Lenses with 3D effect for M

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...)
 

Attachments

  • Flag4x6 v01web.jpg
    Flag4x6 v01web.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 0
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?
 
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.

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.
p837875648-4.jpg
 
Avotius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure beats me. I don't see any Threedeeness in your pic, and I'm over myself all right.
 
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.
 
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:.
 
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.
|
 
Last edited:
los said:
how 'bout just "shallow depth of field".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Biogon 3 D?

Biogon 3 D?

cmogi10 said:
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
Click to expand...
p837875648-4.jpg
 
foto_fool said:
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:.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom