That 3D look

[ThomasM]

Summicron 50

Planar 80

Radionar 80/2.9

 

[lem0n]

Ulrika by danielhjerppe, on Flickr

Leica M2, Summicron 50/2 DR, TRI-X 400

It's not an extreme example of the 3d effect, but in the silver print it really pops out in a mystical way.

 

[zauhar]

50 DR Summicron in close-focus mode

 

[MCTuomey]

Chris, Eirik, Lund, Thomas - wonderful examples

Daniel, to me "pop" and "3D" mean the same. I see it in "Ulrika" as well.

Zauhar, the rose pic is a fine example of the DR's bokeh too

 

[JHP]

kiev 60 - 80 2.8

leica mp - vc 35 1.4

nikon d3s - nikon 85 1.4

leica mp - 50 summilux

leica m4-p - vc 35 1.4

thanks

 

[paradoxbox]

i like this shot very much!

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]

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/forums/showthread.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