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.[]


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 (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, 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.



[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/7041.Marigold-Run.jpg[/img]
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.


[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

[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.