Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What lens/technique you use to create a 3D-looking picture
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the info Veijo. This is just getting more exciting by each additional post.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
From my learnings in photo classes:
This effect is easiest to obtain using 100mm or longer lenses due to factors of compression. Smaller than 100mm needs larger apertures such as 2.8, or getting closer to the subject. With any lens, the closer you are to the main focal point makes it easier to acheive this desired result.

Great Thread!!!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
shad309 wrote:
From my learnings in photo classes:
This effect is easiest to obtain using 100mm or longer lenses due to factors of compression. Smaller than 100mm needs larger apertures such as 2.8, or getting closer to the subject. With any lens, the closer you are to the main focal point makes it easier to acheive this desired result.

Great Thread!!!


That sounds like the "binocular effect" that Orio mentioned about.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
More than likely it is. Compression makes the areas in front of and behind take on different charachteristics than would normally be seen from standard or wide angle lenses. It is only found in telephoto and can be faked with the others Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
unfortunately digital is flat
if you want 3D picture just use film and manual lenses Wink





PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
digital is flat

I believe digital is flat with modern lenses, and not flat at all with fines old lenses. Look Orio samples...


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AF lenses look flat, at least the cheap line of Canon AF lenses do (I don't have the money to try the L series).

I write this since even before I started to think about the perception of roundness issue.

I attribute the flatness to two factors:

- the plastic polymer components that they use to build the lenses (it is cheaper than glass and more lightweight, so better for AF motors)

- the need to build lenses that deliver dull photos, in order to make the average customer happy.

Average customer is basically an idiot who steps up from mobile camera phones to digital reflex and does not know a thing about real photography.
For instance they don't know how to measure the light properly in a backlight scene, or in a scene that has large dynamic gap between sunlight and shadows.
So these idiots would take horrible photos with advanced lenses that deliver lots of micro contrast and saturation.
A lens that looks dull, with low contrast, ensures that the idiots take acceptable photos even if they measure exposure wrong.
From there (dull photo) they can post process with the "one-click" enhancements of photo software that boosts it.
They are happy because they think they made cool photos, and Canon is happier because they sell lots of cheap lenses that cost nothing, to customers that don't understand a thing and don't complain.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon L 135mm f2 quality reach Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f3.5 quality .... seek for both lens price...
I have a good friend who is AF lens repair man he repaired many $$$ top class AF lenses and tested them , he not an MF lens fan! He said none of AF lenses can be reach top MF lens quality!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Canon L 135mm f2 quality reach Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f3.5 quality .... seek for both lens price...
I have a good friend who is AF lens repair man he repaired many $$$ top class AF lenses and tested them , he not an MF lens fan! He said none of AF lenses can be reach top MF lens quality!


Maybe we should think of this the otherway around, as much as the companies are pushing out ever more cheap lenses to grab a larger market share there are still options out there that returns to the standard that was previously more wide spread.

AF has it's situations of usefullness but personally I have over the last few months scrutinized how I take pictures and come to the conclusion that with the comparably little extra effort I can now enjoy a wide spread of quality lenses.
I certaly don't dismiss AF/IS/VR/whatnot and I do use them and will buy more of that flavour but there is no more an urgency about those purchases ... thanks to you guys I might add. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Canon L 135mm f2 quality reach Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f3.5 quality .... seek for both lens price...
I have a good friend who is AF lens repair man he repaired many $$$ top class AF lenses and tested them , he not an MF lens fan! He said none of AF lenses can be reach top MF lens quality!


Well, it is all a matter of what you're looking for, I guess.

As Orio has put it (in rather strong words Wink), any modern AF lens will produce a picture that is turned into a "perfect" one (as most people would say) with one click. That's why I tend to say that these lenses produce "perfect" pictures, too perfect perhaps. Great for snapshots or reportage, not only because they are quick.

If you want "art", then you surely will do better with MF lenses and some serious thinking about what you are doing while shooting.

I have never used an "L"-lens either, but from what I can tell based on the Schwärmerei (blind enthusiasm) of "L"-shooters, these lenses have advantages mainly in sharpness and contrast and the like, so they even create more "perfect" (in this sense) pictures, nothing else.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carsten wrote:
"L"-lens even create more "perfect" pictures

I wish you many L-lenses Twisted Evil Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
"L"-lens even create more "perfect" pictures

I wish you many L-lenses Twisted Evil Laughing

Hey, that is not fair. A mean trick in journalism: incomplete quoting! Evil or Very Mad Wink


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

As Orio has put it (in rather strong words Wink), any modern AF lens will produce a picture that is turned into a "perfect" one (as most people would say) with one click. That's why I tend to say that these lenses produce "perfect" pictures, too perfect perhaps.


My concept is the opposite: the software is used to boost rather lifeless pictures that come out of lenses that are produced with the average user in mind and thus sacrifice excellence for productivity.
-


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good afternoon!

Orio sayd:
Average customer is basically an idiot who steps up from mobile camera phones to digital reflex and does not know a thing about real photography.
For instance they don't know how to measure the light properly in a backlight scene, or in a scene that has large dynamic gap between sunlight and shadows.

