That 3D look

[paradoxbox]

i like this shot very much!

Originally Posted by JHP

leica mp - 50 summilux

[ferider]

(Planar 80/2.8)

[raid]

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6299851&size=md


Summicron-C

[kokoshawnuff]

M7, MEM 90 (f/5.6 ish), E100VS, V700

[ferider]

And two more, 3D but different :





Roland.

[Brian Legge]

Low dof but at least I have some decent lighting in it as well.

Loving the shots from others which leverage atmospheric lighting in the distance as well as other techniques which add depth. I don't think I've shot much like that.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/7364281164

[back alley]

is there a 'recognized' lens or formula that consistently produces a 3d affect?

[p.giannakis]

[Brian Legge]

Originally Posted by back alley

is there a 'recognized' lens or formula that consistently produces a 3d affect?

So what gives a '3d' feel?

dof:

- larger format for lower dof
- highly uncorrected lenses (see large format petzval fans)
- any longer or faster lenses for shallower dof

lighting/atmosphere:

- I'd buy a lens in a second which could produce wonderful lighting.
- How a lens works with the film/sensor can make a lens marginally better or worse for a given light.

Aside from the dof angle (and lenses which swirl a bit), this doesn't seem like something gear related. Good lighting and exposure is vastly more important in my humble opionin.

[pagpow]

I agree that many of these shots represent three dimensions in two quite well, often through a combination of a clear fore, middle, and background, aerial perspective, receding lines, and selective focus.

Take a look at this thread
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=117463
where almost all the photos show what I mean by 3D look, where you see most things in focus AND have a real sense of depth -- roundness, plasticity, etc.
We've had a number of discussions about 3D on RFF, often devolving into debates about whether it exists or not. I'm not trying to revive that debate -- just showing that what we mean by 3D may differ.

Joe, I don't know if there is a recognized formula for one, but quite a few people have taken a stab at suggesting lenses that provide it, regardless of subject. I may have a list of some, if people are interested. Sherry K suggested that the round back element on some Leica lenses was responsible in those cases. Not sure if that explanation holds up.

Giorgio

[jtullar]

Are you talking "POP 3D"?

Leica CL CV40 1.4MC @1.4 Portra 400 VC

5DMKII Landscaping by J_TULLAR, on Flickr

[gshybrid]

an old shot.... 35 summilux can produce some nice seperation between forground and background.

[River Dog]

an old shot.... 35 summilux can produce some nice seperation between forground and background.

Quite lovely and tells a story.

Another Rolleiflex Planar with Ektar.

[mfogiel]

Hasselblad SWC/M


TERRACE, SAINT JEAN DE LUZ by mfogiel, on Flickr


ENTRANCE, CHATEAU D'UTRUBIE, URRUGNE by mfogiel, on Flickr


DROPLETS ON CABBAGE, MANOIR DE LA BRUNIE by mfogiel, on Flickr

[Corto]

"3d look" with a Canon SD800IS

[ferider]

Originally Posted by back alley

is there a 'recognized' lens or formula that consistently produces a 3d affect?

Not the lens, Joe, unless it's a lemon.

[Corto]

Yep, Usually its just the light.

[Marel]

I think I'm right in saying these two exhibit the 3d effect:





Both Leica M6 with the Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 SC.

[redisburning]

JHP's b&w with the 35/1.4 and chris' louvre have the most for me.

[raid]

The CZJ 5cm 1.5 with Kodak 100UC. Some people said that they saw a 3D effect here.

Maybe this one too (same lens)?



How about this image (Canon 19mm)?

[Keith]

Medium format does it consistantly ... particularly the 105mm f2.4 on my Pentax 67.

[raid]

CZJ 180mm lens on Mamiya 645E:

[Ezzie]

MF does help


Stump by Eirik0304, on Flickr

[EliasK]

rflx_AD100_UfP_2-10-2011_011 by Elias__K, on Flickr

[kchan]

Canon 20D, Sigma 30mm, a recent exposure 4.0 conversion