Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does this have that "3D" look you guys talk about?  (Read 14322 times)
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2007, 08:57:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess I'm an old guy. I don't get excited about "bokeh" or selective focus technique.

What always drew me into an image and made me think about great craftsmanship and artistic representation of our 3-D world in a 2-D art form is the use of light and shadow.

Whether a photographer created it or searched for it and captured it at the perfect moment, light and shadow is what makes me stop and admire a great photographic rendering of 3 dimensions.

The image can be sharp or soft–shallow or great depth of field–and it's the lighting that gives shape and contour and dimension that talks to me.

Gotta go rest now.
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2007, 09:02:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I fully agree with this, absolutely right.

Thierry


Quote
I guess I'm an old guy. I don't get excited about "bokeh" or selective focus technique.

What always drew me into an image and made me think about great craftsmanship and artistic representation of our 3-D world in a 2-D art form is the use of light and shadow.

Whether a photographer created it or searched for it and captured it at the perfect moment, light and shadow is what makes me stop and admire a great photographic rendering of 3 dimensions.

The image can be sharp or soft–shallow or great depth of field–and it's the lighting that gives shape and contour and dimension that talks to me.

Gotta go rest now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2007, 10:00:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
TechTalk, this thread is about the visible difference in 3D-rendering between format sizes.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not convinced there is any. But then, we all have different perception.
Logged
psp
Guest
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2007, 10:05:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
TechTalk, this thread is about the visible difference in 3D-rendering between format sizes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really - this thread is about a 3D look - the title of this posts mentions nothing about a specific format size or limitations to what makes an image looks 3 dimensional.

Tech Talk makes a very good point... there are other ways to create an image with a '3D look'... specifically, one can still achieve a 3D look without a half mile of background.

In fact, I would argue if your example shot had more shadow/highlights on the model, the overall look would be far more 3D looking. To my eye, the background looks 3D, but the model looks 2 dimensional... my opinion of course, and no offence meant at all.


P.
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2007, 10:14:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess that TechTalk simply mentions the possibilities (unlimited, IMO) for light to create (much better than DOF in a given format) a 3-D feeling, in which I fully agree. There is no mention of format at the begining of this tread, simply a discussion about 3-D.

Thierry

Quote
TechTalk, this thread is about the visible difference in 3D-rendering between format sizes. Not about how 3D-effects can be rendered artistically most pleasing. That is a totally different discussion. You are talking about a taste matter here. Lighting is format-independent, as is perspective and the use of color or B&W. I'm sure any format can be used to create visually attractive images (with a strong sense of depth), but for technical reasons they will look different. Maybe you should start a thread called: "Photographs that make you stop and admire".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2007, 11:18:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The OP was asking if his sample looked like the 3D-look that "you guys" were talking about. I thought this question was asked in the vein of that huge DSLR vs MFDB war-thread, where the debate ran hot about the supposed inherent 3D look of the MFDBs. Then he showed a stitch that attempted to mimic a high resolution sensor from a MFDB. So for me this was essentially a discussion of that technical aspect of 3D in relation to format.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

IMO you are right about intention of this thread.

I didnt see the stitcher but the look should be creatable stittchng which (in terms of lenseleng FOV/DOF geomatry) is not different from having a large sensor

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #46 on: October 06, 2007, 02:13:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I also got the impression that the thread is focussed on the characteristics of MF which might appear to contibute to a sense of 3-dimensionality in addition to, or irrespective of, the other tricks of the trade which photographers in general will use to create a particular effect.

I would say the following factors are contributing to this 3-D effect with MF cameras.

(1) Greater clarity and sharpness at the plane of focus, which surely must be the main reason why anyone would buy such an expensive camera.

(2) Shallower DoF in general when using an MF lens within the range of f stops where the lens is sharpest, say f4 to f10.

(3) Enhanced shallowness of DoF compared to 35mm as a result of that additional sharpness at the plane of focus. This is something which the DoF calculators cannot address since there is no numerical input for system resolution.

We all know that a lens is precisely in focus only at one point, or at best one plane. If that precise point is not as sharp as it could be due to inadequate lens performance and/or inadequate sensor resolution, DoF will appear less shallow than it otherwise could be.

There is clearly going to be a difference between (1) an image which has great clarity and sharpness in the area of precise focus, set against a slightly OoF background and (2) an image which is simply not tack sharp at the plane of focus but which has a slightly greater OoF background in order to create the same shallow DoF as in example (1).

The creation of an image that is so real, sharp and tangible that you feel you could almost reach out and grab the target is surely one of the goals of photography and the reason why many of us want 40mp+ cameras with adequate lenses to match.
Logged
psp
Guest
« Reply #47 on: October 06, 2007, 09:18:45 AM »
ReplyReply

While these are all valid points, if you look beyond the equipment you use and instead use light to create shape  it will dramatically enhance the 3D look we're discussing.

DOF is one way (and I would argue not the best way) to give some dimension to an image, but the creative use of light is far more effective. Besides, the definition of photography is the capture of light, not the capture DOF.


Cheers!
Logged
russell a
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 06, 2007, 10:19:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The creation of an image that is so real, sharp and tangible that you feel you could almost reach out and grab the target is surely one of the goals of photography and the reason why many of us want 40mp+ cameras with adequate lenses to match.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One of whose goals?  Not mine, thank you.
Logged
psp
Guest
« Reply #49 on: October 06, 2007, 11:41:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now, does anybody have a sample that has "that "3D" look you guys talk about" to show here or what?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Define "3D look".
Logged
psp
Guest
« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2007, 01:05:39 PM »
ReplyReply

The explanation provided is rather technical and suggests that a camera can create dimension. Like I said earlier, I believe selective DOF adds only a very little to the dimensionally.

IMO, the camera is only a part of it. If you study Trompe L'Oeil, you'll see that 3D look is achieved by creating an optical illusion by using perspective, shadow, light and scale to deceive the viewer into thinking that they are seeing a real three dimensional space or object, instead of paint on a two dimensional surface.

So while I agree that there are ways to use a camera to add dimension to a photo, the issue of MF, LF, SF or even a Holga has less to do with it than the device used to capture the image. An object shot at f32 versus f2.8 do not necessarily have more or less dimension.... and flat lighting is one way to guarantee poor dimension

I'm not disagreeing with anything anyone is saying - what I am saying is that there is far FAR more than what camera one uses if the objective is to add dimension to images. If dimension is the objective, one should look at the lighting rather than the camera to achieve this.


P.
Logged
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2007, 01:33:00 PM »
ReplyReply

The appearance of 3-D in a 2-D image is by nature an impression based on our individual perception. I'm trying to think of something that impacts my own personal impression and perception of 3-dimensionality less than depth of field, format or sharpness. I haven't thought of anything.

Everyone perceives what they see differently... thank goodness! It makes the world so much more interesting!

My perception is mine and no more valid than yours. I may be entirely wrong and just don't understand what this thread is about, due to something lacking in my perceptual abilities. I can live with that.

From this point, I'll just watch this thread and read. Maybe I'll learn something!

Thanks. Sorry if I disrupted the thread because I didn't get it.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 06, 2007, 02:20:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I.. don't understand what this thread is about

You need to read the Canon V MF thread where there is debate about whther if the III is good for DR and MP it will match a MFDB or whether MFDB will always look 'more 3d' because of the larger chip and less DOF

(an argument I would agree with)

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
witz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 06, 2007, 03:04:02 PM »
ReplyReply

here's what a 50mm wide open MFB can do.....

I was going for a classical look that lighting is what creates the shape.....

just as a teaser.... here's a tiff shot monday ( using "film look 70's" in capture one )

hassy 2000fcw with 50mm at f2.8 1/60th sec, kinoflo daylight continous.

no retouching or photoshop work at all.... straight from capture one.

http://www.witzke-studio.com/capture-013183.tif

(big file... wait for it )

you have to admit that for $8k this is a hell of a system!

and yes... this set up is for sale right now.....
« Last Edit: October 06, 2007, 03:51:22 PM by witzke » Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2007, 05:29:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Just about every pic in this book personifies what I understand by 3D.......

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0821227025...141#reader-link


Click through the pages to the shot of the salmon and fig. Incredible.

Should be on every photographers' bookshelf.

D.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2007, 05:31:10 AM by Dinarius » Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2007, 09:34:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Does this image have "3D" look?
This was shot with tiny Canon G3, on-camera flash,  raw, developed in SilkyPix.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2007, 10:06:20 AM by MichaelEzra » Logged

samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2007, 02:08:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does this image have "3D" look?
This was shot with tiny Canon G3, on-camera flash,  raw, developed in SilkyPix.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

100% 2D. Just my opinion.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2007, 12:34:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The appearance of 3-D in a 2-D image is by nature an impression based on our individual perception. I'm trying to think of something that impacts my own personal impression and perception of 3-dimensionality less than depth of field, format or sharpness. I haven't thought of anything.

Everyone perceives what they see differently... thank goodness! It makes the world so much more interesting!

My perception is mine and no more valid than yours. I may be entirely wrong and just don't understand what this thread is about, due to something lacking in my perceptual abilities. I can live with that.

From this point, I'll just watch this thread and read. Maybe I'll learn something!

Thanks. Sorry if I disrupted the thread because I didn't get it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps 3-dimensionality is not the right word for this subtle phenomenon which appears to be an attribute of high quality MFDBs.

The normal process by which an appearance of a 3-dimensional effect is created on a 2-dimensional plane (in every photograph whatever the quality of the camera) is the characteristic of distant objects being smaller than near objects and also the characteristic that near objects can partially obscure far objects.

These are characteristics which every normal person has learned and is aware of, whether or not he/she is consciously thinking about them whilst viewing a 2-dimensional representation. It is a learned interpretation and relies to a large extent on the viewer being able to recognise the objects in a picture, the fact that a car is smaller than a house, for example.

The heightened or enhanced 3-D effect that some owners of MFDBs are talking about seems to be largely related to shallow DoF in tandem with ultra sharp and palpably real objects in perfect focus. If this is not the case, then show me any scene which has great DoF, where everything is equally sharp, yet which demonstrates this heightened 3-D effect associated with MFDBs.
Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2007, 05:05:54 PM »
ReplyReply

3-D?
its very difficult with the restricyions on size; I would be happy to send anyone the C1 processed 250MB tiff!

:-)

But I consider the MFDB detail to really create the 'reach in' aspect

This shot is unbelievable on my 30' HP monitor, calibrated. NOT at 100%- that stretches the edge, but when the pixel distance has NO smear from the foreground to background is where you get this look.

It comes NOT from OOF FG to BG which is what a lot of 3D claims propose. Here is a full, in focus (mostly :-)) shot...
Ile sur la Sorge, Provence, 2007 summer Contax 645, 35mm P45+

See if a hint of i3-D hits you here.

I added crop where the figures even in the distance have very sharp delineation. Something difficult with a Bayer sensor except with pixels to spare (that is, FOUR pixels on each side of an edge to keep the interpolation clean without sharpening.

regards
Victor
« Last Edit: October 13, 2007, 05:21:47 PM by vgogolak » Logged
AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2007, 05:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
100% 2D. Just my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


All I see is one "D" as for unsatisfactory
Andre
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad