3D effect on the Pentax 67

NB23 · Jan 10, 2012

It's all BS and It simply depends on people's walt disney calibrated monitors that have nothing to do with real life prints or metallic prints (that have the ability to give a 3D look with the cheapest P&S)

keithwms · Jan 10, 2012

Well then turn off your "walt disney calibrated monitor" and look at some real slides and analogue prints!

By the way, I don't see any of your imagery in the gallery nor any links; it'd be nice to see your stuff.

MattKing · Jan 10, 2012

A "3D" effect results when the light and subject is right, and the rendering of the image (selective focus, bokeh, micro-contrast) contributes positively to the result.

Obviously the lens design can contribute to the latter factors.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentax 67's nice, big focussing screen and good viewfinder might help photographers notice and record the former.

keithwms · Jan 10, 2012

Let me turn this argument upside down and ask the obvious: what would you do to make an image look more two dimensional? I do that deliberately sometimes to get a juxtaposition of different shapes etc. I sometimes like for an image to look like a form drawn on paper.

For me, to create a "flatter" image, I typically stop down so everything is in the DOF, and I look for fairly equal emphasis of light throughout the image.

NB23 · Jan 10, 2012

keithwms said:
Well then turn off your "walt disney calibrated monitor" and look at some real slides and analogue prints!

By the way, I don't see any of your imagery in the gallery nor any links; it'd be nice to see your stuff.

This new term "ThreeDeeNess" that one can often read on internet forums is just another term that newbies use to justify their general non-talent by buying a new lens: "The Zeiss Sonnar has excellent ThreeDeeNess"
You have to admit that it's quite pathetic.

And I don't feel that I have to show my work in order to have my opinions validated by someone else.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jan 10, 2012

I call 3D only for faces, muscles and skin taken by Zeiss , Leica in 35 format. When you look to these details , you see extremelly natural image where all bones , muscles , skin drapery details , vains are readable somehow somewhere with extreme sharpness. And glow part , with Leica at Sunlight , skin looks like wet or oily and lots of shiny different bright spots and the shadows.

Look at good summicron pictures , you will see what you are missing with toyotas.

But I want to say that many experienced violin players can not distinguish stradivari from cheap violin.

Umut

Klainmeister · Jan 10, 2012

NB23 said:
This new term "ThreeDeeNess" that one can often read on internet forums is just another term that newbies use to justify their general non-talent by buying a new lens: "The Zeiss Sonnar has excellent ThreeDeeNess"
You have to admit that it's quite pathetic.

And I don't feel that I have to show my work in order to have my opinions validated by someone else.

Hmm, alright. I thought maybe he just wanted to see some of your work, which I don't think is a matter of opinion validation. I mean, you're the expert here, maybe we can learn something.

DOF and proper focus with any decent lens should give the visual appearance of an object out of plane with the background. I think that's fundamentally, what we're talking about. I

NB23 · Jan 10, 2012

Go look at holgaroids, hipstamatics and lomography: entirely shot on the cheapest lenses on the planet and you can see lotsa artistic "ThreeDeeNess".
Just shows it's all BS.

keithwms · Jan 10, 2012

NB23 said:
And I don't feel that I have to show my work in order to have my opinions validated by someone else.

Who said anything about validation? I just like for people to share their work and to show examples.

My ulterior motive, if any, is to aim for more precise language, so that people can communicate a bit better about photography. But, as the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, so... a shared image or two can go a long way toward promoting understanding. When someone says they can do this or that with a plastic camera or a coffee tin with a pinhole or Leica Summa Cum Laude or a Schneider APO Moneygon XL, I just like to have a look for myself, that's all. And besides that, I buy stuff when it impresses me.

Please reconsider and, when you feel comfortable doing so, make your work visible, as so many of us have done.

Klainmeister · Jan 10, 2012

NB23 said:
Go look at holgaroids, hipstamatics and lomography: entirely shot on the cheapest lenses on the planet and you can see lotsa artistic "ThreeDeeNess".
Just shows it's all BS.

Could you share a link perhaps? I'm not trying to harass, but I would like to see these images since my Holga images always sucked so bad I never saw any use.

MFstooges · Jan 10, 2012

keithwms said:
What some people call "3D effect" is smooth bokeh plus subtle and smooth focus transitions, the way I think about it. And it's certainly not true that every lens can deliver that.

+ 1

MFstooges · Jan 10, 2012

NB23 said:
Go look at holgaroids, hipstamatics and lomography: entirely shot on the cheapest lenses on the planet and you can see lotsa artistic "ThreeDeeNess".
Just shows it's all BS.

Link please. I'm interested to see.

Poisson Du Jour · Jan 10, 2012

NB23 said:
This new term "ThreeDeeNess" that one can often read on internet forums is just another term that newbies use to justify their general non-talent by buying a new lens: "The Zeiss Sonnar has excellent ThreeDeeNess"
You have to admit that it's quite pathetic.

And I don't feel that I have to show my work in order to have my opinions validated by someone else.

Showing your work, demonstrating what you are saying, will at least give a visual factual basis and reinforcement to what you are describing. It has nothing to do with an opinion being validated, but more of a visual example. Are you going to oblige?

jglass · Jan 10, 2012

Originally Posted by keithwms
What some people call "3D effect" is smooth bokeh plus subtle and smooth focus transitions.

Yes, PLUS (usually) selective lighting on the subject relative to background and perhaps foreground, PLUS the content of the subject itself will often contribute to the effect.

The term is, yes, goofy, but it points to something real. However, it is not real to say only Leica and Zeiss can deliver it. I personally don't think it's that closely related to the lens itself, but to the subject and lighting.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jan 10, 2012

jglass ,

It relates directly with lenses.3D effect is a myth for some photographers who uses japanese optics and they never understand it. The most striking thing for Leica , it reveals the biological organism and a living human being. If subject is normal , if it is daylight ,picture comes with very healthy person look. Visit Leica forums , before digital , there were hundreds of examples. Yes , digital leicas are terrible and they dont understand what are you talking about.

Someone must train his her eye and it is easy.

I saw many Zeiss portraits looks like a Greek Sculpture from best Athens marble.

Umut

keithwms · Jan 10, 2012

Well see that's why we need images!!!!

Some people allege that a particular lens is more "3D" than another, and others say: nah, I can do that with a coke bottle. So then, without visual examples, we all just talk past each other... and both sides get frustrated.

Time for both sides to put up or shut up!

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jan 10, 2012

Simple one , look at the girl and boys faces. I call this 3D and Glow. look at the faces , they are like balloon and see how smooth and how daylight shines on them. I want to buy that camera for one frame shots. There are zillions of highest quality Leica examples but this is famous old Leitz one .
How a terrible technique cant stop the lens. LCD monitors are bad .

[video=youtube;skZ0qpYwfIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skZ0qpYwfIQ[/video]

lxdude · Jan 10, 2012

keithwms said:
Leica Summa Cum Laude or a Schneider APO Moneygon XL

Damn, I wish I'd thought of those!

Gonna have to steal them- they're too funny to pass up!

NJS · Jan 10, 2012

feed the troll.

Klainmeister · Jan 10, 2012

lxdude said:
Damn, I wish I'd thought of those!

Gonna have to steal them- they're too funny to pass up!

APO Moneygon is golden!

keithwms · Jan 10, 2012

Oh, my apologies, I always get the Rodenstock Apo Moneygon confused with the Schneider Apo Digital Avatar XXL, which is actually more expensive but sports a much smaller image circle. Anyway, all of these tend to cause people to lose perspective in 3D.

Mustafa, those childrens' faces are indeed like glowing balloons and the light does shine on them very specially. I just wonder if the Leica camera comes with that soundtrack built in.

[/sarcasm]

High quality still images please; low-res videos don't tell us much about lenses nor do any justice to your argument, whatever that is. And cine lenses are a completely different story; we're in the medium format section here. So unless you have one coupled to your medium format camera and have some images to share then I'm afraid that I don't see the relevance.

polyglot · Jan 11, 2012

lol, epic troll is even more epic in blurry 360p video.

Edit... OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about what I mean by lighting. For example, I reckon this has a nice 3D look (tell me if you disagree! can't have us arguing from differing axioms), and it's IMHO all because the light is quite directional. I don't agree that "bokeh transitions" have anything to do with it because there are none in the scene: my wife is in focus and nothing else. You don't get to see the transitions because none of them are imaged except in her upper-arm, and that has such smooth tone that you could never tell even if the transitions were in some way "bad".

This plumbing has visible transitions, but I reckon the 3D look (does it have it?) is all down to the combination of leading line and DOF.

Counter-example. Same lens as the last two shots, plenty of bokeh, transitions are visible ... but to me it looks quite flat. While you know intellectually that the lower blossom cluster is a lot further away because it's way OOF, the whole thing looks to me like a flat L-shape plastered into the frame and the focused flowers could just as easily be press-dried flowers as live. The difference is that that was largely back-lit, which changes the way your mind processes structure; you lose much of the shape-from-shading information that is present in my previous examples.

Second counter-example. Again, some DOF effects, transitions are visible and IMHO undistracting, but it looks flat and graphical - that metal bogey could be at any angle to the camera and the only way you can tell its orientation is by looking at the context of the things it's connected to. The reason: solid noonday sun and the loss of all shape-from-shading.

All of the above shot with RZ67 and 110/2.8.

Conclusion: it's the light and composition. If you shoot a non-crap system and choose your lighting well, you will get a "3D look". You can buy an APO Moneygon and shoot it in flat light and, duh, it will look flat.

Edit II: I want to see someone (lookin' at you, Keith) post an image where a lens with somehow "poor" bokeh transitions ruins the 3D effect that you would get from excellent lighting.

Edit III: see my avatar image? That is me focusing the first example I posted above! You can see the RZ, 110/2.8, prism and a Minolta 5600HS(D) hanging off the hotshoe set to bounce off the white tent ceiling. And my shiny bald, er, extra flash diffuser.

keithwms · Jan 11, 2012

polyglot said:
Edit II: I want to see someone (lookin' at you, Keith) post an image where a lens with somehow "poor" bokeh transitions ruins the 3D effect that you would get from excellent lighting.

Alright. Well here is a shot on a branch coming at me in good light, taken with one of the not-so-nice bokeh m645 lenses, the 80 macro if I remember correctly. Doesn't look as 3D as it could, to my eye, although there is some kind of interesting twist that strikes me as a bit nauseating:

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/?action=view&current=january002sm.jpg

Here's another with the 80 macro, this one almost no 3D depth, to my eye. Looks like a 2D painting to me:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And here is another so-so result, actually not bad in terms of dimensional feel but not great, this time with a Nikkor 150 SW:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I am looking for an example of bokeh lines, which really kill the 3D feeling, in my opinion. I'll post if I find one.

PaulMD · Jan 11, 2012

There is such a thing as a 3d effect, in the same way that there's such a thing as bokeh. It doesn't make a boring image good, and again like bokeh it's not just something you can just buy your way into necessarily. Some lenses have nervous bokeh wide open but great bokeh once you get them closed down a stop or when you put them on a neutral background. Similarly, I'd guess the 3d effect is a big combination of lighting + leading eye composition, with close focus, low depth-of-field with smooth bokeh, a sharp subject, and a rapid but smooth transition from focus to background being used to accomplish that.

It's probable that there's also a big psychological factor, where you want your good lenses to have an attribute you consider desirable. I consider the lens that took these to be a great lens, so I am probably not the right person to say whether it really produces "3d effects" in my images. Also you may typically be flipping through prints or negative scans when you notice this, and the parallax of similar shots can produce the 3d effect. Let's perform a little science here: open A in a tab, record if it looks 3d or not. Go do something else for 5 minutes. Click back to this thread, open B in another tab. Record 3d or not. Now click back and forth between the two tabs. Do either/both A or B look 3d now?

A

B

Polyglot, I can't see 3d in #2 or 3. I can maybe see it a tiny bit in #1, but I agree it's likely a result of the leading eye composition and shallow depth of field. I think the inability to spot the transition from focus to background is a big part of it, which can be done through composition by making sure nothing is in that spot but also that the transition isn't too abrupt. The pipe shows that a bit.

polyglot · Jan 11, 2012

keith: the Mangolias look totally flat to me, but that's because the light is really really flat. The branch, you're right it's nauseating. I think the foreground bokeh is highly distracting (a bit cats-eye/anisotropic and a lot nisen) but again, the light on the branch is not conducive to resolving shape. You can see colouring variations due to lichen/bark contrasts and dappling effects from the trees above but the light shows you no physical texture so the branch itself even looks planar - forget it going off into the distance, it looks like a flat-faced painted item with no curvature! I think the light and colour variations are so strong as to overwhelm all structural information that would give depth clues.

Paul: by #1 and "leading lines", are you referring to the pipeline or the portrait? The last two (flowers and bogey), listed as counter-examples, my point is that they look flat (because of the light!) even though shot with the same lens as the portrait and pipeline.

You A & B both look really flat to me, mostly because the bridge is brightly underlit. There's practically no contrast between upper and lower surfaces.

3D effect on the Pentax 67

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency