3D effect, how do you do it? How does it work?

[Steve U]

Hello to all from sunny Queensland, beautiful one day, treading water the next.[li]


I am looking for advice and examples of the so-called 3D effect with images. I don't mean special camera rigs, multiple lenses and so on.


I mean where there is an image, usually captured by a widish lens, with a large aperature and most times fairly close. I have seen examples on this site with the 85L. But there are a lot on Flickr usually at about 35mm and usually not with Canon lenses.


I don't think this effect is done in post processing, it is more an effect when the background and sometimes foreground are out of focus and the subject sort of pops out of the image.


I want to try and duplicate this effect, but would like to know if there is a "trick" or some factors that have to happen first. Those that can do it, prattle on about colors, contrast and 3D rendering and so on. I was hoping it wasn't just done with layers.


I would really like to see some examples so the factors or "tricks" can be discussed.


Looking forward to your help and images.[:D]


Steve

[neuroanatomist]

an effect when the background and sometimes foreground are out of focus and the subject sort of pops out of the image.


This rather sounds like the 'fake miniature' effect. It can be achieved with post-processing (there are plenty of Photoshop tutorials), and in fact some of the newer Canon cameras have this as an in-camera jpg effect (the 60D and PowerShot S95, for example).


However, optically the effect is achieved by tilting the focal plane of the lens relative to the image plane of the sensor, i.e. with a tilt-shift lens. Jonathan Huyer posted a nice example in this linked thread ("/image_presentation1/f/15/p/5025/43164.aspx) (the cityscape shot ~2/3 of the way down).


--John

[HDNitehawk]

Steve


I see John's post but I am not sure that is the effect you were asking about. With fast primes like the 85L and even the 35L 1.4 at narrow DOF you can really nail somthing in focus and blur forground and background to give you that effect. The constrast out of these lenses is great and it really improves that effect. As well if you have a camera that is really good at contrast like the 5D Mark II. You can create that illusion of seperation of the in focus area compared to the out of focus.


To highten that effect other factors come in to play, such as the nature of the forground and background. Seperation is good to, where there is a little bit of distance between the subject and background. That way the Out of Focus area doesn't trail off it is defined. Looking at your kit list, the 24mm F1.4L you have is the best in your kit for trying this, however 24mm is a bit wide but I think your best canidate. The right lighting comes in to play as well


I see where you asked Johnathan Huyer about this pic http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/15/p/5331/46560.aspx#46560 ("/image_presentation1/f/15/p/5331/46560.aspx#46560), this is the effect I thought you might be asking about.


Maybe post a link to an image you are talking about so we could be sure what your talking about.

[neuroanatomist]

Certainly fast lenses can result in a very thin DoF. But many times, that effect is used to blur out the background only, since the subject is shot with little or no foreground. The shot on the left is an example of that - there's a foreground element (the water pump) with some blur because it's outside the DoF, but there's also a lateral separation between subject and foreground object. Changing the composition to include a close foreground which 'covers' part of the subject, and shooting with a thin DoF, can result in a very different effect, like the shot on the right.



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/5036879564_b6447efa1d_z.jpg /cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/7041.Marigold-Run.jpg
EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II USM, 1/1250 s, f/1.6, ISO 100 EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II USM, 1/640 s, f/1.2, ISO 100


If I were so inclined (I'm not...), I could 'enhance' the effect in post by applying some Gaussian blur to the marigolds that are in the same focal plane as my daughter.



Maybe post a link to an image you are talking about so we could be sure what your talking about.


Yep - that would help!

[HDNitehawk]

John


I could look at those pics and say your a skilled photographer, but with a subject that cute I don

[Fast Glass]

I am looking for advice and examples of the so-called 3D effect with images.



I mean where there is an image, usually captured by a widish lens, with a large aperature and most times fairly close. I have seen examples on this site with the 85L. But there are a lot on Flickr usually at about 35mm and usually not with Canon lenses.


What you are talking about is perspective distortion, when you get closer to your subject things closer to you will be more exaggerated, and things farther away will be less exaggerated. This give the image more depth and a psuedo 3D affect. A wider apeture somewhat emphasizes this affect. Also if the colors are flat and under saturated it will take away from this affect.


