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

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I think the hyper reality you see is, asMatt says, due in part to the wider field which surrounds, envelopes and engages more of our peripheral vision, just like IMAX, Cinerama, and the Kodak Photorama super sized displays that used to be up in Grand Central Station. <br>

3-D nonetheles still means two eyed binocular vision to me anyway, even though spatial clues do depend on light, perspective,haze, and very sharp printing, up close and personal to subject. Also there is the High Definition effect which gives me a depth feeling, and, for movie films, a higher than 24fps frame rate which has been shown to seem more "real" than reality. </p>

[cosmin_saveanu]

<p>I agree with John Wilson and Gerry Siegel. For a similar depth of field, a larger format camera will record more of the area surrounding the subject, giving context to the main subject. I made a small experiment, by cropping a 6x6 MF image where I feel that the 3D or whatever it is called effect is visible, to what a smaller film frame would have get with the same lens and same aperture. First, the original image:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14704112-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="493" /><br>

And the crop:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14704113-lg.jpg" alt="" width="210" height="262" /><br>

I'm glad this question was asked. I think the only way to replicate a MF or large format "look" with smaller format of sensors/film is to stitch together several images, a technique that will give excellent results although it is a bit tedious and needs a static subject. I remember seeing beautiful examples of using this method (see the "<a href="http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/">Brenizer</a>" technique explained).</p>

[johnw436]

<p>Excellent example, Cosmin. The effect is still there in the crop, although I might never notice it had I not seen the whole 6x6 frame which makes me feel as though I am actually standing there "inside" the scene. To me it is the difference between looking "at" a photo and feeling as though I am involved in the scene. Your first photo makes me forget I am looking at a photo.</p>

[cosmin_saveanu]

<p>Thank you for the kind words, John. I also enjoyed your beautiful examples. Although I like a lot the results from medium format cameras, alas, most of the time I use a 35mm SLR, APS-C dSLR or even a phone camera for convenience. On small prints, it's hard to tell the difference for family pictures. For occasions, though, I would get out the old Ricohmatic 225, an excellent TLR whose selenium light meter still works very well.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>Same here, Cosmin. I remained a film die hard even after owning several digital cameras. My Pentax K20d finally changed that. That was the point, for me, where 35mm film didn't make sense anymore. I just recently printed 13x19 prints of a wedding I did with it. They were incredible. That camera is two generations old now but the printed images are stunning. </p>

<p>Is my K20d the equal to my Bronicas? Nope. Let's be real. When I get prints from 6x4.5 and hold them next to my APS-c stuff it's just not the same. I don't necessarily mean 'better' but it is very different and most people (non-photographers) prefer the prints from medium format when they see them. I believe much of what they like about them is the spacial effect discussed in this thread. (Tonality is smoother too, but I doubt most non-photographers even notice.) Most people have never seen that 3D effect in a print before.</p>

<p>I also shoot 4x5. That is a whole other ball of wax. But using that camera is a planned event. When I look at those negatives I feel like I can crawl inside the scene and walk around.</p>

<p>I still love my little YashicaMat TLR. It has a look all it's own, and I often prefer the prints from that camera to prints from any other camera I own. The aesthetic is just different. </p>

<p> </p>

[johnw436]

<p>4x5 scanned negative.</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/JKENDEgBQJL5b57TOAiuEdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-sF7C6SPOvr8/SZzAIF0o7GI/AAAAAAAADwk/HzurgswdxEg/s640/img011.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="501" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/4x5?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">4x5</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Pick any detail, such as a tree root, and let your eye wander. It's almost like getting inside the photo. To Gerry's point I think it has a LOT to do with how much field of view is there for a given depth of field.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>compare to an image with no foreground object. It looks surprising flat and two-dimensional, even though the actual scene is about as 3-dimensional as you can find.</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/jInW-1Pm1h5Nz11sRznvpNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cY1e4HVLq_I/RrVjekdV3NI/AAAAAAAAAvk/2bmIhOVGnQk/s640/File0154.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="500" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/ChurchesAndCathedrals?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Churches and Cathedrals</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>This is 6x4.5</p>

[cosmin_saveanu]

<blockquote>

<p>(Tonality is smoother too, but I doubt most non-photographers even notice.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe they don't know exactly why they like better the prints from the larger format cameras but tones might also be involved. Light, and especially high contrast pictures, still benefit from the film ability to render both sun and shadow in the same shot. But this is another discussion ...<br>

Shooting 4x5 is on my list of things to do (but still quite far away in the future). Those roots are effectively poking out of the picture.</p>

[camera_conjurer]

It's a shame that so much inaccurate information is disseminated on this web site. It's too bad that there isn't an 'ask the expert' section,

so that the right answers, instead of the common knowledge answers, can be given to questions such as this one, and the, 'I thinks'. and

the, 'it's probably's', get safely deleted forever. I'm going to answer your question, and you know what? No one will listen. No one will

care. It won't matter.

 

Years ago, when 35mm still cameras started to take over from 4x5 still cameras, they were called, 'miniature cameras'. One of the

defining characteristics of miniature cameras is that the diameter of the (faster) lenses is often close to, or larger than the film. In order to 'fold up' the images projected by these lenses so that they'd fit inside the camera, they were designed as 'reverse retrofocus' lenses. The relevant factor is that the light rays coming out from the rear element were made to be as parallel to each other as possible. More so now with lenses for digital cameras.

 

The reason for the added '3-D dimentionality' to large format images is that the lens is almost always much smaller than the film, and the

light rays projected from the rear element are fanned out and nowhere near parallel to each other. The smaller the lens, the greater the

effect. That's why that 6x6 image posted earlier has the effect, but loses it when cropped. The most diverging light rays have been edited out. It's just one of the magical things that happens when you bend light in just the right ways.

 

A slow shutter speed, (if using a leaf shutter, with a focal plane shutter the speed doesn't matter), and an as close to round as possible diaphragm aperture enhance the effect, not to mention the type of lens. Dagors, Ektars, Angulons are some of the best lenses.

 

(How do I know this? Some of the greatest photographers who ever lived told me so.)

 

THAT'S why large format will always have its place. Nothing else will ever compare.

[Mike D]

<p>There is more than one factor and the above posts cover most of them. However, I have also read where more resolution helps. I used to use a 4x5 Crown Graphic in the 60's and the sheer high resolution produced the 3D effect. I've been shooting 12MP DSLRs in the last few years and got a chance to try the new 24MP Sony A77. I think I got some of that 3D effect due to the relatively high resolution compared to my 12MP Nikon Bodies. (I could of tried a 24MP D3X but it is simply too expensive.)</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to answer your question, and you know what? No one will listen. No one will care. It won't matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I listened very carefully to your words, but I still didn't understand how you made the connection that light rays fanning out causes a 3D effect in an image when what we're looking at in the above referenced image is pixels distributed in varying gradation rates that give sharp edges to objects up close while blurring the background. That's what gives the 3D look to that image. Now how fanning out light rays on MF film format does this wasn't made clear.</p>

<p>I believe you about MF and larger film formats, but I didn't get your explanation on how that adds to the 3D effect.</p>

<p> </p>

[cosmin_saveanu]

<p>I prefer someone who gives me an opinion using: "I think" or "I believe" and he or she is right than someone who tells me: "It's like this, I know better than anyone else" and is wrong.<br>

By the way, a long discussion of what a retrofocus design for lenses is can be found here on <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00WeQg">photo.net</a>. Not all the lenses for small cameras are designed as "retrofocus" and some medium format lenses are "retrofocus". So, no, I don't think that lens design in respect to being retrofocus or not retrofocus is a major factor. As already stated by about everyone, and on this point I agree with Noah Schwartz, the size of the film frame is what really matters.<br>

It would be great if someone could explain the physics behind the effect of frame size and focal length on sharpness and transitions to blurred areas.</p>