Glow vs. 3D

Glow is just flare around highlights.

3 D is when the front and rear planes are separated by brightness/focus difference and is enhanced by certain lens designs. I hate to say it, but German glass has it more than Japanese glass.

I could tell stories how I suffered for years with Pentax glass from 1965 and then was finally introduced to Leica. The suffering was immediately cured and I changed NOTHING in my process except cameras.
 
Sounds attractive as a characterization and I agree with much of it. Don't know that I agree that narrow DoF is necessary, though that's where I first noticed it in my photos. Other photos and other posters report sigthing 3D in deep DoF situations.

Double Negative said:
"Glow" and "3D" are two separate image qualities. The "glow" is really just veiling flare, technically a defect, but can be used to great effect. Adopted by the Leicaphiles as "Leica glow." :p

The "3D look" is about as hard to pin down as the "Sonnar look" in that you ask ten people what it is, you'll get ten different answers... But it's obvious when you see it. Narrow DoF, strong separation of subject from background, lighting and texture all play a part in creating the look.
Click to expand...
 
Ronald M said:
Glow is just flare around highlights.

3 D is when the front and rear planes are separated by brightness/focus difference and is enhanced by certain lens designs. I hate to say it, but German glass has it more than Japanese glass.

I could tell stories how I suffered for years with Pentax glass from 1965 and then was finally introduced to Leica. The suffering was immediately cured and I changed NOTHING in my process except cameras.
Click to expand...

All German glass? all Leica gas? where you shooting with a range of leica lenses or just a couple?
 
I hereby dismiss this entire subject as silly. In order to validate any of the above claims, one would have to take each photo under the exact same conditions and then post the results. Simply posting a photo and then claiming your lens has a "3D" look is totally bogus.
Ha.
 
Some lenses do better than others in creating this illusion.

Typically, those with lower contrast are better at it.

But you are correct, unless someone stages a scene and shoots it with various lenses of different optical characteristics, its just anecdotal.
 
Conversely, when looking at a single image close one eye. The brain tries to interpret the available information and generate 3D out of it. Psychology class from years ago.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Some lenses do better than others in creating this illusion.

Typically, those with lower contrast are better at it.

But you are correct, unless someone stages a scene and shoots it with various lenses of different optical characteristics, its just anecdotal.
Click to expand...

Brian, help me understand why you think it's anecdotal.

I as well as others (photographers and non-photographers alike) who see *certain* -- not all -- photos have summarily commented that the subject "pop-out" from the picture, that it looks 3D. Are these viewer responses not real? what is then?

Of course it's not real 3D or even stereoscopic images. I don't think this thread is about that.
 
Things that are anecdotal are not necessarily untrue. If enough people notice the same thing enough times, it's reasonable to infer that others may see it too.

Or, of course, they may not -- especially if they are determined not to. The 'scientific method' can be overrated in art.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
> Brian, help me understand why you think it's anecdotal.

As Roger stated, because no one has done a controlled experiment of a standardized scene photographed using different lenses. If some lenses demonstrate the 3D illusion more so than others, then you can throw it in the face of anyone telling you it does not exist.

My Canon 50/1.2 in LTM is great for the 3D effect. But I base that on anecdotal evidence.
 
I'm with Roger here. I don't think anyone is claiming the photo "is" 3D; we're talking about the illusion of 3D being rendered more effectively under certain circumstances than others and trying to identify those circumstances -- lens construction, lighting angle, microcontrast, focused distance, taking aperture, etc.

The standard should be interpersonal verifiability -- ie do others perceive the same thing -- and not "is this "objectively" true."

Nor does the standard of interpersonal verifiability require 100% of viewers to agree -- just as we've found that some people taste artificial sweeteners and others don't. The fact that some people don't taste the bitterness doesn't mean the bitterness is "unreal" to those who do.

G

Roger Hicks said:
Things that are anecdotal are not necessarily untrue. If enough people notice the same thing enough times, it's reasonable to infer that others may see it too.

Or, of course, they may not -- especially if they are determined not to. The 'scientific method' can be overrated in art.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...
 
'Anecdotal' can also be surprisingly rigorous. If you see the effect more with some of your lenses than others, it may of course be that you use those lenses for subjects that are more easily rendered as 3D, or in lighting that gives more of a 3D effect. But if you can see it in a range of subjects and lighting, it seems likely that the lens plays a part.

The 3D effect certainly seems independent of focal length. Two lenses of mine that seem to me to be especially 3D are the 38mm Biogon (21mm equivalent when used on 44x66mm) and the 135/2.8 Elmarit (180mm equivalent when used on the M8/M8.2).

Some lenses seem more 3D in colour, some in mono. I'm still thinking about this.

As for 'glow', Frances did an article on this for Black and White a few years ago. One of her conclusions is that it's accentuated by overexposure...

Tashi delek,

R.
 
I'm seeing a bit of semantic difficulty over the use of the word "3D". Normal use of that word refers to things that have height, width, as well as depth, which photos obviously lack. We used to use the word "pop", but I guess that's passe now.
 
The 3D look IMO comes from high resolution, good microcontrast, good lighting and separation of elements. Some lenses help contribute to this (and I believe the Zeiss ZMs are very strong in this regard) but an awful lot is to do with lighting, subject and aperture.

I have been shooting quite a few test rolls of various films under various lighting conditions to keep my eye in and check exposure and development. While I was at it I continued to compare the CV 35 pancake 2 and the Biogon f2. In a number of images the biogon shots had a touch more depth to them and this was detectable looking at the negs on a light box. Why? I cannot be sure, but it appears to be due to slightly higher resolution off axis (which matters if your subject is off axis and you are shooting at wider apertures), a hair more contrast and slightly more diffuse OOF areas. All these things are very subtle, but I could see a slight difference in 3-D effect on a couple of side by side comparison negs. The perception was more obvious than the causes.

As for glow, there is a lot of rubbish talked about Leica glow. Leica asphs most definitely do not have any glow, yet one still hears people claim as much. As Al pointed out earlier it is due to flare, aberations etc all of which give a slightly more surreal feel to the image. Its usually associated with older lenses (including canon etc) and sometimes ones with internal haze! I find that the more glow the less 3-D images tend to be and the two are on a sliding scale, but largely at opposite ends.
 






... the force, Luke, gives me power over simple minds



:) sorry, but I suspect it is human perception more than anything else, anybody see pictorial recession in these in the first picture?
 
So help me understand, Stewart. I think you are saying that there is no impression of recession in the top photo, while there is in the bottom. And that the bottom photo impression of depth is an artifact of the placement, size, and shading of the objects.

If I understand correctly, I agree.

What i need help understanding is this: Does the fact that the recession impression is an artifact of the drawing, does it follow that all impressions of depth in two dimensions are an artifact of the same cause as in this one?
I don't think so -- we know that the sense of space, of perspective can be created in a number of ways.

We are simply trying to untangle them. And I think we have been shown some photos of three dimensional objects in two dimensional space that seem to provide an impression of 3D. Question is -- what characteristics contribute to that impression.

And i agree with you, that we are talking about perception.

My use of the term 3D seems to bother some. I'm not wedded to it -- I'm perfectly happy to adopt Double Negative's suggestion -- "That photo has depth to it" or apparently historical usage -- "plasticity"

And i also don't want to kick a dead horse -- maybe this thread has run its course -- though it would be very interesting if people wanted to pursue this simply by posting photos that strike them as particularly inducing the perception of depth and having those of us interested see if we agree or disagree.

This might be one way to see if we are even referring to the same thing, by whatever term.
 
snausages2000 said:
i think my idea of the "3D look" is simply that the subject is rendered sharply on its own distinct plane, with background and foreground elements soft and separate. distinct planes of light can amplify the effects of the distinct planes of focus.

i think this pentax 67 + 105mm is kinda close (subject lit from the side, as some has said is helpful)...

3389655875_247878d41a_b.jpg


The 3D effect here is due partly to some good old color theory: warms advance(violet sweater, warm skin tone), cools recede(sky blue, ocean blue). A certain recently discontinued film accentuates this effect by isolating the primary colors in layers.

Also the out of focus background helps, and the light dark modeling of the subject.

As for certain lenses producing more of a 3D effect (I've heard that from Krauter too) I'm inclined to think it's hooey.
Click to expand...
 
Melvin, thanks for that analysis of my photo. I hadn't thought about the color theory stuff. Interesting.

Would you guys say this shot creates the illusion of depth ("3D-Ness")? To me it creates 3 very distinct spatial planes and is somewhat disconcerting since the hand/arm becomes disjointed from the body. This was taken with a Nokton 35 1.2 and I don't think I could have gotten this shot with any other lens I own as it was quite dark, about twenty minutes after sunset. The effect probably would have been more pronounced if she was wearing a color less like the tones of the water.

3428695089_3561c71fe2.jpg


I realize this subject is mostly semantics. Some shots just 'pop.' doesn't magically make them better photos, but it's fun to see these effects at play...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom