View Full Version : Lenses with 3D effect for M
I was astonished to see the marvelous 3D effect on my old Red Scale50 Elmar.What other lenses have a similar effect?I couldnt believe a 60 year old lens could be so good.Do the voigtlander lenses have a similareffect? Is this what is called DRAWING in a lens?
laptoprob
12-05-2007, 22:59
AFAIK a lot of - older - lenses have this. Something to do with the lack of optimizing for sharpness and contrast, or optimizing for the whole frame. Qualities almost everyone seems to want these days.
At least older Leica lenses are famous for this. I am sure older Canons and others will share this quality.
Welcome to the forum!
The lenses which exhibit this the most are from Zeiss.
I don't really understand what you mean by this 3D effect. Could you post a picture to demonstrate please.
Thank you for your comments. New chum Bobby here.I wish I could post the photograhs which resulted from a bumbling beginner but I quite lack the technical skills to do so.But it is that same lack of expertise which took me aback when I saw the remarkable result of someneighbourhood houses photographed with Fuji Reala print film.100 ASA.The qualities were smoothness of texture and colour:a pleasing overall impression which revealed the architects intention of ...harmony? But most of all the impression of depth of theside walls.I showed my wife who said well...welll...she was impressed.I believe I quite like this photography business.
Regards
Bobby
Brian Sweeney
12-06-2007, 02:59
I have a framed picture at home, a 5x7. It looks like it is in 3D. It's with a 13.5cm F4.5 Hektor. I think it's the low contrast and shadow detail that creates the illusion.
Take a photo of an outdoor scene. Hold it near to you, and close one eye. Your brain will try to compensate for the lost 3D information. The same is going on when you look at a flat image. Maybe the low contrast recreates the scene closer to what the brain expects.
MCTuomey
12-06-2007, 03:38
I think the effect is more pronounced in prints when using larger format gear, esp 4x5 and beyond. I believe I've noticed it on a limited basis with several 35mm format lenses i've owned or used: 75 summilux (strongest/more often), 50 elmar (a bit) , CV 35/1.7 (a bit), and just recently a contax 24-75N (too early to tell for sure on the zoom). Haven't seen it with my 50 pre-asph lux.
Maybe there are more variables than just the lens: type of subject, light, aperture & subject-camera distance. Curious speculation really.
I used to think that the effect was partly dependent on type of film (slower vs faster), but since I've seen it with my digi gear I'm not sure.
Roger Hicks
12-06-2007, 06:42
Dear Bobby,
A lot depends on subject matter and viewing distance, but there is no doubt that some lenses do have a more 3-D rendering than others. It's partly quantifiable -- resolution across the field and aberrations -- and partly 'magic'. It is meaningless to ascribe this to a certain maker, though.
No, this isn't the ame as 'drawing', at least as currently used, because that is generally used to refer to barrel or pincushion distortion.
Cheers,
R.
I just looked at a couple of prints of mine that look 3D. In one case, taken with an old 35 Elmar, back lighting of the primary subject seems to help. It tends to outline the foreground in-focus subject causing even more separation from the out-of-focus background.
Other lenses I have used that have produced good 3D pictures without me even trying:
135 Nikkor F3.5
135 Tele-Elmar F4
135 Elmarit F2.8
90 Summicron F2
3D effect?
This has to be a joke...
We are in the joking mood! Next there will be a 4D effect!
For me it has to do with a lot of factors. Leica lenses are reported to have very good micro contrast and beautiful out of focus rendering. There seems to be a lot more middle tones in my Leica negatives than I found in my old Canon RF lens results. The Canons pictures looked flatter to me.
Over at cameraquest there was this comment that stuck in my mind: "The M's reason for being as far as I am concerned is their incredible Black and White work. If you have never tried it, you're in for a treat. Leica negs stand out on a light table instantly from Nikons/Canons/Minoltas etc. "
I've never used Zeiss lenses but I have seen some beautiful photos around here made by them. I found a guy on Flickr that uses an old 50mm f1.5 sonnar and he gets such lovely photos from it...
The 3D effect is rather nebulous. It's like the "leica glow". But I firmly believe there is some substance to these terms. It is not all just hype or these optics would not have stood the test of time like they have. Why else would the Summicron DR/rigid be voted the best lens for Black and White on this forum?
cheers
LeicaTom
12-06-2007, 09:02
.....actually I want to break into 5D
I heard that`s where all the models look like Raquel Welch :D
Tom
PS: Try a Canon f1.5 50mm they are good for EVERYTHING.....
We are in the joking mood! Next there will be a 4D effect!
As some Canon fanboys like to call it: "Threedeeness".
Brian Sweeney
12-06-2007, 17:16
Here's my "try" at an example. Not sure how it will show on your particular monitor.
Canon 50/1.2 wide-open and 1/15th sec on the Bessa R2.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52860&stc=1&d=1196990087
A combination of the light and the perspective. The low-contrast preserves shadow detail, and plays tricks with my eyes. Not sure about yours.
Pictures taken with the Summaron 35/3.5, of which I have had two, give an impression of what is called "roundedness" or "plasticity".
Hello:
It seems a characteristic associated with some older lenses especially Tessar like designs of which the Elmar is one.
yours
Frank
nikonhswebmaster
12-07-2007, 17:37
All this talk of "drawing" and "3-D" are OK, but I would not think of it too seriously since there are much more clear ways to describe lens aberrations and distortion.
But some people certainly have favorite lenses that give them confidence. I prefer lenses like the Nikon 50 1.4 which are very consistent in what they do, I don't like surprises.
Brian, that is a seriously cool photograph. Nice job!
John
Roger Hicks
12-08-2007, 00:05
All this talk of "drawing" and "3-D" are OK, but I would not think of it too seriously since there are much more clear ways to describe lens aberrations and distortion.
Yes there are, but they still don't describe the look that you get from a particular lens at a particular aperture: they explain it, to a greater or lesser extent, but never, I suggest, fully. I am reasonably confident that you will disagree with 'never . . . fully'.
Also, 'drawing' does have at least one precise use in optical descriptions, in the phrase 'rectilinear drawing' as opposed to 'fish-eye'.
Cheers,
R.
nikonhswebmaster
12-08-2007, 12:54
Also, 'drawing' does have at least one precise use in optical descriptions, in the phrase 'rectilinear drawing' as opposed to 'fish-eye'.
Cheers,
R.
I suppose -- well maybe -- sort of
Not so much, I hardly ever say to anyone, "this lens sure is not a fish-eye."
The fisheye lens is one of those odd Japanese products that just won't go away, every one of us has been tricked (seduced ?) into buying at least one, then took two photos and passed it on...
Actually no -- lenses do not "draw" they "project." I know this is a term, especially used on luminous landscape, but it is just a bad way of changing the meaning of a very clear artistic term.
Drawing means creating an image by representing forms by using lines, created over a span of time, by hand (or machine), not projecting an image onto film or a sensor. Drawing does not mean how straight a line is in a projected image.
I don't care who thought up the term, it is wrongheaded.
Brian Sweeney
12-08-2007, 15:46
Brian, that is a seriously cool photograph. Nice job!
John
Thankyou. We went to Colonial Williamsburg and Historic Jamestown in Virginia for Thanksgiving. It's an impressive place to visit, lots of people in costumes. They also rent costumes to the tourists, and lots of the kids dress up in period pieces.
> Actually no -- lenses do not "draw" they "project."
My Engineers made optics that could draw images. The optics were expensive, the tracking electronics were complex, and they used "LASERS". They used to draw the Lab emblem for demos. They "drew" the image very quickly with a fast refresh, you basically saw the image.
nikonhswebmaster
12-08-2007, 21:42
Actually, after thinking about it, if someone wants to confuse photography with drawing and painting, let them.
My only "3D" effect since I began in 1945 with a IIIc, has been with the current 50 Summilux ASPH - - - but, ONLY when the chromes are projected. Prints? No; Loupes? NO; Projection? Every Now And Then.
Reason? I haven't a clue. The apparent 3D slides were shot in not-too-bright light with F 1.4 to 2.8 of street and portrait subjects. Maybe one out of 100 chromes exhibit this so-called effect. Might be the Astia - -or the projection lens (SuperColorplan) or glass-mount problems. Who knows?
I agree, some people are short of terms and have began to use (IMO) stupid terms such as "drawing" and "painting".
I think the 3D effect is just caused by an unusual balance of foreground and background OOF areas with a particularly sharp main subject displaying plenty of contrast ... I photographed this sign standing in some tall weeds recently and to me it seems to exhibit a slight effect of some type that I don't see regularly in most of my shots....?
Part of the reason I hang around sites like this is to gain a little of others' perspectives as far as what makes a good photo and what doesn't. As a beginner in digital processing, I didn't see artifacts- then they were pointed out to me and now I see them, and can't stand them. I'm thinking of compression and sharpening artifacts.
Becoming aware of this made me change my own photography.
Taking a color class made me see casts I'd have ignored earlier. Same results.
Then there is Bokeh, I couldn't help being a little skeptical. But looking at lots of images made me somewhat a believer; some lenses really do a much better job than others of rendering out of focus areas, and I think about that as I shoot. I have a few lenses that I willingly shoot wide open, and others I just avoid doing that with. More importantly than the lenses, the nature of the background is important- nothing seems to work in busy backlit foliage or with streetlights in the scene.
My point is that there is a lot of negative talk here about the alleged 3-d effect. I'm skeptical, but would love to see what people are talking about.
To those concentrating on terminology (i.e. drawing or painting of a lens), you're probably right- on a technical level. But what would you like to call it? Old portrait lenses were valued for their "roundness" and "softness". Neither term was probably technically correct, but conveyed an idea. Maybe the same with Bokeh. Funny thing about the English language, it just keeps growing; when a new word is needed, it either gets borrowed from another language or an old word gets a new meaning.
So if anyone else has examples of 3-d effect images, please keep 'em coming. I'd like to know what the fuss is about.
To Keith and Brian, thanks.
Roger Hicks
12-09-2007, 02:55
I suppose -- well maybe -- sort of
Not so much, I hardly ever say to anyone, "this lens sure is not a fish-eye."
I don't care who thought up the term, it is wrongheaded.
Try writing a lens review sometime. 'The 14/3.5 Sigma is a rectilinear-drawing lens' i.e. not (as you might expect, being shorter than the 15/2.8) a fish-eye. 'Rectilinear' on its own normally refers to either a design (RR) or a focusing mount (non-rotating). Hence the use of the word 'drawing'.
To borrow your own world-picture, I don't care if you think it's wrong-headed, it is on occasion useful. Beware of hardening of the categories!
Also, there are times when fish-eyes are useful. The first time I used one commercially was in an audio-visual. I wanted to illustrate the way that postage can swallow up money -- so I shot a pillar box (? letter box in American -- a place where you post things) with a full-frame fish-eye to get a gaping mouth. They're great for adding interest to visually boring subjects (something you often have to do in audio-visuals and indeed some kinds of jourmalism) and some people even take successful creative pictures with them.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
12-09-2007, 03:13
Funny thing about the English language, it just keeps growing; when a new word is needed, it either gets borrowed from another language or an old word gets a new meaning.
And indeed all languages. It's always worth fighting a rearguard action against distinctions that are lost by 'simplifying' spelling (e.g. kerb/curb) or against sheer illiteracy, but language does evolve and you need to keep an eye open for useful new ways of saying things.
Like you, I am amazed by the antipathy people exhibit towards concepts they don't understand, such as bokeh or the 3-D effect. Both exist, though of course the importance and repeatability of either can be overstated.
Here's a quote from Gordon Taylor, AIBP, reviewing the then-new Agiflex III in the magazine Good Photography, September 1955:
"At full aperture the f/2.8 Agilux had rather less 'bite' than the f/3.5, giving a slight 'plastic' effect to objects in focus and with a pleasing transition towards the out-of-focus areas without that unpleasant mottled effect produced by some lenses."
3-D AND bokeh. But of course he must have been imagining it, because these things don't exist. We have repeatedly been assured of this by 'experts' on this forum...
I feel sorry for anyone so obsessed by either 3-D or bokeh that they lose sight of the picture, and chase just one (usually unimportant) feature, but I feel equally sorry for those who deny their existence. As you said, the more you learn about photography, the more you learn to see things. Maybe they are slow learners.
Cheers,
R.
Brian Sweeney
12-09-2007, 05:02
From on online definition of photography By Daniel Vidoni
June 2004:
"The word photography comes from the Greek photos (meaning light) and graphos (meaning write or drawing). Therefore photography means writing with light, which is a good description."
nikonhswebmaster
12-09-2007, 06:03
Also, there are times when fish-eyes are useful. The first time I used one commercially was in an audio-visual. I wanted to illustrate the way that postage can swallow up money -- so I shot a pillar box (? letter box in American -- a place where you post things) with a full-frame fish-eye to get a gaping mouth. They're great for adding interest to visually boring subjects (something you often have to do in audio-visuals and indeed some kinds of jourmalism) and some people even take successful creative pictures with them.
Cheers,
R.
It it is the only time i have ever seen them used. Al Satterwhite used them that way. They truly are form over content lenses. Nikon has been pushing them now since the first one in 1962.
The Nikkors were originally all full circle fish eyes, the ones I find disturbing are the ones that are not circular, but just distort the hell out of things, like the 16 2,8. These are literally fun-house mirror lenses since Nikon makes much wider lenses like the 13 5.6 with no fisheye distortion.
But of course if an artist can think of interesting fisheye subject matter, who can argue?
nikonhswebmaster
12-09-2007, 06:22
From on online definition of photography By Daniel Vidoni
June 2004:
"The word photography comes from the Greek photos (meaning light) and graphos (meaning write or drawing). Therefore photography means writing with light, which is a good description."
The OED suggests that Talbot derived the word by combining the first half of W.H. Fox Talbot's word photogenic and the second half of Joseph Niepce's word héliographie ("writing with sunlight").
This is of course all just guessing by scholars... no one mentioned the derivations during presentation of their papers.
However all this is a moot point because it refers to the photograph, not the camera or lens. The camera itself has existed long before the photograph, and was in wide spread use in Europe by Vermeer's time (1632~1675). Vermeer seemed to have used a camera obscura along with his "grain" (pointillé) paint application.
In most cases using a camera obscura the projected image would be traced with a pencil or pen. Vermeer may have even sat "inside" his.
nikonhswebmaster
12-09-2007, 06:34
"At full aperture the f/2.8 Agilux had rather less 'bite' than the f/3.5, giving a slight 'plastic' effect to objects in focus and with a pleasing transition towards the out-of-focus areas without that unpleasant mottled effect produced by some lenses."
I found the original source on that quote.
"The 1949 Pinot Gris, had rather less 'bite' than the post war 1944, giving a slight 'plastic' effect to the first sips and with a pleasing transition towards the end of the glass without that unpleasant mottled effect produced by some Pinot Gris."
Ah the Agilux, a benchmark effort in the history of photography. It is an RF!
M. Valdemar
12-09-2007, 06:51
Getting back to Pepys diary, (even though nobody here seems to know what or who he is), he mentions many optical devices:
"Comes by agreement Mr. Reeves,” states Samuel Pepys’ diary entry for August 19, 1666. “He did also bring a lanthorn with pictures in glasse, to make strange things to appear on a wall, very pretty.”
Up, and before I went to the office comes my Taylor with a coate I have made to wear within doors, purposely to come no lower than my knees, for by my wearing a gowne within doors comes all my tenderness about my legs. There comes also Mr. Reeve, with a microscope and scotoscope. For the first I did give him 5l. 10s., a great price, but a most curious bauble it is, and he says, as good, nay, the best he knows in England, and he makes the best in the world. The other he gives me, and is of value; and a curious curiosity it is to look objects in a darke room with.
Very curious. A scotoscope in the 1600's? Allows one to see in the dark?
http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1664/08/13/index.php
http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/7790.php#c171678
Mr. Reeves built some curious stuff. If I had the inclination to search there are many other optical devices and scientific instruments mentioned by Pepys. Some astonishing as you would think they were unknown at the time.
M. Valdemar
12-09-2007, 06:57
PS: "3D" effects in photographs are imaginary. You can perceive whatever you want, but what you see is not "3D".
Pretty soon, though, there will come software and the processing power to extrapolate 3D information from photographs, add real color to monochrome too.
Construct 3D models based on micrograin structure and also by searching unheard-of massive records of other similar scenes with algorithms.
We are only in the infancy of reconstructive imaging.
Want a moving holographic model of the London Blitz (William Gibson), or a reconstructed, animated Lincoln? Or your dead relatives? It's coming.
Brian Sweeney
12-09-2007, 07:02
I'd like to see more examples of what the RFF members perceive as the "3D" effect in their images. Maybe a W/NW thread might work. Might give some better understanding as to the effect, either actual or perceived.
Hopefully the insults won't fly, and people will look at the images instead.
NickTrop
12-09-2007, 07:16
I agree, some people are short of terms and have began to use (IMO) stupid terms such as "drawing" and "painting".
1. There are clear variances in how lenses - based on design, coatings, focal length, etc. "render" (is that word choice more to liking?) what is being photographed. You're welcome to quibble with the semantics but personally I see no problem with the adjectives you object to.
2. There's no such thing as the 3D effect
Everyone knows that the images aren't "3D". The appear or resemble or "approach" a "3D" look. "3D effect" is "shorthand" for this look, usually where the subject is in clear focus, the OOF areas taper gradually from intelligible to unintelligible, and the sense of depth is very pronounced in the photo.
3. Best lens for the M for 3D effect.
My one and only "real" Leica (I'm a frugal rank amateur photograher) is the Leica Summar. It's in M39 and would require an adapter for the M, and finding a good sample required patience and is a challenge (or you can get the best sample you can find and send it to DAG to be restored for $75-ish). Even with these costs, it's still probably less than you would likely spend for genuine "M" glass.
I "bit" on these descriptions of how this lens "paints" a "3D" effect - got GAS, and bought it and a Zorki 4 to slap it on:
2/50 Summar:
The Summar is Leitz's first f 2.0 lens, introduced in 1933. It shows it's best results between f 3.2 and 6.3. In this range, it is comparably sharp, like my Kodak Retina Ia 3.5/50 mm Xenar from the 50ies. In this range, it is a "high contrast lens", but different than we use the phrase today. Here it means, that the lens shows clear colors but hardly shadow details. To give an example: When you look at a tree at dawn or sunset, you clearly see the colors of the bright parts, but the shadows are gone and almost black. That's what the lens does, even in bright daylight. Additionally, the unsharp areas are more unsharp than in a "usual" 50 mm, almost like from the 2/90 mm M Summicron. Both effects (suppression of shadow details and "increased" unsharpness) result in the most impressive 3D or pictoral effect I've ever seen from a 50 mm, incl Noctilux. The highlights are over-pronounced, which gives an additional impression of light in your pictures (like in impressionism). At f 2.0 the corners tend to be dark and the colors are almost gone. It is a warm to neutral lens.
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/ll.htm
Also from Camera Quest:
50/2 Leitz Summar (1933-1940): Universally disparaged, I think it's a treasure. These lenses give a wonderful semi-soft focus effect when shot at wide apertures with color film. Very beautiful, great for scenics, women, nudes, romantic images. All chrome collapsible lenses. Watch out for fogging and cleaning scratches. All left the factory without coating, though some were sent back to the factory for coating post war.
http://www.cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm
This is my "go to" lens for 3D effect, when I want a lens that "paints" an image in this way, and can vouch for the descriptions above.
M. Valdemar
12-09-2007, 07:25
Also from Camera Quest:
50/2 Leitz Summar (1933-1940): Universally disparaged, I think it's a treasure. These lenses give a wonderful semi-soft focus effect when shot at wide apertures with color film. Very beautiful, great for scenics, women, nudes, romantic images. All chrome collapsible lenses. Watch out for fogging and cleaning scratches. All left the factory without coating, though some were sent back to the factory for coating post war.
http://www.cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm
Smear a tiny bit of vaseline on the front element of your sharp lens, like the 50mm f2 Nikkor, and voila, romantic images.
Or monkey around 30 seconds in Photoshop. Alien Skin's "Exposure II" is wonderful.
Whether you use lens aberrations/defects or software algorithms to create the pictorial effect you're after, you're still using a technical gadget to create a desired record of something that was in front of you on a photo sensitive material.
Now if you want to get into the philosophy that photos are actually stopping time by recording their collision with alterable matter to make a "photograph", I'm game to discuss it.
Drawing, painting, etching, etc etc. I guess they're accurate in the sense that a wine critic will describe old grape juice as "nutty", "hints of vanilla and jasmine", "a firm nose" and so forth. Whatever floats your boat. I think "nutty" is a good all around term to describe self-induced perceptions.
.
nikonhswebmaster
12-09-2007, 07:31
Certainly some photos exhibit a more 3-D look than others, and I suppose in most cases sharpness and lack of flare would be useful in achieving this look.
Some photographers have cultivated the look, but it has little to do with your lens choice (other than focal length) but more to do with how the light falls on the scene.
On of the continuing complaints about Video over film has been the lack of 3D in video, it just looks too flat. But properly lighted video can look very much like traditional film. But film does tend to look more 3D because of the "blackness" of shadows.
So 3D comes from contrast, sharpness, lack of flare, deep shadows, no blown highlights, graduated lighting?
M. Valdemar
12-09-2007, 07:35
If you close one eye to look at one of them 3D photos, is it still 3D?
NickTrop
12-09-2007, 07:41
Also from Camera Quest:
50/2 Leitz Summar (1933-1940): Universally disparaged, I think it's a treasure. These lenses give a wonderful semi-soft focus effect when shot at wide apertures with color film. Very beautiful, great for scenics, women, nudes, romantic images. All chrome collapsible lenses. Watch out for fogging and cleaning scratches. All left the factory without coating, though some were sent back to the factory for coating post war.
http://www.cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm
Smear a tiny bit of vaseline on the front element of your sharp lens, like the 50mm f2 Nikkor, and voila, romantic images.
Or monkey around 30 seconds in Photoshop. Alien Skin's "Exposure II" is wonderful.
Whether you use lens aberrations/defects or software algorithms to create the pictorial effect you're after, you're still using a technical gadget to create a desired record of something that was in front of you on a photo sensitive material.
Now if you want to get into the philosophy that photos are actually stopping time by recording their collision with alterable matter to make a "photograph", I'm game to discuss it.
Drawing, painting, etching, etc etc. I guess they're accurate in the sense that a wine critic will describe old grape juice as "nutty", "hints of vanilla and jasmine", "a firm nose" and so forth. Whatever floats your boat. I think "nutty" is a good all around term to describe self-induced perceptions.
.
- Or a wine critic critic will describe wine as "old grape juice" ;)
- If you want to smear greazy petrol products on your lenses, be my guest. However, this won't give you the exaggerated contrast of the Summar and the Summar - while not the sharpest lens, paints images that are entirely different than merely using diffusion techniques - be it a filter or smearing Vasoline on your lens.
- Never a saw a plug-in that emulated optical effects accurately, other than colored filters (a "yellow" filter from Nic filters applied to a black and white to bring out the clouds), which worked pretty well. Digital diffusion filters were particularly horrible IMO. Perhaps they've improved in the last few years since I fooled with them.
- Cameras don't "stop" time. Time doesn't "stop". Ever. But why quibble over sematics?
Roger Hicks
12-09-2007, 09:03
PS: "3D" effects in photographs are imaginary. You can perceive whatever you want, but what you see is not "3D".
ALL visual perceptions of three-dimensionality are imaginary, in that they are a construction of the brain, not a reality. A '3D effect' is not however imaginary: the word 'effect' is the key, viz., an image that looks 3D, without necessarily being so.
Are you familiar with Eye and Brain and The Intelligent Eye, by Richard Gregory, professor of perception at the University of Bristol? You might find them interesting.
Then there is the Buddhist view that we live in the world of illusion...
I fully understand the frustration of those who want to see pics, but there is now a thread devoted to this. The queston of '3D effect' (like 'bokeh') is however of enough interest to enough people to explain the hijacking of this thread.
Cheers,
R.
Having been a DJ for over 10 years, I spent many afternoons in record stores in very similiar debates such as this one. The use of new word combinations to describe genres and sub-genres of music. Whether or not alt-goth-dance-rock accurately described one producer's tendency to use flange too much on the guitar (a joke of course).
I think the use of a word "3D" to describe a look of a photo is 100% reasonable and anyone saying otherwise is pretentious and bitter. ;) But most artists are pretentious and bitter by nature, hence the constant flare-ups in forums, in general.
The bottom line is that words are used to communicate something, describe something. If the original poster literally thought some lenses made photo transform into pop-out photos, I want to smoke what he has, can you pass it over?
The lenses which exhibit this the most are from Zeiss.
we share the same view....:D
mackigator
01-10-2008, 06:52
Is there a thread with example images? I'm not sure that earlier Zeiss discussion qualifies, though it does have a few more samples. "Real" or not I'm curious to see what people think of as a "3d effect."
I just answered my own question:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51098
shadowfox
01-10-2008, 08:47
"3D-ness" or "3D-effect" in a photograph or painting is real.
Of course it's not real 3D because prints and monitors are not 3D.
That's why we add the word "effect" on it.
Duh!
So 3D comes from contrast, sharpness, lack of flare, deep shadows, no blown highlights, graduated lighting?
The lens I've got that gives me the most "3D" feeling is the Leica R 100mm AME, shot at 2.8 or maybe 4. I think the feeling comes from a combination of a very smooth, sharp in-focus subject with a very smooth out of focus background that isolates the subject. The closest equivalent I've used in the M range might be the pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux. I have not used the ASPH 'Lux. I own but do not get this feeling from the 90mm M AA.
navilluspm
01-10-2008, 09:08
Here is the proof. :p
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=170173925781
navilluspm
01-10-2008, 09:14
Seriously now (Not including stereo graphic cameras) Would you consider this Flickr set of mine having "3D" quality? If so, I think that 3D quality has more to do with distortion and aperture setting than lens (Yes, they were taken with a Planar lens, but I also put a Minolta closeup filter on top of it for some shots.)
If these don't have a 3D effect, what exactly is it?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8752393@N06/sets/72157603292287806/show/
nikonhswebmaster
01-10-2008, 09:36
Seriously now (Not including stereo graphic cameras) Would you consider this Flickr set of mine having "3D" quality? If so, I think that 3D quality has more to do with distortion and aperture setting then lens (Yes, they were taken with a Planar lens, but I also put a Minolta closeup filter on top of it for some shots.)
If these don't have a 3D effect, what exactly is it?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8752393@N06/sets/72157603292287806/show/
Most of them no, since there is too much area out of focus. The leaves have the effect in a few cases, but in most cases the leaf is the only sharp part of the image, so it a highlighted rather than a 3d effect.
In order for a tree truck to be round, you have to see it, making 50% of it out of focus kills the round effect. The roundness comes from light and contrast.
Chiaroscuro (Italian for clear-dark, defined shadow shapes) is not the same as out of focus. This concept is one of the first concepts every art student learns in drawing class.
Shooting with a lens wide open almost always makes a photo look flat and foreshortened. It is an effect but not 3D.
Yes out of focus can give us keys to depth, but only if it is gradual, not the sort of radical focus shift which occurs with a wide open standard or tele lens. This kind of focus shift is very unnatural, humans do not see that way, so it makes a photo look very photographic, not real. The effect is great if you want it, because you want to isolate something for the viewer, but is it never really 3D.
I honestly don't know what folks are writing about. But I did see a question about whether Voigtlander lenses have a 3-D effect. While it's possible that this was referring to the recent CV lenses, I do have an example from an earlier Voigtlander lens.
This is what happens when I put a stereo attachment (32mm clamp-on) onto my Vito B with a Color Skopar f/3.5, and take a picture of my porch.
(sure hope the attachment works...)
navilluspm
01-10-2008, 09:54
Thank you very much for this imformative answer! This is exactly what is need to know about what is meant by 3D. I always thought it has to do with shallow depth of field and highlighting the image. I am interested to experiment some more with what you have told me about "Chiaroscuro".
If I understand correctly, a 3D effect will not have the drastic OOF areas as my photos have, but will be only slightly OOF focus, and the interplay with light and dark will have less contrast?
nikonhswebmaster
01-10-2008, 13:13
Thank you very much for this imformative answer! This is exactly what is need to know about what is meant by 3D. I always thought it has to do with shallow depth of field and highlighting the image. I am interested to experiment some more with what you have told me about "Chiaroscuro".
If I understand correctly, a 3D effect will not have the drastic OOF areas as my photos have, but will be only slightly OOF focus, and the interplay with light and dark will have less contrast?
The concept of Chiaroscuro as explained by Wikepedia:
Chiaroscuro (Italian for clear-dark) is a term in art for a contrast between light and dark. The term is usually applied to bold contrasts affecting a whole composition, but is also more technically used by artists and art historians for the use of effects representing contrasts of light, not necessarily strong, to achieve a sense of volume in modelling three-dimensional objects such as the human body. Further specialised uses of the term are "chiaroscuro woodcut", used for coloured woodcuts printed with different blocks, each using a different coloured ink, and "chiaroscuro drawing" used for drawings on coloured paper with drawing in a dark medium and white highlighting. The term is now also used in describing similar effects in the lighting of cinema and photography.
Here are two good articles to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/c/chiaroscuro.html
How would a lens help? Certainly a lens with good contrast, and good rendition of color saturation in near focus would give a better 3D effect. Oddly humans see contrast as sharpness, more than actual sharpness.
3D in photographs is often best in north light late in the day, when shadows are long, and contrast greatest. You can use yellow and orange filters in b&w to accentuate the contrast between light and shadow, or use a polarizer filter to control the light in color.
I have read a lot about plasticity in old Rollei books. I understand it to mean "roundness" caused by what someone here called "micro-contrast" I think, and I see the effect in quite a pronounced way using my old Summicron 50s.
Vic
Every time I see people complaining that there is no such thing as 3d effect I start to roll my eyes. Even Putts acknowledges the 3d effect, get over your selfs already.
Get it straight people, we are not talking about real 3d here, just the effect that tricks the eye into seeing depth where there is none. Think magic eye poster things.
I for one have much more luck producing this so called 3d effect with color film, micro contrast and a bold picture help, at f2 or f8 I seem to get nicely rounded pictures out of my zeiss 50 f2 and they print up well and its a great touch to photos when hanging in a gallery.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/1773957545_02781816e6_o.jpg
For instance, this photo produces a nice effect of depth, the high micro contrast in the skin really helps get a sense of something special, especially when printed around 15 inches.
I always thought my Biogon had a certain 3D Quality to it...I see it in this image, I don't think it's in my head.
http://carlmogerley.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p837875648-4.jpg
Every time I see people complaining that there is no such thing as 3d effect I start to roll my eyes. Even Putts acknowledges the 3d effect, get over your selfs already.
Get it straight people, we are not talking about real 3d here, just the effect that tricks the eye into seeing depth where there is none. Think magic eye poster things.
when printed around 15 inches.
Sure beats me. I don't see any Threedeeness in your pic, and I'm over myself all right.
dpetrzelka
01-10-2008, 22:15
Colin and Cmogi10 - I'm with you.
Its the illusion of depth. Although I usually see it more in shots where there is greater focal/OOF definition between foreground/background, as in Colins color shot, I do also see it in cmogi10's.
In the b+w shot of the young man it is the OOF transition occurring on his right shoulder that reduces the 3D effect for me.
nikonhswebmaster
01-11-2008, 03:06
Every time I see people complaining that there is no such thing as 3d effect I start to roll my eyes. Even Putts acknowledges the 3d effect, get over your selfs already.
Get it straight people, we are not talking about real 3d here, just the effect that tricks the eye into seeing depth where there is none. Think magic eye poster things.
I for one have much more luck producing this so called 3d effect with color film, micro contrast and a bold picture help, at f2 or f8 I seem to get nicely rounded pictures out of my zeiss 50 f2 and they print up well and its a great touch to photos when hanging in a gallery.
For instance, this photo produces a nice effect of depth, the high micro contrast in the skin really helps get a sense of something special, especially when printed around 15 inches.
We all see thing differently... which is one of the mysteries of life I suppose. I see no depth at all in your photo, since there is no information about the background at all. To my eye the photo looks like a bas relief in front of a fuzzy backdrop.
The fact that you see it as 3D, and I do not, is why talking about this kind of subject becomes so difficult.
To me (and here I will talk as an artist with a BFA and an Master of Fine Arts, MFA) the two photos above are totally flat in how they present themselves. Avotius' photo is especially flat, in that it looks like a paper cut-out.
:)
foto_fool
01-11-2008, 11:32
Am I to take it that this thread has moved on past "such-and-such lenses give 3D effect" to "each of us percieves a photo differently and some of us see an illusion of depth while others don't"?
Oh thank goodness :angel:.
NickTrop
01-11-2008, 11:49
Here we go again with the "3D effect" controversy.
IMO -
1. Yes, certain lenses - but moreso, certain photos have a more pronounced "3D" effect.
2. I think it shows up more in prints than in web shots for some reason. "Perhaps" it's because most monitors are low res from a "DPI" stand-point so you lose a lot of the "microcontrast" that contributes to the effect. I can see the "3D" effect in the photo by Avoitus but I bet it "pops" more on the print.
3. "3D" effect is just a term. Don't get caught up in the semantics. No - obviously the photo's aren't "3D" it's just an expression - or metaphor, where the ->sense or illusion <- of depth is more pronounced in a photo.
I have one Leica lens (not including the "Leica" on my digital Panasonic). A 50/2 screw mount (not an M) Summar. Summars are bargain Leicas and not too hard to find. It's definitely a "different" beast - wacky out of focus areas, but I like it. I bought it based on this description:
"...Both effects (suppression of shadow details and "increased" unsharpness) result in the most impressive 3D or pictoral effect I've ever seen from a 50 mm, incl Noctilux."
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/ll.htm
Having owned this lens, and shot maybe about 10 rolls with it on a Zorki K, I agree 100% with the description posted above. You can "pick off" pics from this lens from a mile away and - yes - it gives the greatest "illusion" of depth more than any other lens I own. It's also a real good lens (maybe the best I own) for "people" shots. Lower contrast, nice natural color rendition of skin tones, and "yes" a bit of the legendary "Leica glow". It needs a lens hood, as it's uncoated. It's not "bitingly sharp" like a lot of modern lenses but "sharp enough". I definitely do not consider it a "soft lens.
For the 3D effect, I would suggest this lens with an M adapter.
|
how 'bout just "shallow depth of field".
how 'bout just "shallow depth of field".
No! No! No! Avotious said the TrheeDeeEffect really exists (as proved in his photo). You only need to light up, get over yourself, and you shall obviously see it miraculously appear. The ThreeDeeNess, that is.
I always thought my Biogon had a certain 3D Quality to it...I see it in this image, I don't think it's in my head.
Was it the Biogon 35/2? Leica M 8? Nice picture
http://carlmogerley.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p837875648-4.jpg
Brian Sweeney
01-15-2008, 03:00
Am I to take it that this thread has moved on past "such-and-such lenses give 3D effect" to "each of us percieves a photo differently and some of us see an illusion of depth while others don't"?
Oh thank goodness :angel:.
Some lenses are probably better at transfer-functions that produce such illusion.
Others have not moved past hurling cheap insults at people to get their jollies out of it.
http://carlmogerley.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p837875648-4.jpg
Thank you and Yeah it was
http://carlmogerley.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p1069590081-4.jpg
I have just posted in another thread to explain that there is an fundamental unity in art encompassing both photography and painting.
I am involved in visual perception research. Despite the huge literature on stereo vision, I am convinced we do not fully understand it.
And I have clear that there are many clues to the third dimension, that work both on monocular vision and when we look to a planar image.
It is famous in Art the mastery of Manet to suggest depth without any prospective clue
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Edouard_Manet_004.jpg
Similar comment hold for the celebrated Le déjeuner sur l'herbe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Luncheon_on_the_Grass
The fact that we don't fully understand the mechanisms of the visual systems for handling the third dimension, does not elide the issue.
This is an issue of paramount importance.
In a photo I am convinced that the subject can make a great difference. But the lens too, because it can stress better those clues that our visual system uses to derive the depth information. In certain cases this two factor enhance each other and I remember Zeiss posting a photo of a landscape to praise the tridimensional effects of its lenses.
So please no humour. This is a most serious topic that deserves more attention by researchers. A scientist never denies evidence only because it has not yet found a sound theory to explein such evidence
This thread is way old, but might stand a revisit. I owned an M3 for years and shot mostly Canon SLRs. The reason I came back (and more) to RFs is because I used the M3 w rigid Summicron to shoot my son and his wife after the birth of their first son. I was blown away by the 3D of those images. I have not seen it in all other Leica lenses I have used.
fast forward. After a little overbuying of various lenses, I shot 50's against each other, 35s against each other, and will do 85-100s against each other. I was reviewing the results on monitor and realized I was looking at very very different feel pictures with one set. This turned out to be the Canon 35 1.8.
And that reminded me that Sherry K had some years ago checked for these effects across Leica lenses and published some findings on the web. They no longer come up for me, but some of our wizards might be able to raise them. I think it would be interesting to add her experience to this thread.
And, I, I will go back and check whether I see it again, or whether I was imagining.
Another go, anybody?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.