Ororaro
Well-known
I agree, some people are short of terms and have began to use (IMO) stupid terms such as "drawing" and "painting".
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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....?
Attachments
Last edited:
Bryce
Well-known
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.
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
Veteran
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.Bryce said:
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.
Last edited:
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."
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."
M. Valdemar
Well-known
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.
"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
Well-known
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully the insults won't fly, and people will look at the images instead.
NickTrop
Veteran
NB23 said:
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
Well-known
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.
.
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.
.
Last edited:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
If you close one eye to look at one of them 3D photos, is it still 3D?
NickTrop
Veteran
M. Valdemar said:
- 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?
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
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.M. Valdemar said:
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.
ishpop
tall person
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?
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?
kross
sonnarism
we share the same view....mfogiel said:
mackigator
Well-known
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
I just answered my own question:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51098
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
"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!
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!
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
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
Well-known
Proof: "3D" Zeiss Lens(es) unmatched buy any Leica I know
Proof: "3D" Zeiss Lens(es) unmatched buy any Leica I know
Here is the proof.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=170173925781
Proof: "3D" Zeiss Lens(es) unmatched buy any Leica I know
Here is the proof.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=170173925781
Last edited:
navilluspm
Well-known
Is this what people mean by 3D?
Is this what people mean by 3D?
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/
Is this what people mean by 3D?
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/
Last edited: