3D effect?

[matthijs]

<p>Though I'm not a beginner I post this in the beginners forum because I think this is a beginners question.</p>

<p>How do I achieve a "3D" effect without buying a new (expensive, rare, manual focus etc etc etc) lens?</p>

<p>I did a small experiment and succeeded a little.</p>

<p>I used a tight crop of a 28 MM lens shot at F4 had a relatively dark (and far away) background and used a straight on flash. (I have better equipment but this was on hand...)</p>

<p>The ultimate target is a portrait but this model was just 25mm high.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any advice,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>What do you mean by "3D effect"? Assuming you're not actually after a stereogram but are just after an image in which the foreground appears to stand in front of the background, the strategy that you've found is a good start: make the foreground sharp and contrasty (perhaps aggressively so, with a bit of post-processing) and the background soft (presumably not so soft that you can't see what it is, otherwise you'll lose the effect, but if the whole image is sharp then the background will typically compete with the subject), by using a reasonably wide aperture and keeping the background much further away than the foreground. If the foreground is brighter, that usually makes it appear closer than the background. Redder colours usually appear to be in front of bluer colours. The background containing objects that are identifiably smaller than the foreground should help (people expect trees to be big, so if they appear small, they'll look like they're in the background). Using a wider-angle lens so that any identifiable subject in the foreground looks like they're close will also help, although it might not make for a flattering portrait and it'll limit the effect of background blur. Trying to arrange some leading lines to focus the viewer on the subject might help, too, especially if they're features that are identifiably not in the plane of the image (like a river).<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: Advice presented as a result of reading around, not a great deal of personal experience. I look forward to more experienced feedback.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope that helps!</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>many of the past "stereo systems" faced one or another problem<br>

the "stereo tach" that fit over a lens on a slr ( think it was first intened for the exacta)<br>

had a narrow portrait half frame.<br>

the stereo cameras were a little better ( stereo realist etc0 but for close ups the frames had to be mounted a little differently<br>

the Viwemaster- I have a camera and cutter- and the reels are still being made.<br>

has a small image and the scene seemed far away.</p>

<p>In 1862 Prof Mainardi at ( nce) now NJIT) had a systems for 35mm rf cameras that seemed to eliminate keystoning and special slide mounting<br>

and appeared to work well<br>

he was a real math genius)</p>

<p>this is as far as I know, the only way to get true 3d pictures.<br>

there is a Vivitar camera $80.00 that lets you take the standard 4 x 6 print and put it in a holder like the 1800's stereo pairs.</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>On going to a 3D film it reminded me that the very compositions that emphasis and make one aware of 3D are the compositions that work best in 2D.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, here's what I'd say about your original image:<br />

<br />

Colour: That the clothing of the subject is red and the cape (behind the subject) is blue gives a slight natural 3D effect (highly subjective, I admit, but there's some science behind it); this would be a bit more obvious if the foreground clothing were a bit brighter. If the cape were green and the background blue, that would provide a natural gradation. The primate eye has evolved to expect this - (red) fruit in front of green leaves in front of blue sky; is expect the delayed response to different colours has an effect too.<br />

<br />

Brightness: The foreground is nice and bright, the background is dim. That makes the foreground stand out. You might even add some vignetting to force the eye to the centre of the image.<br />

<br />

Aperture: Possibly you've slightly over-done it in that the background is so out of focus it's almost not there, but that's a natural result of shooting a macro-sized object. If you're wanting to do this with a human subject, you won't have this problem without a huge lens (unless you tilt it). I do this only to lose backgrounds I don't like, not to separate the subject.<br />

<br />

The diagonal of the edge of the book is a good leading line. It fades in and out of focus, so you can see it's 3D, and obviously what the subject is standing on - that makes the eye realise that everything else is farther away.<br />

<br />

If you use a wider-angle lens (on a larger subject) you'll get perspective which makes the background appear smaller (and also less blurred), which should give you the impression of depth; obviously doing this in a room with a subject that's actually tiny is going to be misleading, but if we're talking about real-sized people, it shouldn't be a problem. I suspect, for a human subject, you'd do well to get closer than the crop you've shown, and think about shooting from an angle rather than upright, so that the subject's body provides perspective (shooting down from above can help). Of course, you might make the subject's nose look big, but at least it'll be "3D"...<br />

<br />

The side lighting suggestion would add contrast to the subject's face - I'd me more concerned about the subject's complexion than in the 3D effect when it comes to lighting, but I'm sure you've got some leeway! There's always Photoshop...<br />

<br />

...but I'm still no expert. (I'm not sure I've even <i>got</i> a good example of my thoughts on this, without linking to someone else's work - although there are many good examples that Photo.net members have posted.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, if anyone reading this thread is after genuine stereo pairs, Panasonic make a stereo pairing lens for micro 4/3. Or you could use one of the camera phones or compact cameras with twin lenses (which have better separation). Or, especially for a static subject, two cameras. GoPro have a casing that's designed to let you shoot video with two devices at once. I'm not sure whether any of these actually shift the lens to avoid the keystoning problem that Walter mentions (the GoPro certainly won't), but I suspect it's a minor effect at most subject distances. That said, as a pedant (in photography as in all things), I commend anyone who's fixed it. :-)<br />

<br />

I vaguely wonder what happened to the ViewMaster that my parents owned. I remember there being pictures of Cheddar Gorge, before it got vandalised...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If you actually have something discernible in the background that will suggest a sense of distance and scale, your photo may feel more 3D. A blurred background itself doesn't create as much of a 3D effect as some elements or objects in the background which can relate distance-wise to the foreground subject.</p>

<p>In terms of a portrait, if it's more or less a head shot, you can still think of it, visually, as you would a landscape. Also, emotional range and depth (in terms of expression and light) will suggest visual dimension. Make me want to look into (rather than at) the person's eyes, and a 3D feeling will more likely ensue.</p>

<p>Your framing and crop can help. Again, with a head shot or bust shot, cropping a bit into the top of the head can sometimes suggest three-dimensionality. A hand reaching out toward the viewer can also create a 3D effect, but be careful about distracting too much from the face.</p>

<p>With a fuller body shot, think about pose. A person standing, for example, at attention with legs parallel to your camera and arms at sides will have a very different sense of dimension than someone in a more dynamic or sculptural pose, especially if the body causes shadows which can play with the space.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>fred I see what you and other are aiming at thre "feeling:" of 3-d<br>

by color or something to give a feeling of separation.</p>

<p>the keystonic was because the exacta era stereo tach bemt the images inwards and the darn thing lookes like sort of a sqarish bunnel<br>

mainardi's system required less BENDING of the image<br>

and was a lot simpler.<br>

but you viewed thru the attachment typically with a RF camera pointed straight up<br>

and the attachmnt was a lot simpler. ( hole in the attachment)</p>

<p>I did not know about the panasonic device for 4/3 cameras.<br>

But since they now have 3-d tv it seems possible there will eb some kind of stereo digiutal camera in the future. <br>

the viewmaster camera si still usable and the main problem will be getting slower film as it maxes out at 1/60 & f/22.</p>

[mikemorrell]

<p>Hi Matthijs,<br>

I just want to add that a straight on flash will tend to produce a rather "flat" (2D-looking) subject. You can create a stronger sense of 3D by the lighting the subject more from the side and/or top and/or back etc. As Andrew suggests, side lighting is an obvious first thing to try. The subtle use of lighting is an art in itself. But it's a subject worth finding out more about in relation to your question. It's also worth experimenting with to find out what works for you in different situations.<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

Mike</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm not quite sure what kind of 3D effect you mean, but given the experiment, I'd take a bit a gamble that it has to do with how the in-focus parts separate from the out-of-focus parts? Given the focused area a presence apart from the rest, like it jumps out of the image?<br>

I'm no expert, and what follows is just my impression. So take for what it's worth... First off, this has got to do a lot with lighting, as Mike said, and the composition needs to support the idea (as Fred and Andrew indicate). But lenses do play a role here. Shallow depth of field obviously helps, but it's not all of the story. I hate to drop the term, but bokeh comes in play. Different lenses render the OoF areas different (and the better, the more subdued it looks, the more your in-focus subject 'pops out'), but about as important is how they go from in-focus to out-of-focus. Some lenses go cleanly and gradually from the sharp focused image to fuzzy background. Some just seem to go from sharp to fuzzy in an instant - which i feel won't help in getting the 3D feel. The lenses famous for 'good bokeh' do show their strengths here.<br>

As said, I'm no expert, it's just my observation. Not saying you should get an exotic lens, but it might in the end be a part of the equation.</p>

[mark_poseley]

<p>Subject isolation contrast, subject can all contribute to what some consider a 3D effect.</p>

<p>I ran across a thread about this on another website (I hate to plug another outfit, but the content is relevant) several months ago and there is some good advice there; there are also a number of folks who take the issue far too seriously... ;)</p>

<p>Read at your own risk:</p>

<p>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1034865/0</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Thank you all, you've given me inspiration to experiment.</p>

<p>M.</p>