Why do large format photos look 3D and hyper-real?

<p>I saw a large print of what was presumably a medium/large format Martin Parr photo at an exhibition in which one of the people's faces looked almost 3D. I've seen a similar effect with a few other medium/large format exhibition photos.<br>

Obviously the prints are extremely detailed but why would that make them look 3D?<br>

Quite apart from the 3D effect, some of these pictures look more real than reality, in a way I can't put my finger on. Does anyone know why?<br>

There must be some good perceptual psychology stuff on this somewhere!</p>

<p>What were the pictures of, besides human faces? What was the context?</p>

<p>Martin Parr uses a very careful amount of fill flash on many of his pictures, and pushes the exposure quite close to the edge of being into overexposure but not quite, and this can give the effect you mention.</p>

<p>If they are the close-ups done of faces at the beach, they were done with a macro dental lens (Nikon, I believe, but I could be wrong) and 35mm film. The lenses have been made in something like 120mm and 200mm and have their own built-in ring flash.</p>

<p>Probably because of microcontrast, since in Medium or Large format grain is almost non existent. Also Lens design/quality may be responsible for that. Some of the pictures from my little Minox 35 GT have that Three dimensional quality and I can't explain that.</p><div></div>

<p>One more...</p><div></div>

<p>Several years ago, I saw an exhibition by Michael Fatali. He shoots landscapes with an 8x10 view camera. The prints were mostly 30x45. They had that ultra-reality look you are talking about. I believe there are several factors at work. Large prints allow you to get up close and view the scene is if through a window. With most large prints there are clues like grain and fuzziness that demonstrate that this is a print. If you remove all of the grain and have tack sharp prints, the images take on this alternate reality look as if the picture frame was only a window. </p>

<p>In addition to the comment of John regarding fill flash, I think that it is likely due to a combination of several things, including the higher resolution possible (even though prints themselves have much less mximum resolution than films or lenses), the contrast of the lighting and/or the visual effects of limited depth of field and focus. 3-D apearance or that of a hyper-reality is often a perceived effect, incited by those factors.</p>

<p>I think a lot of it has to do with the inherently shallower depth of field combined with tonal gradiation from the big real estate of the film. Actual separation (distance from the subject to the background) plays a part due to light ratios. All of these things can be done in smaller formats, but the effect is much more apparent as the film gets larger. These first two were shot in 6x4.5 </p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/smUQVmDrUVCGWbW_B64uhtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Hyp8M_4eXzQ/RnXNbsdYsfI/AAAAAAAAAgw/a0BPPf1pK84/s640/File0064.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="522" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I get this effect a lot with a 75mm lens (normal for 6x4.5) Same lens. Same film. Same day.</p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/asB2Q4cna8HARdspsA5KoNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-no72bfdxa5U/RnXODMdYsnI/AAAAAAAAAhw/0CyBYse9Duk/s640/File0072.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="517" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The effect is not so pronounced. Below photo was taken with an APS-C sensor camera and 70mm prime.</p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/X4d1p7yCgPNr3sK3rDZGqwNS6KwwNZkGlNtKDldKpMg?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-OBFDmq9U514/SqhUQB7dL_I/AAAAAAAAElk/fWGFbQe5u9M/s640/IMGP4224.JPG" alt="" width="425" height="640" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/2009PineIslandKids_K20d_inCamBW?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNfT88Xzu4K6Jw&feat=embedwebsite">2009 Pine Island kids_K20d_in cam BW</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Same effect or not quite? All three shots are set up pretty much the same. Close subject in the foreground, distant background. Strong lighting and lots of contrast.</p>

<p>I think a lot of it has to do with the inherently shallower depth of field combined with tonal gradiation from the big real estate of the film. Actual separation (distance from the subject to the background) plays a part due to light ratios. All of these things can be done in smaller formats, but the effect is much more apparent as the film gets larger.</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/smUQVmDrUVCGWbW_B64uhtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Hyp8M_4eXzQ/RnXNbsdYsfI/AAAAAAAAAgw/a0BPPf1pK84/s640/File0064.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="522" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I get this effect a lot with a 75mm lens (normal for 6x4.5) Same lens. Same film. Same day.</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/asB2Q4cna8HARdspsA5KoNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-no72bfdxa5U/RnXODMdYsnI/AAAAAAAAAhw/0CyBYse9Duk/s640/File0072.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="517" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The effect is not so pronounced. Below photo was taken with an APS-C sensor camera and 70mm prime.</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/X4d1p7yCgPNr3sK3rDZGqwNS6KwwNZkGlNtKDldKpMg?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-OBFDmq9U514/SqhUQB7dL_I/AAAAAAAAElk/fWGFbQe5u9M/s640/IMGP4224.JPG" alt="" width="425" height="640" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/2009PineIslandKids_K20d_inCamBW?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNfT88Xzu4K6Jw&feat=embedwebsite">2009 Pine Island kids_K20d_in cam BW</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Same effect or not quite? All three shots are set up pretty much the same. Close subject in the foreground, distance background. Strong lighting and lots of contrast.</p>

It's lighting, not film format.

 

Make your subject a half stop or so brighter than other elements and compose appropriately.

<p>Lighting, background separation, and printing within the bounds of the given format (resolution-wise). I don't think it's peculiar to LF, but as your prints get larger, the larger format is required to maintain the experience. When they get very large, and the experience still exists, the nose-to-the-print encounter feels different because more your personal field of view is occupied by the image. It's the same reason that good seats in an IMAX theater feel the way they do.<br /><br />But none of it would work without carefully light, composition, and that shallow DoF.</p>

<p>Brad's right...lots of photons containing as much of the full color spectrum as possible bouncing <strong>straight</strong> off a 3D object onto the digital sensor or film. This requires direct sunlight, flash or any other type of hot light. Diffused light like off fluorescent or overcast sky light will require some local contrast edits to get the same effect but it's never quite the same.</p>

<p>I'll also add from what I'm seeing shooting with my 6MP Pentax K100D DSLR, close ups will most likely get you the best 3D effect over shooting landscapes viewed at the same zoom level. This is where large format whether digital or film really shines especially in landscape enlargements.</p>

<p>Below is a closeup shot I took of me eating an apple lit by direct sunlight. I couldn't believe how crisp and 3D like it came out after some local contrast enhancement. The second shot I'll post afterwards is taken with the same camera of a landscape and looks kind of cartoonish. I've worked that image backwards, forwards and up and down and still can't shake the look. The two shots don't look like they came from the same camera.</p><div></div>

<p>But then it falls apart capturing a landscape. Not happy with the results even viewed at 100%.</p><div></div>

My example, using light, composition, and DOF:<P>

<center>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Edward.jpg">

</center>

<p>Hi Luis - the Martin Parr pic was of a man and his son standing in their allotment (part of the exhibition on now at the M-shed in Bristol). The man is in the foreground, with his face in the top right of the photo. It's his face, in particular, that appears 3D. From memory, he's possibly the closest thing in the shot to the camera. The print was (again from memory) maybe 2'x2'.</p>

<p>The other image was a medium-format (I think) shot of woodland, maybe a 12"x12" print, in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition a few years ago.</p>

<p>Just been reading all these replies in detail - absolutely fascinating. Thanks everyone, especially for the pix that demonstrate the principle. I think that the Martin Parr pic certainly came into the category of high lighting ratio due to fill-in flash and separation from the background due to shallow DOF.</p>

<p>This was my first post on photo.net and I'm hugely impressed by how helpful and knowledgeable everyone is! Thanks again.</p>

<center>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Ayelet.jpg">

</center><P>

Thornton, just a note that a lot of fill isn't necessary, otherwise your subject can look cut out or the scene

can become not believable. Also, flash isn't the only way to get there. The above two of mine, as are most of my street portraits, are simply shot

in decent light; sometimes with a bit of dodge in post.

<p>If the subject is looking straight at the lens the eyes appear to follow the viewer around the room. Converging lines in one-point perspective going away from the center of the picture will do the same. An old fool the eye trick (trompe<em> l'oeil ).</em></p>

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>The reason the clouds and trees photo lack depth is everything has a percieved similar amount of detail. Rather than losing the detail in the clouds, modify the look of the foreground trees. In this case I would up the contrast to deepen the shadows and use some selected sharpening to the bright leaves. The sharpening will brighten and saturate the leaves too. In effect you will increase the percieved sharpness of detail for the foreground and the background a softer look. And you have not altered the clouds at all.</p>

<p>Another approach I found from similar pictures taken on my Canon 300D at 6.3 mgpxl is to slightly blur the background of cloud areas. Sometimes the clouds in a photo as rendered by the capture will seem too detailed. In fact the great distance should make them have a soft look.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

<p>Thanks for the post processing tips, Mathew.</p>

<p>I tell you what. I'll upload the original unedited Raw PEF file to YouSendit.com and let you have a go at it and see if you can make that landscape not look so cartoonish.</p>

<p>How 'bout it? I've fixed so many other's botched jpegs posted inline here at Photo.net and in other photo forums going on about ten years, now, I'ld like to get a second eye applied to one of mine own.</p>

<p>Let me know. Anyone else can take a stab at it as well, if they like.</p>

<p>It's the flash. The proximity to the light source emphasizes volume, adds local contrast effects and allows one to "pull" the subject from the background. The same thing can be done with natural light and a window or other light source.</p>

<p>The primary way to creating the illusion of three dimensionality, in two dimensional photographs, is with light and shadow. Effective use of side, back and hair lights accomplishes this in the portrait studio.</p>

<p>Outdoors, a little fill flash will often separate subject from background.</p><div></div>

I think what makes John's large format images dimensional is the quality of the oof. It retains the perception of the virtual dimension. There's 'depth' in itself, rather than a two-dimensional blur acting as a backdrop isolating a main subject.

<p><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/10114452_c0b4cc1768_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="462" /><br>

...magic, that's all it is;)</p>