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

[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...neric/utility/]





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.


[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