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

[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

[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.


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


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."






<div>Hereis 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

[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 ... 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 [img]/emoticons/emotion-18.gif[/img]





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.


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


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


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


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