How to avoid a flat 2D look

[Brad_]

<center>

<P>

.

<P>

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Walker.jpg"><br>

 

<i> Phone snap • San Francisco • ©2012 Brad Evans</i> <P>

.

</center>

 

<P>

 

<center>

<P>

 

 

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Whitehair.jpg"><br>

 

<i> Phone snap • San Francisco • ©2012 Brad Evans</i> <P>

.

</center>

 

<P>

 

 

>>> 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. <P>

 

 

For the shots above... <P>

 

Sensor size: Teeny-tiny, poor quality technically <P>

Focal length: Beats me. Around a 40 I'd guess. <P>

Lens quality: Jeeeez, it's a phone cam <P>

Lighting: Poor, mid-day <P>

Post processing: Extreme in-camera, not very good. <P>

.<p>

 

Reason photos exhibits depth: Subject closeness relative to bg.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>David:</p>

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marco:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my opinion, generaly, digital photography gives me a different sense of "presence", sometimes odd, <strong>not as natural as film.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reads like an admission of a "Stealth Versus" intent to me.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Gorgeous pics, Brad!</p>

<p>That's from a cell phone cam?! I give up!</p>

<p>I couldn't get that level of accutence and definition straight out of my own DSLR.</p>

[david_lindblom]

<p>Brad / Tim, Points taken...</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>In my previous post I mentioned the importance of "aerial perspective", the reduction in contrast and saturation with distance. So, here is my quick modification of Marco's original image where I have reduced the contrast and saturation in the background. Also, I shifted the color balance slightly to the blue end since light towards the red end of the spectrum is preferentially scattered and the greater the distance the greater the scattering (why the sky is blue). In addition, I toned down the glaringly white table cloths which overpower the white clothing of the subjects. All of this seems to help, although getting closer with a wide-angle lens would have been the best approach for taking the original image.</p><div></div>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>And here, taking the editing further (too far?), I have cropped out the foreground tables and used a clone stamp to remove the chair that partially overlaps the man's leg. The editing could, of course, be made more carefully. </p><div></div>

[igord]

<p>I love this photo, looks like a movie scene, bit of ps makes it more 3D i think.</p><div></div>

[igord]

<p>more film and 3D ;)</p><div></div>

[mister_aire]

<p>One way to steer attention to the actual subject of the photo rather that the 2/3D effect is to use SoftOrbits PhotoRetoucher (<a href="http://www.softorbits.com">www.softorbits.com</a>) - whether you want to perform minor facial touchups or major photographic surgery, it’s unmatched. With this photo retouching software, you can truly improve a person’s portrait. Not only can you even skin tone and add well-placed makeup, but you can also slim the person’s face, reshape their nose and deepen their smile. The editing behind photo retouching goes beyond improving the coloring of an image; it literally improves a person’s face.</p>