Three-Dimensional print

[InExperience]

Hi Guys,

Is there a way to emphasise the subject during the print phase, to look three-dimensional?
Should I use the Split filtration (2 exposure) or is enough to choose the correct grade of exposure?

Thank you.

 

[koraks]

I think the effect you're after has more to do with making the actual image than with the print.

 

[Vaughn]

Koraks is correct, although there are far more extensive developing techniques and tricks (beyond the usual exposure/contrast controls) that can be used.

In making the image, one has perspective, selective focus, tonal placement (lit figure against dark), and such, to help create a more 3D feel in the image on the negative...then that can be enhanced in the printing. I often close one eye when composing to make sure I am not letting my own 3D stereo vision overly influence my composition.

But there are fun things like split-toning that can help if the subject if differently lit than the surroundings. Or masking the subject with rubber cement and toning the print, washing, removing the rubber cement and toning in a different toner. Then there is exposing the paper partially though pantyhose in some of the image to selectively soften the image to bring out the subject.

 

[MattKing]

Glossy paper might help. But mostly what others have posted.

 

[Vaughn]

A friend made some images of the ruins at Chaco Canyon back when you could still buy Potriga Rapid 118 (a warm-tone fiber matt paper, for you young folks). The jet black windows of the ruins (lit by the direct desert sun), seem to sink deep below the surface of the paper -- quite striking (MF enlarged to 15"x15"). Paper surface is another factor to use to get depth in an image.

I cheat -- I use an 19th Century printing process that creates a raised relief (blacks are thicker on the paper than highlights). That can add a lot of visual depth to an image.

 

[JPD]

There are also lenses that make the subject pop out and create an effect that almost look 3D. The classic Voigtländer Heliar is famous for that, but I'm sure there are lenses from other companies that give a similar look.

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting -- your post just made me think how a lens would do that. Perhaps by being extremely sharp over a narrow plane, but due to lens aberrations (or whatever) the image quickly loses that extreme edge of sharpness once away from that plane. The difference in sharpness might help give a 3D look...without having to resort to out-of-focus areas to carry the weight. Pure guess...playing a mind-game. Anyone know more?

 

[JPD]

Residual aberrations, some claim spherical aberration, but I wonder if that's the whole story, because even the Cosina "perfected" 50mm Classic Heliar seems to have this effect. What makes it more mysterious is that some Heliar photos look as 2D as a normal Tessar. I remember seeing an old photo of groups of dancers with a hill or mountain in the background, and the depth of field was enough to make the background sharp, but there still was "air" in the photo that gave that almost 3D effect.

The Heliar is claimed to have excellent "bokeh" (a term I don't like), something I don't agree with after using a couple of Heliars. The transition from sharp to unsharp isn't smooth either, as is often claimed. It's abrupt. The out of focus background looks busy and not that different from what you get with a Tessar or even a Planar.

Voigtländer Bergheil 6,5x9 with 4,5/105 Heliar at 5,6, APX 100, Rodinal 1+50. https://live.staticflickr.com/3702/9384135320_575a7cfd48_b.jpg

 

[grat]

Carbon printing.

 

[miha]

Carbon printing.

+1

 

[chris77]

Residual aberrations, some claim spherical aberration, but I wonder if that's the whole story, because even the Cosina "perfected" 50mm Classic Heliar seems to have this effect. What makes it more mysterious is that some Heliar photos look as 2D as a normal Tessar. I remember seeing an old photo of groups of dancers with a hill or mountain in the background, and the depth of field was enough to make the background sharp, but there still was "air" in the photo that gave that almost 3D effect.

The Heliar is claimed to have excellent "bokeh" (a term I don't like), something I don't agree with after using a couple of Heliars. The transition from sharp to unsharp isn't smooth either, as is often claimed. It's abrupt. The out of focus background looks busy and not that different from what you get with a Tessar or even a Planar.

Voigtländer Bergheil 6,5x9 with 4,5/105 Heliar at 5,6, APX 100, Rodinal 1+50. https://live.staticflickr.com/3702/9384135320_575a7cfd48_b.jpg

What you say about heliar lenses is not at all coherent with my observation.
Regarding bokeh and smooth transition, but also background blur.

 

[removed account4]

you can also do it easily through stereoscopic photography, just make to images with a sliding camera. bracket so they are like IDK a few inches apart, print them side by side and look at them through a stereopticon viewer or cross your eyes and let it pop.... stereo realist and a sputnik cameras ( and many others! ) do this on their own, and its a lot of fun

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Good bokeh medium format but not overdoing the out of focus in the background can provide good 3D. Even on a screen.

Julie NYC and WTC by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[JPD]

What you say about heliar lenses is not at all coherent with my observation.
Regarding bokeh and smooth transition, but also background blur.

Do you mean that you have a better experience with the Heliar than how I described mine?

Good bokeh medium format but not overdoing the out of focus in the background can provide good 3D. Even on a screen.

I like that 3D "pop". The fence contributes nicely to the effect, and it's easy not to just see, but also feel the distance of the lady from the fence and then the background. That's a good lens, and you could have fooled me that it's a Heliar. The fine, invisible, grain also helps. Coarse grain on a scan or print can make a photo look flat because the grain is evenly sized on a flat plane.

 

[InExperience]

Thank you for the contribute, I will try to use some your suggestion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

True 3D prints did exist prior to holograms. And I'm not referring to stereo viewing using special glasses or viewers. They were called Vectographs - an extremely complicated process. The next closest thing is what Vaughn described. I have one of his wonderful little carbon prints with high relief. Otherwise, we're talking about the psychology of how things are viewed, and what contributes to a sense of depth, an involved topic in its own right. Composition-wise, study some art history, and how painters did it. In color photography, certain hues recede, others advance, just like in a painting. Learn some basic color theory. Then there is the use of proportion, angle of view etc - study Atget, the ultimate master of that tool kit. But I also admire how frontier photographers used their blue-sensitive films to create a sense of atmospheric depth, something most modern landscape photographers have forgotten about; study Watkins, Muybridge. I also admire the look of old time poorly fixed silver prints, and how the light versus darker values have unintentionally yet selectively shifted to opposite advancing warm vs receding cold hues over time. This can be done in an instant permanent way via thoughtful split toning with certain papers. Then there are all kinds of subtle lens distinctions relative to format, which get frequently discussed and debated. A lot of this is subjective, with no consistent answer.

 

[radiant]

@JPD @Alan Edward Klein Good examples!

Analyzing both images one important thing is managing the out-of-focus areas well - as previously said. I was about to suggest large format could also help, but atleast I am constanly overdoing out-of-focus on LF

 

[Vaughn]

In this one, despite the reproduction, is all sharp, but the tonality separates the snag from El Capitan behind it. Being a carbon print, the snag is also sitting farther above the paper surface with good texture. I had exposed a sheet of film (5x7) a few minutes earlier with the snag in the sun, but saw the shadow coming from behind me as the sun dipped below the rim of Yosemite Valley, and waited for this image.

Burnt wood is actually quite reflective and rarely black with the sun on it.

 

[JPD]

@JPD @Alan Edward Klein Good examples!

Analyzing both images one important thing is managing the out-of-focus areas well - as previously said. I was about to suggest large format could also help, but atleast I am constanly overdoing out-of-focus on LF

With large format there are a couple of "Xtreme" trends. All in focus, very selective focus and very shallow depth of field, often with lots of swirling going on. It's a matter of taste and enjoying photography and its possibilities. I'm used to Rollei TLRs and with bigger cameras I have only used a little rise when needed, and "just enough" background blur.

With 3D cameras you want as much depth of field as possible to mimic how your eyes can focus on the foreground and then on the background. Then it's the spacing between the lenses that creates the 3D effect, and not what they are focusing on.

 

[John Wiegerink]

In this one, despite the reproduction, is all sharp, but the tonality separates the snag from El Capitan behind it. Being a carbon print, the snag is also sitting farther above the paper surface with good texture. I had exposed a sheet of film (5x7) a few minutes earlier with the snag in the sun, but saw the shadow coming from behind me as the sun dipped below the rim of Yosemite Valley, and waited for this image.

Burnt wood is actually quite reflective and rarely black with the sun on it.

Perfect example! Great timing also. Love the look. JW

 

[Vaughn]

...With 3D cameras you want as much depth of field as possible to mimic how your eyes can focus on the foreground and then on the background. Then it's the spacing between the lenses that creates the 3D effect, and not what they are focusing on.

Watched a fellow take an extreme stereo image of Bridalvail Fall from across Yosemite Valley. Two MF SLRs about 30+ feet apart. He tossed a rock in the air that landed between the two cameras. When it hit the ground, he and his assistant would fire the shutters. Clever.

Thanks, John

 

[JPD]

Watched a fellow take an extreme stereo image of Bridalvail Fall from across Yosemite Valley. Two MF SLRs about 30+ feet apart. He tossed a rock in the air that landed between the two cameras. When it hit the ground, he and his assistant would fire the shutters. Clever.

Thanks, John

That's some deep stereo! That big space between the lenses is of course necessary to get a good 3D effect of very distant objects. With miniatures, like a model train, a spacing less than an inch would look more normal. I sometimes use a d*gital compact to take stereo photos handheld. I just move the camera 6-10 cm between shots, then in photoshop I straigthen and crop them into squares, paste them on a template and have a lab print them.