Glow vs. 3D

mfogiel in this thread -- two photos --

top photo -- 3D or not?

bottom photo -- 3D or not?

I think bottom more so than top.
 
I think a lot of what people are referring to here as 3D simply is not - its just shallow depth of field.

I acknowledge that this can have something of a 3D look about it -sometimes! But the real 3D look as far as I am concerned is much more rare. The black and white picture of cabbage leaves - has it or so it seems to me. I don't know that any other photos in this thread really do have it (as nice as some of them are.) The lenses that produce the look of 3D have what is described below as "plasticity" (Not sure why this particular term was used but it never the less, it was in the old days.)

When I have seen it, a common feature of such photos is that they simultaneously appear to be both sharp and ever so slightly soft. This appearance obviously sounds contradictory but its the best way I can find of describing it. Its a kind of "round" quality to the photo image. One such image that struck me as having it was a photo of a girl on a swing taken by TLR camera (a Rollei??) in the book "Collecting and Using Classic Cameras" by Ivor Matanle. Perhaps some one could post it if thats not a breach of copyright - although as it would need to be scanned from a printed book the effect might not survive that.

I had read that plasticity was thought to be partly caused (at least) by some residual spherical abberation in a lens. Which, it occurs to me, is why perhaps the appearance of plasticity seems to be more prevalent in older lenses which have been less rigorously corrected than the more modern "sharp as all get out" lenses designed using computer technology. And as I said below, I think it has been a feature of some old good Sonnar lenses although I think others say they have also seen it in 'Blad Biogons.

So please keep looking. Perhaps there are more knowledgeable people than I who cna explain for sure why this occurs.
 
Last edited:
Didn't we already have a 3D thread?

Someone in that other thread summed it up well though. The combination of DoF and lighting, in rare cases, creates a particularly "3D" look.

Most other photos are simply narrow DoF.
 
Well nobody will agree with me but here goes;

Firstly, 3D means “three dimensional” a photo is clearly two dimensional, therefore true 3D cannot actually exist in a photo, it can only be perceived to exist as a form of pictorial recession, can we agree that much?
 
Okay- 3D as viewed is a perception. There are well known 2D graphics designed to produce an illusion of 3D. Tricks of shape and of lighting that "trick" or "trigger" your mind to think it is viewing a 3D scene. I have prints at home that appear to go deep into the frame. Catches me everytime. These optical illusions are not processed equally by all individuals, some "see it" others do not. Some has to do with the willingness of the subject to "see" the illusion. Thus it is completely subjective.

Add the differences in Computer Monitors on top of that, and no wonder no one can agree on this subject.

and "Glow" is such a nebulous term, that no one will agree on anything. So I'll declare "It exists, it applies mostly to lenses with lower contrast and veiling flare, and Leica does not have a monopoly on it".
 
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...

Roger, you may be teaching me another nuance of the term anecdotal. To me, it always meant something to be laughed at.

Secondly, I do not understand the difficulty for some of us to separate real 3D objects seen by our eyes...

vs

3D or "depth" perception that you see on 2D images.

To me those two are completely two different things that is not that easy to mix up. And I am pretty sure that this thread started out talking about the latter one.

Having said that, I think Brian nailed it in his later post which made the point that we all do not perceive depth in 2D images equally.

This is consistent with my observations and that's probably why we always have long discussions about "3D" in photography forums.
 
shadowfox said:
Roger, you may be teaching me another nuance of the term anecdotal. To me, it always meant something to be laughed at.

Secondly, I do not understand the difficulty for some of us to separate real 3D objects seen by our eyes...

vs

3D or "depth" perception that you see on 2D images.

To me those two are completely two different things that is not that easy to mix up. And I am pretty sure that this thread started out talking about the latter one.

Having said that, I think Brian nailed it in his later post which made the point that we all do not perceive depth in 2D images equally.

This is consistent with my observations and that's probably why we always have long discussions about "3D" in photography forums.
Click to expand...

Dear Will,

Interesting.... That's not a meaning of 'anecdotal' I'd considered.

But you're dead right about illusion of depth. You and I took ths for granted, using '3D' as shorthand for '3D effect'. Others seem wedded to a very literal interpretation.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Sparrow said:
Firstly, 3D means “three dimensional” a photo is clearly two dimensional [my bold], therefore true 3D cannot actually exist in a photo, it can only be perceived to exist as a form of pictorial recession, can we agree that much?
Click to expand...
Well, um, I just went and picked up a couple of photographs. They were clearly objects with 3 spatial dimensions. While I can imagine objects with only two spatial dimensions, I don't believe I've ever handled one.

...if we're being pedantic and all...

...Mike
 
shadowfox said:
Having said that, I think Brian nailed it in his later post which made the point that we all do not perceive depth in 2D images equally.
Click to expand...

I suspect those who could not model a 3D world in their imagination were naturally selected way back when they persistently failed to hit woolly mammoths with their spears.
 
I did a lot of 3D modeling in FORTRAN, with hidden plane computations, projection, rotation, etc. It was a lot of fun. Those routines are still incorporated into my thinking process. I have an easier time than most seeing 3D in a flat image.
 
The 3D effect is a "variable" that need some circumstances, a lens with great microcontrast and macrocontrast, a subject with light from one side, a foreground and background out of focus, a subject with a good volume.

And this is not all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom