How to avoid a flat 2D look

[marco_landini]

<p>Hi. I' ve noticed my images are often 2D looking. I hate when the subjects seem to be stitchet to the backgrouns, just like a photomontage. I would like to achieve a natural 3D look, as my pictures in the film era. Can you please give some suggestions to get the 3D look I wish ?<br>

I got a Nikon D90 and Tamron 17-50 2.8<br>

I shoot Raw ( Nef) . I convert Raw to tiff by Nikon Capture NX2. No adjusments in raw to tiff conversion, no shapening at all is applied in this stage. Only neutral picture control setting, with sharpening turned off.<br>

Then, I open on photoshop the so obtained tiff file. I adjust global contrast. Then I appply a capture sharpening ( smart sharpen , Am : 100-150 ; radius : 1 ) , and then some hiraloam sharpening ( am : 15 ; radius 30). This is my general workflow. And often I find my images flat and 2D like. Maybe, there is something I miss in my workflow, so I' m tryng to keep things simple. And, anyway, I find my image looks that 2D and flat way also in raw format. So, I get that flat look yet at the capture stage...<br>

What to you think I miss ?</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Here is the picture : Nikon D90. Tamron 17-50 2.8 at 25mm, f5. Nef to tiff converted with no sharpening in conversion. Only curve adjustment in ps and reduced to jpeg. No sharpening at all.</p>

<div></div>

[marco_landini]

<p>I did not apply any sharpenig to this picture. Nor in raw conversion, nor in ps.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I would say you probably need to think about light and shadow in composition so that your subjects stand out from backgrounds. Everything in the same light often produces "flat" looking pictures.</p>

[denisgermain]

<p>From what I see in this example: it is not about workflow, or RAW or TIFF or sharpening.... or even the impact of Film vs Digital.<br />Light, shadows, contrast and depth of field... focus on one subject, zoom in... </p>

[tonybynum]

read the book, "light science and magic." It's all about contrast and shadows if you're looking for more

apparent dimension . . . One other element that you need to consider, and likely work on, is depth of

filed. Stop shooting at f8 and f11 for awhile and see how that starts to isolate your subject better, which

will lead to the appearance of more dimension . . .

[Brad_]

Get much closer...

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Lighting. Looks like you took that photo at or near noon. Terrible lighting for most purposes. Although the ship looks okay.</p>

<p>And, yep, get closer. There was a photo in your photo, but it was from another angle.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Out-of-focus backgrounds also give an illusion of 3D. To get that you have to open your aperture wide ie. f/2.8. Then focus on the near subjects, the people in this picture. The boat and rest of the background will be thrown out of focus.<br /> Sample:<br /> </p>

<p><a title="Julie NYC and WTC by Alan Klein 100, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5086/5262333213_eda9f0293d.jpg" alt="Julie NYC and WTC" width="500" height="456" /></a></p>

[Palouse]

<p>I'd suggest shooting later/earlier in the day with more oblique lighting. High noon is flat lighting. Try not to merge (overlap) the subject with the distant background. And try for scenes with a greater variety of colors--both complementary and contrasting to make the key subject stand out. Selective focus, framing and other placement tricks can also help.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>I suggest you also zoom in a lot more so your subject(s) fill up a lot more of the viewfinder space. AK's suggestion to blur out the BG by using larger aperture (smaller f#) is also good. That will keep the subject's face sharp, which will "lead" the viewer's eye to them and not the BG. Also, pay attention to what's in the BG, with an eye to avoiding a cluttered BG.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>I agree about noon light will produce a flatter image. I see this effect in analogic photography too. Using a wide aperture, gives a sense of depth , cause the subject is in focus and the backgound out of focus. But you can say the same about the opposite technique : small aperture can produce a sense of depth too, keeping all the focus planes in focus....They are 2 different and opposite concepts of consider depth...Let me explain..About Alan Klein picture, the girl is in focus and the background is out of focus, due to a wide aperture. This produce a sense of depth, because the separation of the focus planes. But in my opinion, as like as in my digital pictures, the subject seems to be pasted to the background, as a photomontage. It seems a picture of a girl taken in a sudio and pasted to a huge poster simulating the out of focus background...This is what I would like to solve : the 3D look can be achieved, as you explained and the Alan picture can show, but I can still see in Alan picture a "pasted" look, like a photomontage. I would post a scan from my slide taken at a very small aperture, to keep in focus the most of the scene. In this slide I can get a good sense of depth, 3d like, also keeping all the focus planes in focus. And, anyway, I have a natural looking picture, nothing "pasted" or photomontage-like.</p><div></div>

