That 3D look

[julescasablancas]

Summilux 50mm pre asph

[kennylovrin]

I find this quite interesting, this "3d pop" thing seems to be very subjective. To me it isn't very much about bokeh in itself. I saw some pretty extreme examples from the 35 f/1.4 distagon on Flickr a while back (i think it was). It looks to me as it happens mainly with Zeiss lenses, and that bigger format helps. I think that might be because because bigger format == shorter DOF at longer distances.

The two shots below, in my opinion, really shows that effect.

Originally Posted by chrishayton

img152 by chrishayton, on Flickr


Louve by chrishayton, on Flickr

Both with the most '3d' effect camera and lens I have come across, Pentax 67 and 105 2.4

[paradoxbox]

i think the thing that might give a good 3d effect is a lens that blurs the background to around the same degree that the human eye does.

unlike a super telephoto lens that completely blurs everything behind the focus plane a good "3d lens" leaves things behind the focus plane relatively recognizable but blurred enough to see it's definitely not in focus.

[acroolite]

[setyotomo]

MF really helps
Fuji GL690 100/3.5 wide open. Portra 400

Her first bike. by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr

[gogovisono]

MF really does help.


Lines Chairs Shoes and a Flower by gogovisono, on Flickr

[acroolite]

I think MF do make a difference.....

[Strangeluv]

Rolleiflex SL66 with Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8

[Jack Conrad]

I picked up an old Helios 44M a week or two back, and while I already had another 44M-4 which I found to be unremarkable, this one definitely has a distinctive crisp focus delineation or whatever it is that adds a 3D sparkle. Weird though, it also has bad edge blur that makes it almost a trick lens.
An annoying and persistent problem I have showing it is it gets lost in the file upload somehow. The images lose contrast and sharpness.

[lam]

Even Cron-R's can play.


80's stars. by lamlux.net, on Flickr

[gogovisono]

Another one with a 2.8 GX Rolleiflex.


KL by gogovisono, on Flickr

[Aristophanes]

Pentax 50/2.8 Macro

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by acroolite

I think MF do make a difference.....

what lens was this taken with?

thanks

[acroolite]

Originally Posted by redisburning

what lens was this taken with?

thanks

Taken with rolleifles 2.8GX..
I think its rollei planar 80mm f/2.8 lens..

[rodt16s]

A rare venture into the colour world

05-11-11-010-Porta.jpg

[blackwave]

This one is a little different because it doesn't have the layers of DOF. I think it qualifies with the funky play with perspective. At a glance it isn't quite clear which direction it's going.

[raid]

How would you identify in the posted images a 3D effect, compared to OOF and bokeh? Thete sems yo be an overlap.

[peterm1]

The way light and shadows fall can help create a 3D effect. And its particularly so if this effect is complemented by having suitable out of focus areas falling in the right areas. If the right photo comes along and the lighting does not produce a suitably 3D effect when I think this would help the image, I am not averse to doing a little vignetting in Photoshop to help it a long. But its all relative - photography is a 2D medium and 3D can really only be suggested - never achieved strongly.

This image for example I think has quite a 3D feeling because of the way the shadows fall helped a bit by where the point of focus is. You dont necessarily need a lot of OOF blur - enough to suggest depth may be all you need in some cases. In this first shot the OOF is very subtle but still helps.


_DSC4013a1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Similarly perhaps with this shot - I was experimenting with a Voightlander 50mm Nokton and its shallow depth of field. Here the DOF certainly has helped as has the lighting to some extent:


L1042013 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Here is another shot where lighting and point of focus combine to help produce a 3D effect:


_DSC5552 -1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

As it does here where the out of focus areas are even stronger


L1041851a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

And finally lets not forget images which suggest a 3D effect because of perspective (the oldest trick in the artist's book!)


_DSC5430Aa by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

[redisburning]

some nice shots, but I don't see it in your shots like I do in say acroolite's does.

something in the Zeiss design choice seems to contribute to it, and lenses that people think look "zeiss-y" tend to do it too. probably the lens I've seen it most consistently out of (and that's somewhat of a misnomer) is the 100MP.

[peterm1]

Originally Posted by redisburning

some nice shots, but I don't see it in your shots like I do in say acroolite's does.

something in the Zeiss design choice seems to contribute to it, and lenses that people think look "zeiss-y" tend to do it too. probably the lens I've seen it most consistently out of (and that's somewhat of a misnomer) is the 100MP.

There is no doubt acroolite has some good shots which combine extreme sharpness with soft OOF and that this helps a lot. But I still think that other factors - sharpness, OOF, shadow/light and perspective all play a role in helping create the illusion too.

[redisburning]

oh, I agree.

I just think that a lens has it or it doesn't; it takes those things to bring it out.

[acroolite]

This is my favorite one ..
35mm cron V1 googles