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

[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. []


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.


[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/apstringer/5357705363/][/url]


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.


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





thanks for viewing!

[Fast Glass]

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


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





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





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.


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





@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.