3D Leica Look

I don´t believe the effect has to do with the lens but the eye fooling the brain.
Anyway it is a gorgeous good picture but it seems that it suffers from too much sharpening. Never do sharpening with the scanners software I have learned.
Congratulations! I would like to have that one in my portfolio.
 
uinku said:
I think it's more composition and maybe the interplay of textures than the lense.
Click to expand...

Agree, our brain (or at least *my* brain) expect the whole boat to be in the water, the part that jutted out to the sand makes us see that it protrudes off the screen.

That said, Gorgeous photo!!!! :)
Makes me want to go back to Maine again, and we were just there in March.
 
I'd have to agree with Mr. Luuk.

Also that photo has a strong green cast, like looking through those old style green sunglasses. And oversaturated, too. Just my opinion, of course (disclaimer).
 
Pablito said:
I'd have to agree with Mr. Luuk.

Also that photo has a strong green cast, like looking through those old style green sunglasses. And oversaturated, too. Just my opinion, of course (disclaimer).
Click to expand...

Regarding the saturation (and contrast) he used 400UC and high saturation and contrast are the characteristics. There is some green tint as well, imo. That was great film for that purpose and it is unfortunate kodak canned it.

It is very sharpened but at least it doesn't have the usual halos around all the edges. I agree that the line of the sand serves as a psuedo-frame, tricking the mind into thinking it is 3 dimensional, like "pop-out" fad of years ago ( since replaced by cartoonish HDR); only in this case it is very effective and genuine.

This is a great shot.
 
I have seen this "affect" before, in the early 80's I was given a book about photography. It was by a chap called Terry Lan...somthing! I think, ex press and then travel photographer. In the book was a photo of a boat with a couple of people rowing between mored boats. The lighting was the same and the clear water /clouds etc. The image has been embedded in my brain ever since I saw it.

The reason for the look was put down to the light, or more to the point, polarisation of the light. As said this was in the 70-80's so it rules out digital manipulation, or Leica as I believe he was a nikon man then (thats the thing with photo books they wrote what equipment was used)

Probably doesn't really help but the end result is great.

A quick search brought up another image: Boat on water
 
Many lenses from various manufacturers are known for their tendency to produce this 3D effect, but Zeiss seems to try to make all their lenses 3D prone, with varying success. Leica is not a stranger to 3D either. However, some photographers tend to get this effect more than others, as there are certain guide lines to follow to maximize it. There was a thread on FM alt forum a while ago about this.
 
This with a Zeiss 85/1.4 on a Contax 137Q body.


7494936122_2cd52f3b83_z.jpg
 
I haven't been fortunate enough to get the 3D look from my Leica lenses, after 3 years. But I find it easier to get from my Zeiss 50mm Planar and 85mm Sonnar, though... the transition in the DOF of these lenses are a lot more abrupt than the Leicas. I like the 50mm and 90mm Summicron when I know I will be post-processing the pics - they are very nice lenses for documentary shots. But for straight out of the camera dramatic photos especially of people, the colours and "pop" from the Zeiss just grab me more.
 
There is no such "3D-ness" specifically for the Leica lenses.. Some contributing factors, IMHO:

Microcontrast: Better separation of the subject contours with respect to the other subjects, especially background. (Especially Zeiss lenses are known for higher microcontrast levels.)

Not-so-disturbing bokeh: With swirly-type, harsh and "confused" sorts of bokehs making your eyes crossed you can achieve subject separation however it may not look like 3D. Pleasant, smooth bokehs contribute to 3D-look very much.

Perspective: Sometimes the positioning of the subject helps a lot in the rendering of 3D, especially when the background is expressed with some unshapness/blur close to what it's seen with eye.

Aperture: For 35 and 50mm lenses on the FF format I generally find f2.8 or f4 delivering more "convincing" 3D-ness than the ones shot at f1.4 or f2 as the closer rendition of the background to the natural blur seen by the eye contributes to its "realness".

BTW, "subject separation" and 3D-ness are actually two different terms; I do not expect 3D-shot from my Summicron 90/2 when shot wide open but it delivers perfect subject separation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom