3d look

<p>I'm searching the forums archives right now, but I'm waiting for my 21mm ltd to be delivered, so I'm looking for a bit of entertainment=)<br>

so... any other pentax lenses that have the "unique" 3D rendering of the 31mm ltd? (note: I don't have one, just heard about it and though the web photo's i've seen are very nice, they're web photo's) any lenses that come close?<br>

thanks for playing.</p>

<p>I still don't know what "3D rendering" means outside the field of graphic design. People keep using this term with the 31 Ltd and the 77 Ltd and show photos to demonstrate their point, but I *still* don't see what they mean.</p>

<p>If you want 3D rendering, I would recommend you start using AutoCAD :-)</p>

<p>ar ar ar.... I wonder if how long it would take to draw a portrait of someone in cad?<br>

I don't know what 3d means either...</p>

 

<p>Maybe you could get the "3d look" if you put on some really wicked red & blue halos, then put on those cheapie 3d movie glasses... :)</p>

<p>C'mon, you guys know what he is saying.<br>

That 3D pop is very common in MF and LF. None of my 35mm stuff does it. I just picked up the 70mm LTD and the 40mm LTD. They are the best small format lenses I own by a wide margin. I'm anxious to see samples from your 21! Please post 'em.</p>

<p>The 3D look=controlled depth of field that gradually throws the background out of focus while maintaining extreme sharpness on the subject's plane of focus. This usually requires shooting at or close to wide open and getting close enough to the subject without adding oddball looking dimensional distortion like the fish eye effect like wide angle lenses often do.</p>

<p>Anyone got any examples to post?</p>

<p><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid#5077190030604677618">http://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid#5077190030604677618</a></p>

<p>Bronica ETRs , 75mm lens</p>

<p><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid#5077190524525916754">http://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid#5077190524525916754</a></p>

<p>Same camera and lens, same day. 400TX. f/5.6 </p>

<p>Apologies to the OP, but I really dislike the term "3D look" as though it is some special quality of the lens. For some reason it is a term that gets used a lot on some Pentax forums, but I don't know why. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say "I really like Pentax because the limited lenses give a great 3d look."</p>

<p>As Tim points out, it is purely a depth of field and background blur effect. You need the depth of field wide enough to keep the whole subject in focus. Works best when the background is a significant distance behind the subject so that you don't see the gradual blurring of the image at different distances. Just the subject in crisp focus, and the background blurred. Nothing in between.</p>

<p>Caught Walt Disney's partner Ub Iwerks documentary on cable TV where it showed him creating this effect back in the late '20's by placing animation cells in the foreground at a certain distance from the background painting while adjusting the aperture and focus. An amazing effect back then.</p>

<p>John Wilson's first shot posted shows exactly what this effect looked like in those old Ub Iwerks cartoons.</p>

<p>Here's one of my macro shots from my Pentax K100D and 18-55mm kit lens. It was shot at f/16, 1/200, ISO 200, 55mm and about 10 inches from the subject. </p>

<p>With the f/16 setting getting close to a somewhat flat, very sharp and small subject is what throws the background out of focus giving a 3D appearance.</p><div></div>

<p>Honestly, not that there's anything wrong with the posted images, but I suspect that what many Pentaxians are alluding to is not simple depth-of-field control but some sort of mythical "pop" that is augmented by great microcontrast or something like that. Sort of a budget variant of the vaunted 'Leica mystique'.</p>

<p>Also you can beef up the 3D look in post or with the contrast settings in your digital camera if shooting jpegs by accentuating the contrast and sharpness in the foreground object from the blurred background.</p>

<p>Below is the same macro image posted above which I shot in Raw at ACR defaults and the Contrast slider set to zero. It doesn't quite have the 3D pop as the version above.</p>

<p>The contrast differentiation technique was used as far back as the Dutch masters when painting landscapes and portraits.</p><div></div>

<p>I'll partially agree with you guys on the 3d look thing. Calling it 3d is probably not the best way to describe it. Agreed a good percentage of the look is depth of field control, but it's more than that. Certainly you want to sperate the subject from the background, so a smaller aperture lens helps. But then there is the quality of the background bokeh to add to the separation and not distract from the subject. And there is contrast and how the lens renders color for a little extra pop. Contrast can be enhanced in post processing, but some lenses are just better at it than others and I don't think you can fake bokeh in post. <br /> <br /> I have all the limited primes (except the new 15mm) and the two DA* zooms as well as some excellent Tamron, Sigma and Zeiss glass. I can shoot the same scene with the FA31mm limited or FA77mm limited, duplicate the exposure with my Tamron 28-75, one of the DA limited's or the DA* zooms (though the 50-135 renders very, very nice) and there is defiantly better separation and a little extra something from the 31 and 77mm limited's. It's more than technique guys; it's the glass. <br /> <br /> Here is a link to a quick Lightroom gallery I just threw together of some test shots I did last spring when I first got my FA 31mm limited that were taken with a K10d. No post processing corrections were made to the colors or exposures; they are as shot. Again these are just test images mostly in a park, but they do show the lens' rendering. It and the FA 77 both have a similar and in my opinion special rendering quality that my other lenses don't have. <br>

http://rogerrobbins.com/pnet/31mm/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew wrote: I suspect that what many Pentaxians are alluding to is not simple depth-of-field control but some sort of mythical "pop"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Mythical pop"...I like that. I think I might borrow it, Andrew. That OK?</p>

<p>:-D</p>

<p>Mis, attribution not necessary. It will be satisfaction enough to see fleeting glimpses of it being put to good use.</p>

<p>Roger, I agree that having silky smooth bokeh and good contrast helps.</p>

<p>On that point, the bokeh in the 77mm is pretty good but not amazing (depends on the background). I'd imagine the 50-135mm would be just as good. The 31mm however looks like a gem (sadly I don't own one).</p>

<p>Roger, I think the best example in your collection of what I think you guys are referring to might be the tenth image, of the dolphin playground ridin' toy. I do wonder just how much of that is good post-processing and how much is the glass.</p>

<p>Zeiss for Contax-Yashica and Leica glass also is supposed to exhibit this mythical pop. I think it also has something to do with the background bokeh.</p>

<p>The Sony Carl Zeiss 135/1.8 Planar for example was designed with significant effort to make the OOF bokeh neutral (minimal hard-edged OOF highlights in the background). I suspect that sort of design optimization would contribute to the "3D look." Although over on the mflenses.com forum they also claim this mythical pop from the SMC Takumar 200/4.</p>

<p>I have only been able to produce this with the 77mm ltd (don't have the 31). For me, when I say "3d look" it's as if I'm looking at the actual object through a clear plane of glass (no reflections ofcourse). :) How's this?<br>

<img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/NolsP/longwood77/IMGP0543cropred.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/NolsP/longwood77/IMGP0542ver1red.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>3D Look? SMC Pentax-A 50mm f/2... x2, of course!</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with Roger R. I wish I had the quality lenses he and others have to work with to get straight out of the camera gorgeous shots as his test shots show.</p>

<p>And I didn't imply that it's all in the processing. All my lenses are under $100 and I try to make up the difference for not having a higher quality lens with time spent in post. Not all of them need that much but some more than others take time tweaking in ACR.</p>

<p>To get the look of Roger's unprocessed gallery images I have to spend quite a bit of time searching for the look I want in post that Roger gets straight out of the camera. But sometimes I get lucky.</p>

<p>Beautiful shots Lorenzo. It seems to me that the 77mm gives much better (smoother) bokeh in these kinds of "close up" situations. Obviously the lack of busy background helps. Nice work.</p>

<p>The sad fact is that this 3D look is something that is becoming a rarity as digital takes over and people start viewing their photos on monitors. </p>

<p>The 3D look is very apparent and common in slide photos projected using a top of the line projector such as a Leica P2000 with Colorplan lens. </p>

<p>Additionally, the use of top of the line lenses such as Pentax's limiteds (31, 43, 77) as well as Leica M and Zeiss lenses really makes a difference. On top of this, careful consideration of the subject's color in comparison to background, depth of field, distance, distance to background, and f/stop really make a difference. </p>

<p>If you get into film and shoot slides, you'll see a 3D effect in many of your photos. This becomes even more apparent and common when you go to medium format slide projection.</p>

<p>With digital, if one person sees a 3D effect, many others won't see it (or won't be able to see it). But in slide film projection, if one person notices it, everyone notices it.</p>