This is true!



I was basically an idiot, and my first pictures are not so good. Only I used the standardkit without any experience. Now, I know a little bit more, the dynamic gap and the 3D creation are the greatest problems by above all moved objekts.
The first 3D Effekt, I create, was with the Pentax FA 50/1,4, new Lense, and I was amazed, not allways sharp is the way, no - the visual art is the composite between sharp and blur.
Manuel Lenses gives me a better feeling, I know the parameters and I get a new sensation for the focus point.

But the average customer want automatik and super perfomance by low price.

This appendet picture can´t made with a compact cam and I am glad to be on the way to get a feeling for fotography.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a question:

What can I do if the sun is to bright for using a open visor (to get a 3D-effect)?
Filters?
Backlightshield (germany - Gegenlichtblende)?
Switching the focal distance?
Software effects - i don´t like it - i await for me to create a good origin

I have to practice, summer comes Very Happy

regards Peter


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

As Orio has put it (in rather strong words Wink), any modern AF lens will produce a picture that is turned into a "perfect" one (as most people would say) with one click. That's why I tend to say that these lenses produce "perfect" pictures, too perfect perhaps.


My concept is the opposite: the software is used to boost rather lifeless pictures that come out of lenses that are produced with the average user in mind and thus sacrifice excellence for productivity.
-

Well, this is exactly what I wrote: "perfect" in their eyes with one click.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padiej wrote:

Filters?
Backlightshield (germany - Gegenlichtblende)?


Filters? Yes, neutral density filters could do the trick.

BTW
Gegenlichtblende = lens hood
Blende = aperture
Wink


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padiej wrote:
I have a question:
What can I do if the sun is to bright for using a open visor (to get a 3D-effect)?
Filters?
Backlightshield (germany - Gegenlichtblende)?
Switching the focal distance?


The first thing to do with a digital camera is to make sure that your ISO is set to the lowest available number. This will not only help with the described problem, but also improve the image quality.

After that, you need to make the shutter time faster. Most cameras allow shutter times of 1/4000 and sometimes also more.
A time of 1/4000 coupled with a ISO setting of 50 or 100 should be enough to handle most situations, except for the most extreme ones.

If ISO and shutter time are not enough, there is a further resource that is available on most digital reflex cameras, that is, the possibility to intentionally over- or under-expose a shot, this is usually known as "manual exposure adjustment" or similar naming. Cameras like the 400D allow a MEA of +/- 2 stops, more professional cameras even offer the double of that (+/- four stops). So you can use this trick.

Aside from the above described solutions, the only possible way is to use a neutral density filter, i.e. a grey filter that makes the image darker without altering (hopefully) the colour balance.

padiej wrote:
Software effects - i don´t like it - i await for me to create a good origin


And this is the best approach you can choose, the more you learn to do it with the camera resources only, the better you will become.

-


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you!

Pentax K100d starts with ISO 200 and 1/4000 are sometimes to bright.
I will buight a grey-filter.

regards Peter


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To me the key elements seem to be:
- Good or excellent lens in terms of sharpness
- use a wide max aperture so the main subject "pops" out from the background clutter
- Use a longer focal length lens(to further narrow depth of field.)
- Maintain accurate focussing on the main subject.
- OPosition the subject so there are objects in the background (and maybe, foreground) that can be thrown into out of focus relief.

Shoot till your heart's content!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterm1 wrote:
To me the key elements seem to be:
- Good or excellent lens in terms of sharpness
- use a wide max aperture so the main subject "pops" out from the background clutter
- Use a longer focal length lens(to further narrow depth of field.)
- Maintain accurate focussing on the main subject.
- OPosition the subject so there are objects in the background (and maybe, foreground) that can be thrown into out of focus relief.

Shoot till your heart's content!


Yes, Peter. But it you shoot with a tele lens wide open, you will see the background completely blurred. This does not really create a 3D-effect.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What about this one as 3Dlooking picture?



Shot with the Zeiss Biogon G 21mm a couple of days ago. Film is Velvia 100.

I did not make anything specifically to obtain this effect. Besides, it would be very difficult on a rangefinder camera because you don't have a live preview.
This is one of the cases when the lens decided about the 3D look by itself. Smile
-


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, looks to me like a VERY good example of 3D! Using that lovely
Bessa, right?

Bill


PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Orio, looks to me like a VERY good example of 3D! Using that lovely
Bessa, right?
Bill


Thanks Bill. No, my Bessie is a reflex (Bessaflex). The camera is a Contax G2. I focus it manually though (not for ideological issue, just because the AF really sucks) Razz I really wanted these Contax G lenses. I think they are my best lenses. Now, if I could afford that Zeiss Ikon with the ZM line of new lenses... Rolling Eyes Will that ever happen?


PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One of the best examples of the 3D effect discussed here remains this photograph, taken by Orio with its Tessar 50/3.5, and posted in this forum in November 2007:



A true masterpiece!

Cheers!

Abbazz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3