does this look 3d to you?

If by 3D you mean the separation between the subject and fore/background, then I think this qualifies... taken with that 'other' 50mm ZM (Planar).

p93692380-4.jpg
 
i was not looking for a 3d look, in fact i used 1.5 to check on the focus shift of the sonnar.
but when i saw the pic it looked very 3d to me.

i need to practice with curves...i never use it.

this is enlightening as it seems there is no clear cut universal definition of what 3d means or looks like to us.

many thanks to all, esp. stewart.
 
Hi Joe - I really like the Planar... just as much as I like the Sonnar. I do own both. To me, the Planar gives you more of a 3D look because of the sharp separation between the subject and background. OTOH, the Sonnar gives you a more gradual separation. Of course, a 3D-like image can be had from any lens, after factoring in the lighting (side lighting works best). Definitely different looks from the Planar versus the Sonnar -- both good.
 
This, to me, is "3D"

472468501_KnRLb-L.jpg


Sorry about the bird pic - momentary lapse of sanity on my part 😉

And the dog pic above is another good example...
 
Last edited:
I have 2 examples which to my EYE, pop 3dish...but I suppose the color helps in that as well
RD1 / 35 2 biogon ...the little girl pops off the screen
Contax G1 /90 sonnar...the man in the graffitti 'POPS'

🙂
 

Attachments

  • RD1 :35:2 biogon (2).jpg
    RD1 :35:2 biogon (2).jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 0
  • contax G1 -90 sonnar.jpg
    contax G1 -90 sonnar.jpg
    61.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
The definition of 3D in this thread varies a lot, mainly because none of these are "3D." What we're seeing is the perception of depth in a 2D image.

The things that contribute to this effect are, for the purposes of this thread, three things:

1) Separation from background and foreground into layers by way of DOF. The layers have noticable gaps between the level of focus they have. In other words, there's little graduation between major planes of focus.

2) It's further enhanced by contrast, or more accurately, "local contrast." That is, the contrast between two areas that lie next to each other in the photo. Higher local contrast "pops" the subject and lends to the 3D look.

3) Separation from the background by lighting, as in the dog picture posted. The light falling on the dog is brighter than the light falling on the background. It's another way of doing local contrast. Fill flash against a darker background is one way to do it.

Nothing complicated or mysterious here.. just basic photo principals that we all know coming together.

$.02
 
Nothing in this thread looks "3d" to me except the dog shot a bit. Which really shows that it's relative.

To me, a "3d" look is caused by a combination of lighting and DoF. Whereas every time I see people in forums discuss 3D, they seem to just post shots with narrow depth of field... I am always confused by these threads lol.

The best of example of "3d" to me, and mind you, I think its actually really rare and lucky to capture this look, is this shot byt the Flickr king Oshima:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/2114323047/sizes/l/

And of course I think Tilt Shift shots are the one way to make an image look 3d almost by default:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/481014397/sizes/l/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1.5/5cm
Replies
1
Views
409
dexdog
dexdog
A
5CM F1.5 Sonnar with damaged front element
Replies
11
Views
583
Alberto G
A
G
Experiences with Voightländer 28mm 2.8sl
Replies
1
Views
498
Richard G
Richard G
laptoprob
dead Agfa Optima-Parat provides donor Solinar for Fujifilm
Replies
6
Views
254
petronius
petronius
splitimageview
Contax IIa mod and service...
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
markjwyatt
markjwyatt
Back
Top Bottom