[marco_landini]

<p>Here another scanned slide, taken at a small aperture, no pasted or photomontage-like effect.</p><div></div>

[marco_landini]

<p>another one</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>And here a large aperture slide, taken in a flat light, overcast day. No pasted or photomontage effect here in my opinion. Pictures taken with my digital D90, in the same different 2 situations ( small aperture, large aperture ) , look very artificial, photomontage-like, in my opinion. Nne of these issues I can see in my slide pictures.</p>

<div></div>

[marco_landini]

<p>And now, here a D90 picture, taken at noon, at small aperture. This one, I don' t know why, looks ok in my opinion, not like the most of my D90 pics...I have to say, this picture was taken with a manual Nikkor 28 2.8 ai-s, not the tamron. Maybe the issue is because of the objective ?</p><div></div>

[emil_ems5]

<p>Marco,</p>

<p>Your problem is that you have taken a mid-day picture down south and are not satisfied with its appearance. I tend to agree with you. </p>

<p>Let me concentrate on how to minimize this appearance in digital photos. Others on this thread have given you good advice about composition, other types of lightning and selective disfocusing. I will concentrate here on the main subject, that is, how to make a good picture in noon-time side lightning, like you have in your first example. I have taken a lot of this type of picture for my book Fiat Lux (emsvision.com) and here is the method I have applied:</p>

<p>The first thing to think about, when starting processing the picture in Lightroom/ACR is to optimize the medium-value luminosity, contrast and color balance. Forget, to start with, about the contrast extremes on both ends of the range, even if they wind up partly blown-out/almost black. Import that picture into photoshop as "Smart Object".</p>

<p>Create a copy as "Smart Object" in Photoshop on a layer above the first smart object. Re-export the second smart object into ACR. Now optimize the upper range luminosity and contrast and confirm. Back in photoshop, use a mask on that layer to merge in the new high range values.</p>

<p>Create a second copy as "Smart Object" in Photoshop on a layer above the second smart object. Re-export this third smart object into ACR. Now optimize the lower range luminosity and contrast PLUS THE COLOR BALANCE (make it a bit warmer) and confirm. Back in photoshop, use a mask on that layer to merge in the new low range values.</p>

<p>Finally, apply Photoshop Unsharp Mask with values 50/10/0.</p>

<p>If preparing for print, add a curve layer "Linear Contrast" before sharpening for final print. </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I agree with everyone who said "get closer" or "zoom in". "Popping off" a background requires two things. Enough visual "power" in the subject to pop off, and enough "backgroundness" in the background to give you something to pop out of.</p>

<p>The D90 "looks good" parents picture has your subjects at almost full frame height. The "village" slide has your subjects (small subjects, children) at half frame height. More subject size is more power. Engaging the subject is power. Contrasty light is power. The statue shot was a frame filler. Power.</p>

<p>The D90 shot that you don't like, and the slides that I don't like (you're seeing them with sentimental eyes, to my eyes they're just as "flat" as the D90 shot you didn't like) all have the subjects at under 1/3 frame height, and the backgrounds are bright, uninteresting, lit by essentially the same light as the subjects, and very much in focus. Nothing "pops" off those backgrounds. Even fast lenses won't help, if the subjects are essentially at infinity (a human at less than 1/3 frame height may as well be at infinity).</p>

<p> </p>

[ljwest]

<p>As others said, get closer, and frame your subjects better. The bright light also is a problem, because your aperture will be stopped down quite a lot (with that photo, bright sunlight and all that white, probably all the way). Smaller apertures result in large depth of field. If you wanted the background blurred out, either shoot at a different time of day, or use Neutral Density Filters to limit the light coming in, and allow you to use a wider aperture that will make for a shallower depth of field, so your subjects are in focus, but not the background.</p>

<p>I also recommend Petersen's "Understanding Exposure". A good book that covers many scenarios...</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Joseph...just to clarify : about the slide pics I posted, I like ALL them, and they are the 2nd ( monks), the 3rd (village) , the 4th (file tx) , the 5th (lion). The D90 pics are the 1st ( No sharpen, the port of mykonos) and I don' t like this one. And the 6th pic is D90 ( parents in prague) and I do like this one. I think we are missing the point : the argument of my discussion, the issue I ask you for suggestions, Is about flatness, and here the misunderstanding : the flatness I talk about is not about light and shadows, focus or out of focus, depth of field, harsh light and so on...the flatness I talk about is regarding the contour, the outline of the subjects silhouette. To point our attention to this aspect, I actually posted flat light pictures deliberately. The silhouettes contour of the 1st pic ( See side, D90) look unnatural and like a photomontage, they don' t blend naturaly to the scene. Those subjects seem to be pencil drawn on the picture surface...that' s what I mean. In the slide pics, the subjects contours seem to be much more natural looking, also in a flat and dull light the subjects look naturaly blennded and involved in the scene. First picture subjects seem drawn or pasted to the picture surface. I guess the problem I' m talking about here, is not about lighting, is about something tipically intrinsic in digital sensor...And I would minimize that effect</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>I may be opening can of worms here, but I think it has more to do with D90 sensor. I did not use D90, but my D300 which was using the same generation of sensor, as D90, was driving me nuts in certain conditions. That bluish cast you have on first picture is a killer, no way to get rid of it. I had noticed, that pictures I was taking in bright light in Canada, is different from pictures taken in bright light in Mexico. Color temperature of light is different. Try new software like Lightroom or Aperture, when I process old shots with newer software, they looks better. May be try new Nikon, those new sensors way better.<br>

My solution was switching to Canon, sorry guys, but 1D3 is giving me better colors and depth, it is not flat anymore, just my opinion.</p>

[denisgermain]

<p>this is turning into a ridicule discussion about things that don't matter.... the software, the camera or the brand.....<br />Go back to the basics:<br />- Learn to compose better <br />- Learn to see the light<br />- Shoot it right, directly IN THE CAMERA (why not use jpg)<br>

If it looks like crap comming out of the camera, spending days in PP will not produce a masterpiece!</p>

 

[phule]

<p>It is about the right light. It is about the subject distance. It is about depth of field. And, most of all, it is about perception.</p>

<p>The OP states:<br>

"the flatness I talk about is not about light and shadows, focus or out of focus, depth of field, harsh light and so on...the flatness I talk about is regarding the contour, the outline of the subjects silhouette"</p>

<p>Then the OP states:<br>

"also in a flat and dull light the subjects look naturaly blennded and involved in the scene."</p>

<p>The OP has been given the answers multiple times but refuses to believe they have merit. What else can be done? If the OP is convinced the problem is digital (which it is not) then the OP should continue to use film, with whatever process he has developed, and be happy with his results. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Assuming Marco's display is calibrated and profiled it's really about post processing back in to the default incamera or Raw converter settings how the human eyes saw the scene with regards to the clarity killing veiling effect offered up by various contrast ratios within any given scene presented to one or more particular lenses. Some lenses do better than others in not exaggerating this veiling effect to local contrast. Overcast/diffused lighting can compound this effect.</p>

<p>Marco needs to learn how to post process to remove this veiling effect. I removed most of the veiling on his posted jpegs and got much improved clarity and depth. I will show you how to recognize where the veiling occurs and what PP tools to use to fix it. Hope you have ACR or Lightroom. That's all I use.</p>

<p>The bottom image I cropped and applied what I thought to my eyes was removal of this veiling effect while not making it appear overly contrasty. In following posts I'll show on the "Village" image where to look for and fix this.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>The next shot is a screen grab of before and after editing of the "Village" image to show where to look for veiling where afterward I'll post a screen grab where to look for it in the histogram and plot it on curves in ACR. I worked in ACR in ProPhotoRGB output space in 16bit.</p>

<p>Since it's difficult to show all the ACR edits I'll suggest you first identify the veiling in the image and try to first fix it with combinations of Fill, Contrast and Clarity sliders with slight tweaks in Curves both Parametric and Point.</p>

<p>Do note that the edits I applied on the posted jpeg may not give you the same exact results applying them to the Raw NEF. I'm just trying to get you to recognize veiling/flare in an image and what tools to use to fix it.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>