3d look

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I also agree with Roger and Lorenzo, and with Tim's remarks. Here are a couple I have on hand, which I have posted before, and also do well for this discussion.</p>

<p>The first with the 77mm Limited, not shot wide open- but at f/2.8, JPEG and no post process.</p>

<p>I also have the fine DA* 50-135mm zoom lens, but I doubt that I could get the same effect under these circumstaces. </p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The second here was shot using film with the 43mm Limited. Even though a pop of fill flash was used, and no attempt was made to reduce DOF to make subjects stand out, there is still a discernable dimensionality, as in viewing <em>into</em> the picture. </p><div></div>

[s_brown2]

<p>I don't really see a significant "depth" effect in that last shot Michael. Actually... yes I do. It is coming from the fact that there is an area behind the trees which is thrown completely out of focus, even though that may not have been the intention. Plus there are leaves which are extending towards the camera which have more or less entered the 'in focus' region.</p>

<p>IMHO, the illusion of 3D "depth" in a photo simply comes from having different objects at varying distances from the camera, in such a way that further away objects are blurred more strongly. Lorenzo's image of the vertical row of orchids is a good example, where each orchid is a little more blurred than the previous, giving the viewer the strong impression that each is further away from the camera than the last (as is actually the case).</p>

<p>3D "pop" on the other hand is when the subject is purely in sharp focus when most of the rest of the background is blurred. So the subject appears to jump out of the image. The 'pop' really appears when you have sharp transitions from completely out of focus, to completely in focus.</p>

<p>In both cases the effect will be more pleasing with a lens that has better (stronger and more pleasing) bokeh.</p>

<p>The reason I think some have noticed it more on slide film is that with these "full frame" cameras the depth of field is considerably less than what we get with our crop-frame cameras. Which also explains why you often hear people praising the Canon 5D for the wonderful "3D effect" of its pictures. It's just narrower depth of field, careful positioning of the focus 'plane', and some nice bokeh.</p>

[hagar]

<p>I think the 3d effect is more obvious when you have your subject <strong><em>totally</em></strong> in focus, and the background is blurred. Like Michael's first shot with the flower and the bee.. mine is with the tamron 90mm macro..</p><div></div>

[photom]

<p>I think S. Brown pretty much summed it all up very accurately.</p>

[russel_yee]

<p>Although, I think that dof and has a little to do with it, I think there's something else there. What got me thinking on it really were ned bunnell's shots of daffodils and cabbage on his blog in april with the 31mm; they just look right.<br>

also, I think I've experienced it before, I had the 24mm 1.4 canon and it gave me some great.... pop? course I'm not sure how much was dof, or proximity due to focal length... but I'm glad I could get some of you folks gripin over it.=)<br>

BTW, I've also heard the "3d" characteristic attributed to "microcontrast"...<br>

I'll be sure to post some 21mm pics soon!</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I think Russel is on to something. It is a difficult thing to analyze, but the rendering comparing one lens to another can sometimes show subtle effects which contribute to an overall effect. It is something other than, and in addition to, DOF and a blurred background. Color rendition, gradation and contrast are among these, and then there is also the perspective of the FL used.</p>

<p>To me, each of Lorenzo's individual main flowers has a dimensionality of its own. </p>

<p>I have seen lenses rendering mediocre color and contrast, presenting images which look flat- bringing up an opposite to help emphasize what we are attempting to get at here.</p>

<p>In my second example, without regard to the background, looking at features in the central area, say Uncle Bill's hat and face, the ladies' hands, faces, torsos- just looking around in the frame to my eye, I see good realistic dimensionality there.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>There seems to be alot of discussion about 3D looks and flatness....and the big surprise to me is that many people think the equipment has something to do with this.</p>

<p>Yes....dof is important. But what is just as important IMO, and not getting much attention/discussion, is light and the agle/direction of the light, shadows caused by the light, etc. Yes, I can pretty much always control my DOF, but controlling my light is more difficult. This doesn't mean that light isn't important.</p>

<p>Light is very important to making a photo.....but I think that people tend to forget that.</p>

<p>I have seen many less discussion lately on PNET that talk about using good lighting techniques to produce a good (and in some cases 3D looking) photograph. But there are many discussions claming that "if I use this XXXXX equipment my photos will look amazing".</p>

<p>I guess I just don't get it.</p>

[russel_yee]

<p>keith, I think I see your point... light is the key to a photo and some might forget that, so its important to be reminded.... but knowing your equipment is important too, every tool (be it a computer program, knife, drill...) has it's own quirks and tendancies that if understood, can contribute greatly to your craft.<br>

I think it quite probably that certain equipment enhance your chances of capturing magic... I was just pondering, since I don't have much experince with pentax lenses, which ones other than the 31mm (highly regarded by.... pretty much everyone) capture that certain something some have called 3d. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Keith, I've been grappling with understanding what lens quality=image quality really means and how it affects the final results of an image from a digital camera.</p>

<p>Going by the before PP and after PP versions of my image of the white flower posted further up this thread, are you saying that the dull flat look of the before image is due to bad lighting? Exposure? as opposed to quality of glass?</p>

<p>If I were to underexpose that scene or change the angle of lens to the light source that being direct sun, I still wouldn't get the tonal mapped micro contrast evident in the petals of the flower in the finished version. Are there lenses that give this kind of micro contrast or what I call tonal modeling?</p>

<p>You know with digital the final look of the image regardless of the lens and lighting used is ultimately controlled by the rendering software's contrast curve and other tonal and color settings and there's no way of getting past that. It would be great if I could find and use a lens that causes the camera to spit out a perfectly tone mapped image with great looking local contrast straight out of the camera, but I haven't found a lens or lighting situation that does that without extra post processing.</p>

<p>I'm still never sure what affects what in the final results.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Tim,<br /> <br /> I somewhat agree with you on the PP. Yes, you can make a very 3D looking image look flat with post processing. This is easy to do if you overdo the Shadows/Highlights function in photoshop.<br /> <br /> However....it is much more difficult to take a flat looking image (because of very diffused or direct light and too much DOF) and make it look more 3D in photoshop. I'm not saying you can't make improvements, but it isn't the same as having the proper lighting to begin with.<br /> <br /> Also, I'm not trashing on expensive lenses. It is nice to have good lenses, especially ones with high IQ and fast lenses too. However, I don't think that expensive equipment can make up for poor composition or a lack of technical understanding.<br /> <br /> My point was that it seems there is entirely much too discussion about equipment as related to photo quality rather than technical understanding and proper technique as related to photo quality.<br /> <br /> I'm also not against equipment discussions, I just think that people are missing the point that "you can't buy your way into good photographs, so more equipment isn't necessarily the answer." Of course the marketing people at the major manufacturers don't want too many people to know that!</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>I agree that it's the quality of the lens that can make an image more 3d or not. And it's not an easy thing to increase the 3d effect in photoshop - lots of layring needed, painting in shadow, increasing or decreasing focus. <br>

Haig's image is 3d, michael Kuhne's old people shot isn't. <br>

flowers are a whole lot easier to make 3d than people are...</p>

<div></div>

[rose_duclos]

<p>I should have posted this one... oops!</p><div></div>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I think a good lens can help--perhaps a little more contrast right out of the camera, especially when shot at wider apertures--but I think it has more to do with perspective & lighting. I've posted this shot here before but it's one of my favorite examples and I really wish I could do this more easily, whenever I want. </p>

<p>I probably enhanced this a little bit during PP (no local edits, just lightroom) but not much, it already had this effect right out-of-camera. This is using the budget DA 50-200/4-5.6, wide open f/4.5 @~135mm. I don't think anyone is used to saying the 50-200 has special properties, so I'm going to attribute it to lighting & perspective.</p>

 

<p align="center"><a title="Late afternoon with Stella, springtime by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr" href=" title="Late afternoon with Stella, springtime by Captain Fannypack, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2453979958_4f3b7d964d.jpg" alt="Late afternoon with Stella, springtime" width="500" height="367" /> </a> <br /> <small><strong>Late afternoon with Stella (K10D + DA50-200 @f/4.5)</strong> </small></p>

<p>I think the effect has to do with good sidelighting combined with layers of varying distance--my wife, her dog, the grass, and the branch in the upper left corner...followed by the first tree trunk on the right, then the more distant tree trunks, then the background on the left. Would this have been better at an even wider aperture? Maybe, but I'll never know.</p>

<p>In this case the lens in use (the DA 50-200) like most DA lenses tends to be relatively contrasty but is not super sharp, particularly at f/4.5.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>The 3D thing is a bad term to reference the rendering of the bokeh of the Limiteds.</p>

<p>I don't see it either, but the (what I call harsh, bearing in mind bokeh is totally subjective) bokeh of the limiteds seems to create this 3D look to some people.</p>

<p>The limiteds have a very unique bokeh and it seems to give some extra pop to the in focus areas (the subject in most cases) that it leads to the "3D" thing.</p>

<p>Andrew, the photo above is just the factor of a good photograph. Good lighting, and from the side at that. It's definitely a pleasing scene, that wouldn't be if you shot it mid day! Light can make or break a photograph more so than subject matter in many cases.</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Thanks, Justin. That was exactly my point; Good conditions and the equipment didn't make the picture, it just managed to stay out of the way!</p>

[hinman]

<p>I treat the 3-D thing as subjective, perhaps a combination of soft bokeh, good color in lighting, and addition of DOF perspective that pop out the subject visually in a 2D picture. I may be getting it all wrong.</p>

 

<p align="center">With <strong>Lester A Dine 105mm f/2.8 Dental Macro</strong> <br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2745197463_9c3748490f.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p align="center">with <strong>Pentax K 100mm f/4.0 1:2 Macro</strong> <br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2434704435_9df75987c4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p align="center">With<strong> Tamron 90mm f/2.8 non-Di macro</strong> <br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3333858788_b320803c0e.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p align="center">With<strong> Tamron 70-300mm Di LD</strong> <br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2537870112_e777ca1984.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p align="center"> </p>

<p align="center">with<strong> FA 77mm f/1.8</strong> <br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/3038019019_ab3529e9bb.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[s_brown2]

<p>Justin... I'd agree that the pancake limiteds and the 43mm have pretty harsh bokeh. But the pics I've seen from the 31mm seem to have silky smooth bokeh. I would be interested to see some examples of harsh bokeh from this lens if you can point me to any.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>S. Brown,</p>

<p>I wasn't specifically commenting on the 31mm, although it's never been a lens I considered. I found the 35mm FA as good a lens as $300 can buy, and head to head I prefered the 35mm over the 31mm in images I saw. Having owned the 35mm my only complaint was build quality of the FA lenses.</p>

<p>I did prefer the 6 blade bokeh of the 35mm though, which I suppose is odd because it seems most people like 9 blade aperture bokeh better.</p>

<p>To me the 31mm is probably the most overpriced lens made. That said, if I could get it for $300 I'd take it over the 35mm FA because of the exceptional build.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Tim Lookingbill said:</p>

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I've always considered the 3D look to come from. A lot of people refer to it as the added 'punch' or 'pop' too i think. While I admit this is a fairly dull portrait, I feel it comes some way to having a 3D feel?<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3548719081_36945d4be5_o.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="640" /></p>

[russel_yee]

<p>mmm k, first, I don't think anyone disputes that good light is the first step. next, the more I think on it, the more I'm convinced it does have to do with the lens... the only examples I can point to are ned bunnell's pics of lillies and the skunk+cabbage+stonewall pics from april in his blog (I don't know about the posting links rules and I'm sure most pentaxians know where ned's blog is).<br>

Something about the tree in the lily shot and the cabbage in the other, just look very detailed and ... right... note ned doesn't say the words 3d, and like I said, these are all web shots not prints or original sizes.<br>

and like I said earlier I only got that look semi consistenly with one lens.<br>

I think it's detail rendition that is a result of all the lenses characteristics that give the "look"... oh and layering differnt distances ... I guess its just that in some pics, everything is so right they just look 3dish.<br>

ok thanks for playing everyone. get my lens today, so I'll be out shooting... i hope.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>The 3D argument veers dangerously close to <a href="../equipment/pentax/istds/index.adp">Leica lyricism</a> , folks.</p>

[s_brown2]

<p>Justin, surprised you preferred the 35mm over the 31mm in images you saw. I was thinking of grabbing a 35mm a while back, but the nervous bokeh in many of the pictures I saw made me think twice. I think it comes down to what we each value in a lens though. For me, if I'm buying a prime then the quality of the bokeh is very important. I like silky smooth bokeh, and I'm prepared to give up some sharpness to get it. So that's why I don't own any of the pancake limiteds... don't like the bokeh. If I'm going to be using it stopped down where bokeh isn't an issue then I'll just use a zoom. I can see the attraction of the weight/size advantage of the pancakes though.</p>

<p>I think the 31mm would be a more attractive lens on full frame. I'd *really* like Pentax to make a 24mm f1.8 or f2 with nice bokeh. Funnily enough, I actually prefer many of the Sigma lenses to Pentax lenses because of the bokeh. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a beautiful lens... much better than the offerings from Pentax, Canon or Nikon. It does weigh about twice as much though, so it's not surprising!</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd *really* like Pentax to make a 24mm f1.8 or f2 with nice bokeh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you get a good copy, the Sigma seems to get very good reviews in that regard. It's a fairly large lens of course, but for the price/quality it's pretty good.</p>

[s_brown2]

<p>Yes, you're right Richard. I'd forgotten about the Siggy version. Thanks for the tip.</p>

<p>I might start saving for the 24mm. Of course, I'd rather like the 50mm and 30mm f1.4 as well. That's the kind of setup you wouldn't want to be carrying around all at once though... each weighs over 400g.</p>

<p>It's kinda nice to have the choice between compact and light primes (Pentax) and heavier, fast primes (Sigma) all stabilised. Of course it gets a little hard on the pocket!</p>

<p> </p>