it occurred to me that in order to really, fully grok bokeh, one must know something about the Japanese background of the idea. There is an old art form, ukiyo-e, pictures of the floating world, a genre of woodblock prints, which may have affected the way Japanese photographers perceive things, c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukiyo-e. These prints aren't at all like the European woodcuts we are accustomed to, they are multi-colored and contain very subtle gradations requiring sometimes several tens of carved blocks with different shades and densities of color. It pays to study e.g. the prints by Hiroshige very carefully, also the high resolution versions, just to sit and let them sink in to see the seeds of the real bokeh, c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshige. Here is e.g. the contrast between original Hiroshige and a copy by van Gogh:


Of course van Gogh is van Gogh and uses his brush the way he must, but still I think this pair of pictures illustrates very well what I have in mind concerning bokeh and also certain laws of 3D perception.

Veijo