How to make your print more "three-dimensional"

Use some alt process, print on vellum, back it with a reflective material like a silver poster board. Bill Barber

What makes a 3-D image....Matt King gave a good summary. It takes a while for a new photographer to notice this 3D effect. Recognition comes from looking at a lot of images and to some extent printing. Images with a subject shot close using large apertures to blur backgrounds are the starting point. Older lenses (prior to late 80s) tend to have high macro contrast of large subject outlines and a smooth out of focus background. Summicrons and Zeiss glass from the 50s and 60s typically have these qualities. A circular shutter in older lenses compliments this look. Cannon, Pentax, Olympus Zukio, Minolta and some Nikon 35mm optics designed in the 50/60/70s have this look. Achieving a smooth 3-D look is easier using medium format. MF records more detail and has inherent shallower DOF. My 1956 Rollei Twin Lens 80mm f/2.8 consistently has this look at f/4. Most older lenses are sharpest 1-2 stops closed down from the widest aperture.

As color film became popular the design bias tilted towards high optic contrast. Higher contrast was achieved by reducing spherical aberrations. The result was higher micro contrast with less smooth background blurs.

So subject placement, background contrast, aperture setting, optics and film format are keys in achieving a 3-D look. Using fiber paper toned in selenium compliments the look. Fiber gives more depth and combined with toning increases macro/micro contrast which makes the print come alive.

It is important to share information. The photo community is small but vibrant.

Posted wirelessly..

The original image has as much to do with thos as the print.

A scene with flat lighting will look flat no matter what.

Posted wirelessly..

The original image has as much to do with thos as the print.

A scene with flat lighting will look flat no matter what.

subject selection
lighting / plenty contrast in main point of interest
acutance
selective focus

Duo-tone or triple tone print.

I could not agree more. Critical thinking and trying ideas.

Why don't you ask a willing subject to stand model for you. Find a location you both like, and start photographing. Use a normal lens, a telephoto lens, move in close, move away. Use different apertures. Experiment! Work on it until you find a distance, lens opening, lens, exposure, etc that works for you!

- Thomas

clayne said:

darkosaric, weren't you just last week asking about the techniques Salgado used in achieving his "look" ? I think you're missing or (possibly ignoring) very important points that there is no magic recipe or bullet for any of this. Even if a particular look or style could be distilled to something specific, merely using it would not impart the same feeling - and it surely wouldn't appear genuine.

Hard work and attempting to learn what they see will send you down a more fruitful avenue than any attempt at explaining how something was printed. Nachtwey and his printer are both experts at what they do. They didn't get that way overnight.

Click to expand...

When I went to the Vancouver alternative workshop and saw Vaughn demonstrating Carbon printing I though how beautiful they look. Then I moved a little closer and while standing to the side with the light coming in through the window I saw a print sitting on the table with the light at an angle to the print. The relief just made the print "pop" off the paper, I think I said something out loud like "Oh Wow!" It was at that point I saw what the possibility of Carbon printing could be.

If a person is only sighted in one eye, as someone mentioned, then leave out the glass when framing so the print can be touched. They not only have a look that's unique but a tactile feel that's spectacular. I've been to three workshops and I am still amazed by the prints I see.

Curt

How to make your print more "three-dimensional"

The last resort: ORIGAMI

For me it's primarily careful use of differential focus/depth of field control. (That goes back to a previous thread regarding how essential DoF preview is on a camera).
Attached is a shot I took with the SMC Pentax f1.2, though I don't recall how close to full aperture this was.http://walkhamphotography.webeden.co.uk/#/apug/4542038956
IMHO what helps this shot is the fact that there is subject matter thrown out of focus both in front of the cross and behind it. The distance between the viewer and the print also seems to have a significant effect on how 3D effects are perceived, even in a non-stereo environment.

Steve

I have a different view than some answers so far. For me, the first and the most crucial element of really good images - the ones with a presence and a sense of scale that make them palpably "real" and visually exciting would be that the photographer has developed a sense of light and an understanding of how the camera sees. Till you have that, no technical advice, no recipes of any kind, nor top flight equipment, will propel you beyond a rudimentary mechanical competency.

Just another way of saying there are no magic bullets. All the technical stuff and formulaic schemes and super optics etc, will get you a reasonable number of modestly pleasing photographs, but a full sense of light, knowing when to photograph and when not to waste your time, will take you much further, and at that point, the technical knowledge becomes very valuable. With a real sense of light, technical know how stops being recipes and tricks, and will help you realize the best in genuine opportunities.

The problem is that there is no way I know to learn to sort out the wheat from the chaff other than to photograph a lot and to be critical of one's efforts. Looking at lots of great photographs is wonderful too, and necessary but photographing a lot and printing a lot and learning from your mistakes is the only way I know.

Time and practice ...

It's basically a grand control of light and elements of the frame. Cinema comes to mind. Focal length helps, with 28-35mm probably being the most known for this area of look - but that's only about 25% of it. Use of contrast, tonality, and once again, but most importantly, LIGHT. Light reveals and defines. Lack of light goes hand in hand with it.

Here's a flickr contact of mine who is quite adept at this look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus/

Great photography.

I might add one more thing. 3D images often have a rounded look. The frame edge definition gets softer in detail and contrast on most 50/60/70s optics. There may be some other aberations that pops/bows out an image. In B&W a Rollei TLR f/2.8's has this wonderful look in certain light/aperture/distance conditions.

"War photographer" is a good film. It is riveting and Nachtwey's dedication is moving.

Interesting dialogue here... My .02 cents.. I've been playing with quite a few older lenses lately and have great fun making lenses work on cameras not designed for them etc While many including me, do not believe it's equipment that makes a difference in our image making. I do believe that lens signature DOES play a significant factor into the 3D effect. Learning how to exploit that signature to produce images aligned with your vision is where the creativity is. Obviously shooting wide open increases your chances of the 3D effect, but focal point, and fall off of the lens, bokeh (swirly or painterly, or creamy) all need to be controlled or exploited by the photographer. Some lenses will allow you to do that.

Richard Jepson made note of a certain 'roundness' that some lenses exhibit. It's actually a distortion inherrent in the lens design. Lenses that exhibit this phenomenon are petzvals, some tessars, and to some extent rectilinear lenses (although they are corrected more) Think about the old brass barrel lenses of the wet and dry plate era's that are making a comeback, and fetching ridiculour prices on E'Bay. Most proponents of hte dark arts shoot wide open, or close to it.

That to me is the attraction of the older lenses. They were less corrected, but were often razor sharp in the center, and softer at the edges. A lot of famous lenses produced this effect. The result of this coma/distortion when shot wide open is the 'roundness' Richard spoke of. Many famous lens brands such as Dallmeyer, Voigtlander, Darlot, used this phenomenon to isolate subjects from their backgrounds for portraits and be more pleasing to the viewer. These effects are also much embraced by pictorialists who like the softer images often produced.

Most modern glass is corrected so much now to remove all of these 'features' both for COMA, SPHERICAL ABBERATION, and they also produce more contrast with modern coatings etc

There are some gems though in modern glass that can produce similar 3d and swirly effects like the Leitz Summar 5cm, Russian Helios M44 58mm lens, Russian Jupiter 9, Russian Arsat 80mm. Learning how to leverage their effects is also a learning curve. I also realize that while some people like myself enjoy making images with this type of effect, there are many who do not. It's a subjective thing, and each to their own on that.

My point is though that while equipment shouldn't be important. If you are after a certain 3D look, and a lens can give it to you, then why not pursue using it if that is your path? YMMV.

A.

Thanks again to all - this is getting more and more interesting. I have start to test some of suggested methods: I have found victim (model), I am shooting with summicron 50, nikkor 50 and nikkor 105 . Continuing to test this weekend ...

I once read that the more highly corrected a lens, the less interesting the image. With the wonderful Rollei TLRs you often get this 3D effect but still have good overall B&W image quality to the edge. Most 1950s to mid 60s optics are low-medium contrast. Use an ISO 125 film which has inherent higher contrast and/or adjust development.

Hi Darko,

I don't think you should get too hung up on lenses, the important thing about focus is that the critical parts of an image - such as the eyes in a portrait - should be in focus. But the difference between a "good lens" and "poor" lens" is not the thing that will make or break the 'pop' effect - the composition of an image is far more critical.

The most significant factor, in the image you posted as an example, is that the boy's head is emerging from an area of shadow (in fact, the head doesn't look like it's in perfect focus). In short, relatively bright subjects emerging from shadow 'pop' more easily than dark subjects against light backgrounds. That's why the most arresting portraits tend to be shot against dark backgrounds.

It's much harder to make an image that's been shot against the light to 'pop' - not impossible but definitely harder, especially using available light.

Regards
Jerry

I'd like to disagree, gently, with the bias against highly corrected lenses. I've used an interesting variety of glass over the past 42 years, and learned slowly that it is up to ME to make the magic. There is a right time for a tool, but (in my silly, traditional outlook) it has to fit. AS a portraitist, I'm only interested in conveying as well as I can the spirit of the subject and I find myself intuitively drawn to one lens or another.

To make a soft statement, I - more often than not- need the clarity in the deep shadows my new M lenses and Nikkor LF lenses provide. Other times, an uncoated Tessar or Protar does the job. The artifacts of the lens don't help me: swirly backgrounds or halations just distract from subject. To each his own. I only mention it here because it isn't the lens, in my world, that contributes a 3 dimensional sense. It just serves it's place in the system. Even a Pinkham & Smith has to know it's place in the procession.

I apologize for repeating myself in this thread, but the key elements for 3-D (or feeling of atmosphere) are:

1. Lighting. The light has to reveal the form and contour of the subjects,
and separate them from one another.

2. Composition. Don't place adjacent tones together. If elements of the scene fall on Z4, Z5, and Z6,
the sensation will be 'flat' or 'muddy'. Z3, Z5, and Z7 will have depth. Managing deep tones and bright tones are part of this.

3. Local Contrast. Even if you choose to use pure black and white in a picture, without the potential of the negative to make black and white,
you'll not have the intonation to let dark tones stand against middle tones and be seen.


Again, it isn't the lens, it isn't the film, and it isn't the camera. it's you.

(But I understand there is a new paper developer that is supposed to work every time.
It's expensive, radioactive, and you have to do something with a chicken
( I don't understand the process, to be honest)
but I'm interested.)


d

I don't know how I could have done the attached photograph with an uncoated lens, or one that is poorly corrected.

Don't let your equipment in the form of lenses hinder you from taking great pictures. Work with what you have, but - you must know your lenses intimately to eke the best out of them. Explore your lenses at the wide apertures, print the results, look at the pictures and start to decide how you want to use what you see.

To me, to create a three dimensional effect in the photograph, you must use objects in front of the lens that are near and those that are far away - and their relationship - well, in order to create an effect of the subject standing out from the background. Distance to your subject, lens opening, and focal length plays in here. But lighting becomes important as well. To separate tonal values of the subject from those of the background becomes important.

I attached a picture here, which was very difficult to do (for me). It's from a wedding, and I was asked to shoot candids and portraits of people there. It was a casual setting in a stunningly beautiful area of Sonoma County, California. I wanted to emphasize the mood of the place AND make some decent pictures of people. So I decided to use the radiance of the background to emphasize the beautiful light, while I let these two people be the 'calm' part of the picture. The skin tones are what's smooth here, and the background is where the crazy texture exists, AND there is a big brightness difference between them and the background, hopefully separating them enough from the backdrop to stand out.
(I could have given the negative a half stop more exposure or so, but it was a compromise since there were a lot of other types of exposures on the same roll of film).

Like I said earlier, I don't think a single coated or uncoated, uncorrected lens could have handled this type of exposure. So if you decide to try your hand at older lenses, you have to watch, very carefully, your lighting, or you will have flare all over the place. You may end up limiting your shooting options that way, unless you're prepared to carry all sorts of lenses.

This is shot with a very old Hasselblad 500C and a normal Planar lens. Not very exotic, but it works.

I should add that the lens can be a very important piece of the puzzle, so there's nothing wrong with owning a lot of different lenses. It can be enriching, I believe. As long as the lens fits in with your vision and presentation, go for it. But you may want to think long and hard about whether you actually need it or not. I guess I just want to encourage highly critical thinking.

Look at August Sanders portraits for a reference point on rounded images. His optics were not well corrected and yet the the aberations add interest. The joy is understanding what you can do with what you have. Its in the doing that one achieve a measure of control over process while being open to chance and good fortune. I feel the camera strength is in representation and recording details of the world around us. But plain documents can be boring. The challenge is to find ways to make the document real and honest while bending realism to make it interesting. Sanders, Aget, HCB, and Kertesz come to mind.

I agree with you, except that I never saw Sander's lenses as contributing flaws apparent in the image. I've always liked the look of tessars, and the other anastigmats of the era. It's just that Sander received a long and hard earned education in photography, also typical of the era. The New Objectivity / New Photography tend to be straight shooters, so to speak, but they were seldom boring. Oh well. Wish we could sit and talk about this. It's an inspiring period.

d

.

Composition - The Frame - is practically everything. Every other choice either leads to it or stems from it. Photography (and drawing, and painting, etc.) is all about the art of rendering 3D as 2D. These arts are all about the FRAME, and all about DIMENSION, at the most fundamental level. So, your question is a great, fundamental one...but unfortunately, the only answer is: YOU. There is not a tip or trick or technique that will get you there. You just have to be good at making 2D things look 3D, if that is what you want. So, the answer: PRACTICE A LOT AND GET GOOD AT IT.