The "3D" effect

S

Spud10

Member
Local time
3:24 AM
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
29
I know CZ lenses are known for the 3D effect that they render on photos. I'd personally would love to see some great examples of this.

Also, how about Leica glass? Any comparisons that someone could show?

Looking forward to seeing your shots!
 
Spud10 said:
I know CZ lenses are known for the 3D effect that they render on photos. I'd personally would love to see some great examples of this.

Also, how about Leica glass? Any comparisons that someone could show?

Looking forward to seeing your shots!
Click to expand...

I think you can do this with any lens. It is your main subject position relative to background, lighting and aperture that you need to control.
Have your main subject removed from background so that at your sharpest aperture, which is usually around f5.6, provides a tad of soft blur to the background. Then some nice side lighting to give plenty local contrast in main subject with a slightly darker background.
And if you are using B+W film, then develop in a staining developer and print on graded paper (definitely not VC paper) and your main subject will poke you in the eye regardless of which lens you are using.
 
Not a very interesting picture, but I think it shows that 3D effect some of us like.
M8 and Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm 2.8

5220148477_4b95aa81fa_b.jpg
 
In the day LF lenses were said to have a 3D effect in portraits if you could work the aberrations to leave the eyes and nose tip in focus while throwing the ears out of focus. The original Heliar was particularly noted for this: a zone of fuzziness at wider apertures and sharp all over when stopped way down. Many lenses for the Graflex (eg Wollensak Raptars) get bad reps because people don't understand that they were designed to only sharpen up at small apertures - indeed the f4.5 Tessar's optimum aperture is f/22.

This of course had to do with a style of photography that has now grown out of fashion. One should remember, however, when evaluating a classic lens to put it into the context of the photographic style of its era. Certainly a pre-war lens design famous for its 3D effect might not be what we are expecting given our mania for super sharp, aberration free lenses.
 
Not a great photo, but the best example of "3D effect" I have. This is a Hexar AF 35mm f/2 lens. You were asking for CZ or Leica glass, but I thought I'd just throw this in as another comparison.


U22710I1307063308.SEQ.0.jpg
 
It can be done any lens - it's got to do with perspective, aperture, distance from subject, camera format (the larger sensor/film format, the more 3d effect - anything under aps-c struggles to achieve it as easily as formats larger than aps-c) and lighting. However in my experience some lenses seem to exhibit the '3d' look more than others, and definitely Zeiss lenses are somewhat famous for it. My Zeiss (for canon) 35mm f2 distagon was brilliant at it - some of the photos just looked like they popped out at you! The pentax 67/105mm f2.4 takumar does it a lot too.


img_3011-edit.jpg

Zeiss ze 35mm Distagon @ f4ish


5896133605_7210eaacd1_b.jpg

Canon 35mm f1.4L @ f1.4


genny-1.jpg

Canon 35mm f1.4L @ f1.4


The Canon 35 1.4L for dslr's is another lens that does it quite often...
 
Look closely on the texture of the tree barks and tell me you don't feel that they are "three-dee" :D

5624122945_fcbea6a8eb_b.jpg


Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8 - Contax SLR version.
 
Sorry to bring back this topic, but I found it interesting and I wanted to add a bit.
It could be worth looking at how painters do this. I know some of the technics involve making the subject brighter, sharper, more coloured, and a lot more contrasted than the background/surrounding. Go to a museum and see. I think it comes from the observation that atmosphere reduces clarity and colours everything with a slight blue tint in the far sight.
Another way to achieve 3d can be done by shooting with a powerful flash, the subject will be well lit, with good contrasts and everything, while the background will be darker, less contrasted, etc.
 
I've always thought of the "3-D" effect as a product of roundness of faces and objects produced not by depth of field, but of micro-contrast. It's the very smooth and gradual gradation from light to shadow. Very difficult to achieve with grainy materials. I'm talking about roundness of cheekbones and eyes. I think older Leice lenses do it really well, as do Rolleiflexes with Zeiss and Schneider glass.
 
I don't know if a certain lens or make can be considered 3D mainly I think the effect is to do with point of focus.
url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/51840227@N02/7490705846/]
7490705846_dc6f4d81ea_c.jpg
[/url]
Fiona by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Possibly light and shadow also contribute

112966010.jpg


Both of those images were shot on Zeiss Tessar lens on a Rolleiflex, but I think the effect could be made on any make of lens...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom