How to avoid a flat 2D look

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's the screen grab relating shadow detail near black point to where it's located on a point curve in ProPhotoRGB. AdobeRGB and sRGB may narrow the area on the curve depending on how maxed close to 0,0,0 RGB the black point is on an image.</p><div></div>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Obtaining a 3D look is more about what Leonardo Da Vinci called "aerial perspective", the decrease in contrast and saturation with distance, than with focus. The attached image of Hanauma Bay, Oahu, obviously looks three-dimensional even though the depth of field extends from the foreground to infinity (Canon 17-35mm at 17mm on a Canon 5D II). The near objects are of high contrast and have saturated colors, while the distant island of Molokai is but a smudge (but, an in-focus smudge). Also, getting closer with a wide-angle lens decreases the image size of distant objects, which makes them appear farther away, while maintaining the near object's image size. This would have been a good approach for the poster's original photo.</p><div></div>

[marco_landini]

<p>Anyone would please tell me about the contour of the subjects ? That' s the central topic here of my question.</p>

[Brad_]

Just get much closer as I mentioned above. Everything else is (comparatively) mice nuts...

[Brad_]

Another photonet duplicate. Deleted.

[marco_landini]

<p>My first pic posted in this tread is just a raw capture, only converted and resized to be posted here. After my ps adjustment it looks globaly better . My only concer, I repeat, it' about the contour of the subjects, they look drew, like with a pencil . This is the question. Please, keep our attention and critique about this aspect : the contour of the subjects.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well, first of all they do not look "2D" to me at all. But if you want more depth, simply shoot fairly close to the main subject with the wider end of your 17-50. But I don't agree that these look 2D.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well, first of all they do not look "2D" to me at all. But if you want more depth, simply shoot fairly close to the main subject with the wider end of your 17-50. Also, shoot at a 45 degree angle or so, so you have a lot of diagonal lines instead of horizontal. But I don't agree that these look 2D.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Please, keep our attention and critique about this aspect : the contour of the subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I can see what I indicated wasn't what you referred to as flat looking images. You either don't know how to to communicate effectively what you are seeing in your own images or you are just seeing things that aren't there.</p>

<p>And now you've changed the wording to "contour" (what the hell is that got to do with 2D/flat looking images?) as an indicator of your own admission that you're trying to communicate something you see that others don't by way of their input here.</p>

<p>There's no solving your issue because you don't understand what's been offered to you. You'ld probably get more advise (not necessarily better) asking your questions in other online photography forums.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Nice advice Tim. I' m not an English mother language, nor a graphic technician...maybe a schizophrenic...thanks for your punctualization.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I guess the problem I' m talking about here, is not about lighting, is about something tipically intrinsic in digital sensor..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, it isn't.</p>

<p>It is, more or less in this order:</p>

<ul>

<li>Lighting.</li>

<li>Composition.</li>

<li>Editing.</li>

</ul>

<p>Your photos would look the same with a half-frame 35mm film camera and Reala or Kodak Gold 100. It would need to be half-frame 35mm to compare with the DX sensor dSLR for comparable DOF and other issues. What you're describing as "3D" or "2D" is due to the differences in depth of field. There's a subtle difference in perceived separation between desired subject matter and surroundings. It has nothing to do with the differences between film and digital.</p>

<p>Your sample digital photos were taken in bright contrasty sunlight. Your sample slide photos were under heavy cloud cover or overcast. That's what photographs look like under those lighting conditions.</p>

<p>In ye olden days of yore, good labs handled all of the post processing during the printing stage. A custom lab would print to the customer's specifications to improve on a work print.</p>

<p>Now it's all up to you, or the expert you pay to do the post processing. But it's not inherent to digital. It's inherent to making the transition from a film/printing lab doing all the work for you and you doing the work yourself. Or hiring someone to do it for you.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>So, is the problem anything other that the depth of field, due to rather high f-number being used, too large to separate the subject from the background and/or foreground? This is why the shooting in mid-day in the mediterranean at ISO 200 is not workable. Plus, you are compensating down by 1 or more 2 EVs, effectively making your life even harder. I'm wondering if your slide film is ISO 200 or something more like 64, 125, or 50. </p>

<p>I'd use the Low 1, 2 setting, and/or ETTR and post process the exposure you want + use as high a shutter speed as possible so that you can open your lenses up. If I were doing this I would use my circular polarizer, both because you could use it in the middle of the day to help darken your sky and water, but because it will cut your light level, again letting you open your lens up.</p>

<p>Remember, for a given field of view, your D90 will give you a bigger depth of field than your 35mm camera, and controlling your depth of field is critical to providing the non-flat feeling you seem to referring to. </p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>So, on the sample D90 photo of the two people up close, you have completely missed focus on them and got the background instead!</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>I thank you all guys for your kind suggestion and patience. I beg your pardon for the mess in my comunication, it' s not so simple for me to explain what I mean in english, and technical terminology is not my field. Now , I' m sure I' ve miss the point in explain you what I would like to fix in my pictures. I' ve talked about 3D effect and flatness, and you gave my good indication to avoid flatness. Actually, the pictures I posted look very flat. But the problem I' ve noticed and I would like to discuss here, is not that flat light, as I know how to fix it. The problem I would like to discuss here is this : in my opinion and perceprion, the subjects of the mediterranean D90 picture seem to be stitched or pasted to the background, in my opinion. I can see this same issue even in my pictures taken in good light and well exposed. The outlines of the subjects , in my opinion, seems to be penciled, drawn, and not well blended to the scene. Just like a photomontage. And, please excuse my blasphemity, I find that subjects a bit out of focus blend to the shene better than subject taken in perfect focus. This is the best I can to tray to express my question. I hope my efforts to be understood could be fine to have your help and suggestion.</p>

[kezia]

<p>I'm not an expert on Raw conversion so forgive me if I'm just repeating what you know already. But here is what I see in your first picture:<br>

I feel the problem is with the settings of your Raw software. Most Raw conversion software is set to give a contrasty image at the expense of highlight detail, because most people like the "punch" that gives -- even using "neutral" settings doesn't ensure that you don't lose some of the highlights. That doesn't work so well for contrasty scenes or if you are used to the softer drop-off of highlights in negative film because loss of highlight detail causes highlights to appear 2D and without contouring, and that thrown-away detail cannot be recovered once you have converted the image to Jpg format. So the answer could be as simple as lowering the highlights a little in your Raw conversion software to bring out any detail that exists in the highlights (note the subtle detail in your father's white t-shirt in the scanned image; that is what gives it a "contoured" look and what you are trying to achieve during your Raw conversion). If highlights in the resulting Jpg look a bit grey to start with you can increase the brightness of the white areas a bit in Photoshop. <br>

Another problem could be that if your camera is like my Canon 450D, which is from the same era, then the sensor isn't known for its wide dynamic range, but I do know that using the Raw conversion software I can gain back some of the information lost in the default conversion, even when using the fairly simple Canon software that came with the camera. I also sometimes use a polarising filter to darken highlights a bit at capture, but it doesn't work well in every situation.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Reduce the contrast. You can get a more natural image and the photomontage effect will be attenuated.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem I would like to discuss here is this : in my opinion and perceprion, the subjects of the mediterranean D90 picture <strong>seem to be stitched or pasted to the background</strong>, in my opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And what everyone here is saying to you about what you're perceiving is <strong>we don't see what you are seeing. </strong><br /> <br /> Or at least I don't see it. But you are communicating what you are seeing just fine. So this boils down to a perception issue on your part and may require you get your eyes checked out by an optician.</p>

<p>And/or it could be caused by your display calibration/profiling in combination with a too bright or too dark display compared to your room's ambient light level.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Dear guys,<br />this discussion is getting a funny way...! Thanks for your attention. In the end, I think I' m trying to find a way to give a difinition in words and explain to you the different "feeling" I get from digital photography or film photography. In my opinion, generaly, digital photography gives me a different sense of "presence", sometimes odd, not as natural as film. And anyway, I'm glad to say to you that my eyes are 11/10 both. Schizophrenia is the common human condition of the world in this era...</p>

[david_lindblom]

<p>Marco,<br>

For what it's worth: I see exactly what you are talking about in your examples and I have wondered the same thing about my photos. Unfortunately, I don't know why they look different... What type of lens were you using with the film photos?</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm getting the impression this conversation is about to slip into the netherworld of another "This Medium versus That Medium" debate, which can never be resolved. If you're persuaded that film will deliver better results then the best advice I can suggest is to continue using film for as long as film and good processing labs are available. I love the stuff, myself, especially b&w film, so I do understand the preference.</p>

<p>But since you posted this question to the digital darkroom forum I'll give it one last try...</p>

<p>None of your sample photos are directly comparable in any useful way. The slide photos were all taken under less contrasty light - overcast or partially cloudy skies. The digital photos were taken under extremely contrasty midday lighting.</p>

<p>In addition to comparing photos under identical, or at least comparable, lighting, you'll need to use comparable focal lengths. Remember the 1.5x factor for the D90. To get at least a roughly comparable set of photos the 35mm film photo would need to be taken at a focal length of 38mm to be approximately comparable to the D90 photo at a focal length of 25mm.</p>

<p>It would also help to add a little film grain effect to your D90 photos because that camera is virtually grain free at ISO 200, while most scanned slides will emphasize at least some grain or texture. These effects are visible in all of your sample photos. You're accustomed to the overall impression of less definition in slide film. It's not so much softness as it is a more gradual transition between edges. In b&w film terms this may be described as acutance. So in contrast the digital photos seem jarring. It's the same reason why cinematographers using digital cameras try to emulate the look of film, because that's what they and audiences are accustomed to seeing.</p>

<p>I've tweaked the first photo slightly but it probably won't be convincing because it's a low resolution JPEG. Highlight recovery is limited and the "film grain" effects in Lightroom aren't particularly authentic looking.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Lex, the people still look pasted in on top of the background.</p>

<p>Maybe my example below will help in identifying what this looks like. The portrait on the left I shot on the same color negative film of the shot on the right of Malcolm McDowell screengrab. Can you guess what film stock it was shot on?</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's the original source image for the Malcolm MacDowell shot... http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews54/if_blu-ray_/large/large_if_blue_blu-ray_3x.jpg</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex, the people still look pasted in on top of the background."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the answer is always going to be the same: It's the lighting, not the recording medium.</p>

<p>Remember the second most popular background before green screens took over? Yup, chromakey blue screens.</p>

<p>The guy in the white shirt, stylish chapeau and peach pants? He's standing against a brilliant blue background. Same with the gal in the white shirt and floppy hat. Note the shadows in the white shirts? They're blue. Note the penumbras - white to whitish blue against the brilliant blue sea and sky. Same with the ship, most of the tables, etc. This scene would have the same look on any decent recording medium, film or digital. That's just how some scenes look in this light.</p>

<p>But I suspect we're just spinning our wheels because this is another stealth "versus" thread. Even if it didn't consciously start out that way.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>But I suspect we're just spinning our wheels because this is another stealth "versus" thread. Even if it didn't consciously start out that way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't figured it out until marco mentioning it in his last post. I thought I was on to something that would help him but he kept changing the parameters of the description of what he was seeing. That's what made me suspect vision problems. </p>

<p>I still think there's veiling flare problems in the unedited image. It looks murky, soft and flat looking for such a sunny day shot.</p>

 

 

 

 

[david_lindblom]

<p>I don't think it's a "stealth versus" debate, as both images are digital as viewed , and it's not hard to find fantastic dslr images with plenty of depth and "3D look," etc. I would guess, as others have suggested, it's an issue of sensor size, focal length and lens quality as well as lighting and post processing. I'm very curious to know which lens Marco used with "the other" camera. <br>

What surprises me is that the difference in Marco's images, that seems very clear and obvious to me, is not more apparent to many others.</p>