does this look 3d to you?

[back alley]

rd1 + 50/1.5 sonnar

fyi, looking at the photo - focus was on the curved end of the left armrest.

 

[kully]

I'm going to have to say "no". Perhaps better in a print?

 

[aizan]

not really. the harsh bokeh and general clutter in the background flatten the space for me.

 

[pphuang]

I would agree - when I think "3D," the main subject in the photo needs to really "pop" out of the background. This doesn't do it...

 

[back alley]

i need to go rinse my eyes...the bench seems to be floating in the frame when i look at it.

 

[Sparrow]

It's to do with the contrast joe, the bench is at either end of the range (almost black and white) the rest of the pic is in the middle of the gamut, and yes I see some spacial recession in that photo

 

[back alley]

can someone please post a good example of a 3d image?

thanks,
joe

 

[Sparrow]

this maybe

 

[back alley]

It's to do with the contrast joe, the bench is at either end of the range (almost black and white) the rest of the pic is in the middle of the gamut, and yes I see some spacial recession in that photo

so, would a little more overall punch help?

 

[back alley]

i'm not sure stewart...

to me the bench photo seems fake, like a stage set, yet it was outdoors, the shady side of a church.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I think it's hard to put your finger on what makes certain images look this way. The combination of smooth bokeh and insane sharpness helps I think. I got many of my most "3d" images (at least the ones that seem to me to have the most depth and dimension) with the Zeiss G 45/2 (which I WILL OWN converted to M-mount someday, MARK MY WORDS), like this picture of my son from Thanksgiving.

 

[back alley]

yes, mabel! that looks 3d to me. but i have to say that it looks very similar to the bench shot to me also.

my eyes
my eyes!!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The key is to always have my wife in the foreground and my mom in the background. Voila!

 

[aldobonnard]

I'd say "no", I don't find the typical Leica's character.
However the density of the pic has much to do, and maybe some treatment would improve the result (sorry, I am still doing darkroom stuff which I find way better in that respect, so would not be able to help on PSP !..)

 

[Sparrow]

i'm not sure stewart...

to me the bench photo seems fake, like a stage set, yet it was outdoors, the shady side of a church.

It's a Gestalt thing, your eye and brain is picking up contrast and hard lines as "important" and the mid tones and clutter of the rest as "unimportant"

 

[Sparrow]

is this better?




(the highlights were blown before I touched it 😉)

 

[back alley]

it looks even more 3d now.

what adjustments did you make?

 

[nzeeman]

i searched my photos - and i have only this one on my comp

it doesnt have that extreme wide aperture like on photos before but it still look a bit 3d to me...

 

[f16sunshine]

I would advise to stop down a touch more. If the entire bench was in focus it would have more POP!. Here are a couple with RD1 and Biogon 2/35.
The dog one I have beat to death but it is a great example of Zeiss 3D.
Click on image in each window to get to full size.

 

[Sparrow]

it looks even more 3d now.

what adjustments did you make?

reduced the contrast in the mid range in curves, and added a little headroom so the blown bits weren't as stark.

I thought it looked more attached to it's environment, but the theory is only applicable generally, it's a tendency to see things the same way