A good way to visualize this affect is to imagine a person standing in front a mountain, with a wide lens such as 24mm the mountainhe will seem far away and the subject will seem very close. If you use a 600mm lens the mountain will seem to beright behind him.


If you take a head and shouldersportriat at 24mm the nose will be huge and the ears will be very small, at 300mm the nose will be the proper sizeandthe ears will be the proper size. It willhave a painting quality to it and have a much more flat perspective.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Rick! [:$]



shouldn't you be headed to China


Soon...we head over on Feb 17th. [ap]

[Steve U]

Thank you for the initial responses, I'll include some copywrite images for the discussion purpose.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/0537.rz35_2D00_104.jpg





/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/1778.chairs.jpg





This is the sort of thing I am talking about.


Cheers,


Steve

[HDNitehawk]

Steve


I think DOF (a fast 1.4 lens) and the awesome contrast of a Ziess lens that you are seeing. Next maybe the skill to pull that out of the shot when they did it.


So I think first ...the right tools.


Second the right skills to set up the picture right to pull that look out of it.


Rick

[Daniel Browning]

I've seen people use "3D" to describe a mixture of many things, usually two or more of the following

Exaggerated or unusual perspective (usually close, but sometimes far)
Wide angle of view
Thin DOF
Defocus blur
High contrast

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
High saturation
Aliasing artifacts (usually described as "sharpness")
Lighting (e.g. chiaroscuro)
Good composition



For example, many folks feel that large format photography has a special 3-D look to it, which usually just comes out to wider angle of view (not unique to large format), thinner DOF (also not unique) and high contrast.

[Steve U]

Thanks for chiming in Daniel, I thought "chiaroscuro" was just a thin pasta I hadn

[Sheiky]

Interesting thread. It got me thinking and it lead me to the next theory. I think it is actually a lot easier than you all think. (Gonna start a debate here [A])


When I saw this thread it reminded me of a test photo that I made(my brother made it) of me in our backyard. We used my new 50mm f1.4 @ f1.4(and I was amazed by the same effect at that time). Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore and I probably threw it away(it was a much better example than the next one, because it showed more foreground). I did find another one of my girlfriend. Although it is a bad photo, I think it shows the effect that you're looking for:


http://www.actieinbeeld.nl/tdp/3deffect.jpg


This one is shot at f1.4 so it has a shallow depth of field. However here is my theory:


Although it has a shallow depth of field, the entire person is "sharp". In my opinion that is where the 3D effect comes to play. It's not just simple thin Depth of Field. It is separating a subject by the use of Depth of Field while remaining optimal full sharpness on your subject.


In this shot you can see that my girlfriend looks "sharp" all the way, however both fore and background are blurry. If there was only partial sharpness on the subject, I think the 3D effect wouldn't be as obvious.


In the snowy family shot from Jonathan Huyer you can see the same thing. Perfect overall sharpness on the subjects and the rest is blurred.


In the meantime I have found another example of my little sister. Also shot with the 50mm on f1.4:


http://www.actieinbeeld.nl/tdp/3deffectstep.jpg


And here's what happens when you remove the foreground blur, you can see that the 3D effect disappears and it looks like the more common use of Depth of Field:


http://www.actieinbeeld.nl/tdp/3deffectstep2.jpg


So in short: My theory is that it's a mixture between thin Depth of Field, with a good ratio of fore and background blur (you must have both), while retaining your subject in focus completely.


These shots are at f1.4, but I don't think it's necessary. I think you could do it as well with a narrower aperture, albeit you probably need to increase your focal length and subject distance to get the same idea.


Cheers,


Jan

[Steve U]

Nice contributions Jan and I agree your girlfriend is sharp all the way. Your sister does tend to jump out of this image. Is there any artefacts from the sharpening? I don't know.


John the right hand shot of your little darlin' shows significant depth, but it doesn't show the same separation as Jan's girlfriend. Again I wonder if this is merely a PP addition or it is the sum of all the factors that Daniel mentioned all lining up to get the 3D.


I think once you get the hang of it, it could easily become overused and overworked.


But I haven't managed to produce anything near this 3D effect. I'd like to be able to.


So far it seems to be a quality that is not that common, I think some of the bird experts may have some good examples that show the 3D pop.


Steve

[HDNitehawk]

But I haven't managed to produce anything near this 3D effect. I'd like to be able to.


Steve


I do not know how much you work your pictures after you take them. I see you have a 7D so a little insight, I have a 5D Mark II and about three months ago bought the 7D to use with my 500mm. While the 7D picture can get close to or even edge out the 5D on a croped picture, it takes more work. I can get the 7D pictures to look as good as the 5D's look, but I have to add contrast, add sharpness and play with the other settings. I do this in DPP and usualy finding myself adding +2 or so to contrast, adjusting exposure to balance it out...going to +4 or +5 to sharpen and what ever other adjustment I need to make before I process it.


You certainly have the tools to do the job. Your 24mm if it is the II version has outstanding contrast and on your croped frame you can certainly try some of the DOF things people have shown here. I would suggest finding a DOF calculator on line and reviewing DOF at various distances so you can kind of see how to play with it. [View:http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html:550:0]

[HDNitehawk]

Steve, I have seen some of your past pictures. Your not that far off producing some of the effect you are talking about. Take for example the pic of the wine bottles you posted.[View:http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/15/t/5486.aspx:550:0]


Some would say that pic had that effect somewhat. With just a little change in background and foreground I think it would really have the look you were going for. What detracts from having that look are the people in the background, they draw your eye away from the bottles.

[Andy Stringer]

I think some of the bird experts may have some good examples that show the 3D pop

I have some images of emperor penguin chicks that 'pop'.

[/URL][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5273467497/]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5273467497_0f1ede719c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5273467497/)
5D Mark II, EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 75mm, f/7.1, 1/1600s, ISO 100

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5274049166_655f2f9110_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5274049166/)
5D Mark II, EF17-40mm f/4L USM @ 40mm, f/8, 1/1000s, ISO 100

Pictures of birds in flight don't usually have foreground elements to put out of focus. In the following example, I've taken advantage of the motion blur of the wing tips and the ice floe in the background to make this northern fulmar pop.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5357516058_45701023a2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5357516058/)
5D Mark II, EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, f/5.6, 1/250s, ISO 100 (cropped to ~300mm equivalent field of view)

[Steve U]

Steve, I have seen some of your past pictures. Your not that far off producing some of the effect you are talking about. Take for example the pic of the wine bottles you posted.[View:http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/15/t/5486.aspx:550:0]


Some would say that pic had that effect somewhat. With just a little change in background and foreground I think it would really have the look you were going for. What detracts from having that look are the people in the background, they draw your eye away from the bottles.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Thanks Rick for the encouragement and for taking the time to review some of my stuff, I am going to try and play around with this over the next week. I've bookmarked the DoF calculator and see if I can create the "perfect storm" of factors to try and make this happen.


Cheers,


Steve

[Steve U]

@Andy, nice examples Andy. The first penguin looks like he is not happy to be off to work again, the secong one looks like he is standing outside the principals office and the third does pop.


As Rick has pointed out the 5D does a great job with contrast, but who

[HDNitehawk]

Andy


Your third pic does pop, but the thing that really jumps out is the thought "where were you at to get that perspective"

[Andy Stringer]

I have to say the penguin chicks lost some of their 'pop' after downsizing. Sorry if it wasn't the best illustration of a 3D effect, but thanks for the comments anyway.


"where were you at to get that perspective"

I was on a ship near Svalbard, to the north of Norway. There were a few fulmars flying around the ship just below the upper deck level, so I was able to get a perspective looking down on one of them. As you can see, there wasn't much else to take pictures of that day. This one was taken within half an hour of the shot I posted above, to give you an idea of the situation.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5357705363_c2077ac99b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5357705363/)

I agree that the 5D Mark II does a good job with contrast. It's not renowned for it's performance with birds in flight, but I have found that if you take enough pictures, you make your own luck.

[Kayaker72]

but I have found that if you take enough pictures, you make your own luck.


The story behind almost all of my favorite pictures. [:D]


BTW...the penquins "popped" plenty. Great photos.


Steve, great thread. I think Daniel's list covered these, but the two common themes I am seeing in the pictures that "pop" are a distant background and slightly different lighting on/brightness ofthe subject in comparison to the fore- and background (chiaroscuro---learned something new). At least those are my observations.


Look forward to some of your pics.


Brant

[Steve U]

I have to say the penguin chickslost some of their 'pop' afterdownsizing. Sorry if it wasn't the best illustration of a 3D effect, but thanks for the comments anyway.





I agree that the 5D Mark II does a good job with contrast. It's not renowned for it's performance with birds in flight, but I have found that if you take enough pictures, you make your own luck.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I think they have plenty of that 3D pop Andy, it's just that penguins always look disconsolate. As they are about to get in trouble, or they are bored. They always make emotive pictures to me. And yours have all been good shots that you have published here over the last few months.


Have you got any "Happy Feet?"


Steve

[Andy Stringer]

Have you got any "Happy Feet?"

This youngster was the most energetic, making good use of its feet, but whether that equates to 'happy' I'm not sure. Anyway, it has a bit of that 'pop' that you're loooking for, Steve.

[/URL][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5274070452/]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5041/5274070452_434404ee5f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5274070452/)
5D Mark II, EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, f/7.1, 1/1600s, ISO 100

[JJphoto]

interesting thread, Steve!, those two sample pictures are very nice, it seems like a lot of things involved in this "3D" effect, I think Daniel and Fast glass


said it all, and I want to add one more thing is that how the viewer feel about the 3D effect. I especially like the second picture, I feel it's "4D effect" because I felt like I was brought to the past time when I was viewing it. also i think this 3D effect is different from "pop", longer lens can easily make "pop" effect but that's not 3D IMO, it's just separation. take a look at the first picture, the background doesn't even look that blurred, but it has the 3D effect, why? the perspective and the shape of the boat etc. IMHO


this picture was taken with my 35mm1.4 at f1.6 with Canon XSi, 35mm on a cropped body is not that wide, so I don't call it a 3D effect, but that's the closest one I'v got so far


http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8199/img6004x.jpg


thanks for viewing!

[Fast Glass]

Thank you for the initial responses, I'll include some copywrite images for the discussion purpose.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/0537.rz35_2D00_104.jpg





/resized-image.ashx/__size/850x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/1778.chairs.jpg





This is the sort of thing I am talking about.


Cheers,


Steve
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Steve those are great examples.


The first one is using mostly perspective to acheive this affect. The Second is using thin DOF and perspective, when the DOF is thin your eye focuses on the perfectly in focus part and the our of focus parts are blured and look almost 3D.


As far as Ziess contrast goes I have not seen anything unusual about it, I looked at Bryans ISO crops and they mostly lack contrast compared to Canon's lenses.If you post-prosses your pictures that difference is thrown right out the window as you set the contrast for the image. It mattered more for film but in the digital era that difference in negated.


John.

[HDNitehawk]

As far as Ziess contrast goes I have not seen anything unusual about it, I looked at Bryans ISO crops and they mostly lack contrast compared to Canon's lenses.If you post-prosses your pictures that difference is thrown right out the window as you set the contrast for the image


John


Bryan's review of the 21mm distagon say "Image sharpness/resolution/contrast, even wide open on a full frame body, right into the extreme corners,is what I'm most pleased with."


But even at that I don't think any of the reviews posted here would apply in this situation, unless I am mistaken the boat picture was taken with a lens that hasn't been in production for a very long time. If you try to buy that lens it will cost you almost as much if not more than the best 24mm lens canon makes. So the person taking the picture either knew what this lens could do and choose it over the Canon lenses, or they just like to collect old things.


From what I understand you are saying, that contrast a lens produces would be no different than adding contrast in post processing? I would think the contrast out of the lens would be superior to simulated contrast from the computer.


Rick

[Sheiky]

Nice contributions Jan and I agree your girlfriend is sharp all the way. Your sister does tend to jump out of this image. Is there any artefacts from the sharpening? I don't know.


John the right hand shot of your little darlin' shows significant depth, but it doesn't show the same separation as Jan's girlfriend. Again I wonder if this is merely a PP addition or it is the sum of all the factors that Daniel mentioned all lining up to get the 3D.



Thanks Steve. Haha I might have chosen the wrong words, my girlfriend also has a very nice soft side [;)]


Anyhow. I never sharpen any of my photos. There is a standard 25% sharpening applied and also a 25% contrast in Lightroom. (haven't sorted out yet how to make my own import-settings)


So I don't think it is really aPP addition. It's probably indeed a mixture of factors.

[Steve U]

But even at that I don't think any of the reviews posted here would apply in this situation, unless I am mistaken the boat picture was taken with a lens that hasn't been in production for a very long time. If you try to buy that lens it will cost you almost as much if not more than the best 24mm lens canon makes. So the person taking the picture either knew what this lens could do and choose it over the Canon lenses, or they just like to collect old things.


From what I understand you are saying, that contrast a lens produces would be no different than adding contrast in post processing? I would think the contrast out of the lens would be superior to simulated contrast from the computer.


Rick
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Correct Rick it is about a 40 year old lens. But the qualities are there in current lenses as well, you just don't see it that often. There seems to be a group of people that hunt for and produce these type of images. I like them and I'm working at it.


Steve.

[Steve U]

I had a play this arvo, but this is more about bokeh than 3D pop, maybe if there was some reference point in the foreground and it needs more contrast. There are a lot of factors to consider. I think there might be a formula and when you work it out you will be able to make it happen.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/650x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/2235.IMG_5F00_6518_5F00_001.jpg





@24mm, f1.4 1/13 sec ISO 100


Gotta work on my compostion. C&amp;C very welcome to point me in the right direction.


Thanks for viewing.


Steve

[Andy Stringer]

this is more about bokeh than 3D pop

I agree, Steve. I think this shot might benefit from a little more depth of field. You've isolated the flower, but as you say everything else is bokeh. For the 3D effect, I think the viewer needs to be able to judge the distance and relative size of background objects, which isn't easy in this shot. A narrower aperture would have helped to isolate the foreground branch from the background and provide just a little extra definition of the background without bringing it into sharp focus.

An alternative would be to step back a little and try the shot with a slightly longer subject distance, which will also increase the depth of field. This might need a bigger subject to work well. Another option would be to try with your 24-70mm lens, then you can experiment with different focal lengths, as well as apertures and compositions to see what works best. Make a note of your focus distance for each shot (it's in the EXIF data).

The dark, empty space on the right of this image doesn't help the composition, nor does it help your shutter speed, which isn't slow enough to stop movement of the flower in a breeze. If you put the flower in front of this dark patch, this may improve the contrast around the flower

I hope that helps. Keep at it, and let us see some more some time.

[PaulM]

Hi Steve,


WIth no practical experience at this, I would suggest that the effect is most prominent when the background is only slightly blurred accompanied by reasonable perspective; subtle separation of the subject from the background.


IMO this is similar to the human eye, which I don

[HDNitehawk]

Steve





What do you think, would this one have a bit of it? I took this today, some thing keeps drawing me back to it. Its not as sharp as I would like, but it seemed to have some other qualities. It is at sunset, the sun to the birds back, the other bank is kind of shaded. F4.0 1/320 ISO125 ....and hand held with the 500mm. No crop. No Post Process at all other than conversion in DPP.





[View:http://community.the-digital-picture.com/themes/generic/utility/http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5371304691_ba24fda520_z.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/55888666@N08/5371304691/)]





Rick

[Steve U]

Thanks Paul for your thoughts your explanation and I agree it is all those intrinsic factors that add up to what I see in the boat picture.


I agree Rick there is something extra happening in your photo, there is a feeling of more depth, well done.


Thanks for all the contributions, I am working on some more pictures. But I also have been considering buying one of those Zeiss lenses, but I don

[neuroanatomist]

I still think that the people posting these 3D images have worked out the formula


I have a feeling you're right on that one. Take the boat shot you posted as an example - I think the effect there is a combination of many factors, but with major input from composition - a curving, almost 'bulging' subject (possibly enhanced by some subtle barrel distortion from the lens - I don't know about the Zeiss 35/1.4, but the Zeiss 35/2 has noticeable barrel distortion), the angle of the boat in the frame, corner vignetting, etc., all add to the effect.


The other factor I don't think anyone has mentioned is that the subjects in those photos are reasonably-sized objects with strong dimensionality on their own, and they are shot at an angle, which accentuates their dimensionality. I think that's partly what Paul was getting at when he pointed out that the portraits don't have that strong 3D effect.

[HDNitehawk]

Thanks for all the contributions, I am working on some more pictures. But I also have been considering buying one of those Zeiss lenses, but I don't know whether it is necessary. I still think that the people posting these 3D images have worked out the formula and could probably do it with a "nifty fifty" they are just good at what they do.



Thanks for all the contributions, I am working on some more pictures. But I also have been considering buying one of those Zeiss lenses, but I don't know whether it is necessary. I still think that the people posting these 3D images have worked out the formula and could probably do it with a "nifty fifty" they are just good at what they do.








Steve


I have thought for some time about getting the Ziess 21mm Distagon. I think before you buy a new lens you should research it out very well, because Ziess is most likely riding on their reputation and not all their lenses equal their reputation.


Looking at your kit, I would make another suggestion. I own a 7D that I bought three months ago. I have two 5D's, if I were trying to do what you are talking about I think the 5D Mark II with the lenses you have would get you a lot closer to doing what you want than buying a new Ziess lens. Maybe see if you could get a loaner 5D for the day from the local camera shop and try it out with your 24mm.


You are right that people that are real good could probably do it with a "nifty fifty". But most true master craftsman in any trade would tell you, quality tools while they do not make your skills better, they can make your job a lot easier.


Rick

[Fast Glass]

Rick






Bryan's review of the 21mm distagon say "Image sharpness/resolution/contrast, even wide open on a full frame body, right into the extreme corners,is what I'm most pleased with."





I said mostly not all of Ziess's lenses are slightly less contrasy.I looked at Bryan'sISO crops fromthe Distagon and ithas a little less contrast than the 24mm f/1.4 II at the same apetures but only slightly. The diferance is not enough todestinquish a Ziess lens from another high quality lens from a contrast stand point.



From what I understand you are saying, that contrast a lens produces would be no different than adding contrast in post processing?


Not exactally, in real life pictures vary to much in lighting and cotrast to use the image out of the camera 95% of the time and youhave to set a tone curve very different from what comes out of the camera.A lens that produces higher contrast and saturationproduces an image that is closer to reality than one that is less contrasty and saturated, but we are talking about two very high quality lenses that have very similar contrast and not enough to make any real world difference.


John.

[HDNitehawk]

but we are talking about two very high quality lenses that have very similar contrast and not enough to make any real world difference.


John


Thats very true. I own the 24mm F1.4II and you would probably have to look real close to see any diffrences between the lenses. But sometimes this hobby is more of an obssession and lookto close is what I do sometimes.


I have read so many reviews about the color quality and contrast of certain Ziess lenses (not all just select lenses). It makes a person wonder, is there somthing there? SinceI do not have one in hand it leaves me wondering. When I looked at Bryan's sample pics on the site from the Ziess 21mm they seem to have a certain richness or quality to them. Some of the TSE 24mm tilt pictures seem to have this as well, and in coparison they seem better than the 24mm F1.4L II.


Rick

[Steve U]

Steve





I have thought for some time about getting the Ziess 21mm Distagon. I think before you buy a new lens you should research it out very well, because Ziess is most likely riding on their reputation and not all their lenses equal their reputation.


Looking at your kit, I would make another suggestion. I own a 7D that I bought three months ago. I have two 5D's, if I were trying to do what you are talking about I think the 5D Mark II with the lenses you have would get you a lot closer to doing what you want than buying a new Ziess lens. Maybe see if you could get a loaner 5D for the day from the local camera shop and try it out with your 24mm.


You are right that people that are real good could probably do it with a "nifty fifty". But most true master craftsman in any trade would tell you, quality tools while they do not make your skills better, they can make your job a lot easier.


Rick
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Rick, I agree about the tools and have been considering the 5D and have been weighing up the MKlll issue. In all the photos that I have seen that show the contrast requirements best,the camera has been a 5DMKll or to a much lesser extent the1D.


At the same time I have ordered the new Zeiss 35mm/1.4 but the arrival of that lens is not till February. The other dilemma I am faced with at the moment the Zeiss 21mm is available as a "grey import" on line for a rediculous $1560. I have stuck it in the shopping basket a couple of times but haven't pulled the trigger. I am uneasy about this whole grey import business and nowI am trying to decide that with the 35mm ordered, maybe I should invest in a 5D before the 21mm anyway.


I will include another shot from another forum showing how the 3D that is similar to your duck shot, but again shot with the older Zeiss 35mm. There is definite separation and depth with the hikers. I don't think this is sharpening and the subjects are down the road a bit so the road highlights the depth, but mainly I think good composition and something special with that 35mm lens and the camera combo.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/750x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/4532.502297.jpg


Steve

[Baker]

I was reading a post over at strobist.com and it reminded me of this thread so I thought I would share it with you all.


"Take a look at this third shot by Brent, which is clearly underexposing the background a little. Totally different feel. To get this, you are going to underexpose the background by staying a the synch speed and closing down the aperture -- and cranking up and/or moving in the flash to compensate or the tighter aperture.


It looks so 3-D because the sun and the flash are painting the subject from opposite sides, and you can play with the ambient exposure to let your subject pop as much as you want."





http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/1302264072_ec08b90e93.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stateofthenation/1302264072/)
<div>Here ("http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/09/lighting-102-31-balance-flashsun.html)is the link to the entire post.</div>

[Steve U]

Thank you for this inclusion, it makes sense and explains it well.


Sean

[freelanceshots]

Here is a image I took that was given the 3D effect where it has no foreground. If I remember I just lens blurred the background in photoshop


http://www.freelanceshots.com/images/Ricky_Carmichael_supercross_web.jpg

[Sheiky]

It looks so 3-D because the sun and the flash are painting the subject from opposite sides, and you can play with the ambient exposure to let your subject pop as much as you want."


I agree with you on that part, but I also think it doesn't only look 3D, it lookes "fake". I mean, the boy also could have been photoshopped in the image. At least, that's what I feel with these pictures. It's a personal thing. My mind probably cannot deal with strobism-photos [:^)]





At this point, Pauls theory about this 3D effect being similar to the naked eye, makes the most sense to me. I did try some this weekend. Will post them later.


Jan

[PaulM]

Steve,


I think you've got a pretty good 3D effect with the retaining wall shot in the What did you shoot ... ("/image_presentation1/f/15/t/5556.aspx) thread.


Paul.

[HDNitehawk]

I agree with you on that part, but I also think it doesn't only look 3D, it lookes "fake". I mean, the boy also could have been photoshopped in the image. At least, that's what I feel with these pictures. It's a personal thing. My mind probably cannot deal with strobism-photos /emoticons/emotion-18.gif





At this point, Pauls theory about this 3D effect being similar to the naked eye, makes the most sense to me. I did try some this weekend. Will post them later.


Jan



Jan


I agree with you on this one. While the picture did have a 3D look, it really did have a created fake look. The boy was to bright to be natural. While it may well have been the effect the photographer was going for and as a potrait of the boy it may be fine.


Pauls theory makes sense, in part any way. Since this thread went that direction I have been finding myself looking at my own eyes bokeh and comparing it to what I might see on a picture. I say the theory makse sense in part because in reality as you look at somthing your perphial vision is somewhat blurred. However we actualy see and regester images in our mind in4D not 3D. When we are looking at somthing, occasionaly we will glance one way or the other and our brains will form an impresion of what the scene looks like. On stationary objects I think a little less blur than we would normaly see would be in order, where you can make the object out but its not so blurry that you can't tell what it is.


Rick

[Rob Gardner]

OK, I'll throw my two cents in...


Here's a few of mine - guess the focal distance in each.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/1072.IT6Q0374.jpg


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/7506.Santa_5F00_Mailbox.jpg


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/5557.IT6Q8493.jpg


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/7612.73.jpg