Phenomenon

[Richard G]

Let me also propose something else, with regard to the sensation of "3D rendering."

For years I have pushed back on the idea that the feeling of "3D-ness" in a photograph was a property of the lens or format. I believe that in this era of exemplary lenses, with very fast and accurate AF, and the availability of f/1.4 and beyond, that the common usage of very wide apertures to get the shallowest DOF possible irrespective of the actual image "look" has dominated over traditional moderate-aperture usage in years past.

Specifically, I think that the 3D "feel" to an image is most often characterized by a subject being fully inside of the DOF, with a moderate amount of background blur enhanced by the subject's distance from said background. In opposition of this is the usage of the fastest aperture possible, making it so that only the subject's eyes are in true focus and a background that becomes more of a wash of color, as opposed to feeling like an actual background. One could also point out that modern lenses often prioritize sharpness over the out-of-focus rendering, further hurting the look of the image by imparting a distracting look to the background blur.

Now consider medium / large format. It is much more common to shoot these cameras at moderate apertures, where most assume the best results arise, as a consequence of lens designs being imperfect and DOF being more limited compared to 35mm or smaller. A 6x7 photograph made with a normal to mid-tele lens at f/8, with a full-body subject completely within the DOF, will definitely have a 3D "look." I think a similar composition with a 35mm camera at f/1.4 will probably have less perceptual volume, because there is less DOF. You can abuse DOF with medium format as well though - consider the Pentax 67 and 105mm f/2.4. I see images shot wide-open with that lens that have the same short-DOF issue, but shot at f/4-f/8 the lens renders amazing images with a real feeling of 3D-ness. But is it just the lens or the DOF?

Similarly, I find the recent style of close-up, large or ultra-large format portraits / headshots where the ears, nose, and mouth are completely blurred out due to the limited DOF of a fast, long lens to be both distasteful and lacking in volume, due to the spatial incoherence of this thin DOF. A 35mm headshot at f/8 will have a more 3D look, IMO.

Of course none of this takes into account the huge part lighting has to the look of an image.

Just my subjective opinion here - no "proofs" or anything like that. But I've shot plenty of images where I saw a "3D effect," on 35mm up to large formats.

These are excellent points. Marek Fogiel always states here that the C Sonnar 1.5 Zeiss gives the ideal portrait at f2.8.

Here is my old Elmar 50 3.5, at 3.5: the rose is within the sharper depth of field but there is a pleasing enough background blur -


Leica II Elmar 50 3.5 by Richard, on Flickr

But back on Bill Pierce's topic, sometimes the very sharpness and stilling of motion can make for a dull picture. Panning produces a nice still, sharp impression, isolated from the motion blurred background, but a not quite stopped panned subject, blurred slightly that is, can add something worth having too.


Monday evening Dec 15, Melbourne 2014 by Richard, on Flickr

Certainly some lenses are promoted for portraits as they are not too sharp, but certain shutter speeds may matter too. Jane Bown liked 1/60s at f2.8 and she worked hand-held. I reckon if she'd had a Monochrom and could have used 1/1000 at f2.8 and an ISO of 3200, she wouldn't have wanted to.

 

[Mcary]

The benefits of using a tripod when shooting with smaller format cameras are nothing new as people who couldn't afford a medium format camera back in the film era (before people started dumping MF camera on the used market) would often use a tripod to shoot landscapes in order allow them to use the lowest ISO film available and thereby be able to make the large prints with relatively low grain. While the same benefits still apply today, the fact that most digital camera have a base ISO between 100 to 200 means that scene/shoots that required a tripod in the past may not require one today ie ISO 50 F11 at 125 would be F11 at 1/250 on a digital camera with a base ISO of 100 and F11 at 1/500 on a camera with a base ISO of 200. Now of course if one is using filters when shooting landscapes these numbers can changes greatly thereby requiring the use of a tripod.

 

[Doug]

The benefits of using a tripod when shooting with smaller format cameras are nothing new as people who couldn't afford a medium format camera back in the film era (before people started dumping MF camera on the used market) would often use a tripod to shoot landscapes in order allow them to use the lowest ISO film available and thereby be able to make the large prints with relatively low grain... .

Exactly... Back in the late 60's and early 70's I used a few dozen rolls of Agfa Isopan FF, ISO 25 black & white, in my Pentax Spotmatic, often on tripod for maximum output quality. Trying for medium format quality, it turned out excellent. Then a couple years later I got my first Pentax 6x7 (used), just easier to use MF for MF quality!

 

[Dguebey]

True high-resolution photo imply tripod and compatible subjects. I am as lazy as many photographer but keep some nostalgy of the time of my Linhof Master Technika. I presently have no serious digital camera. Among other options, I think more and more about an M43 Pen-F. With its high-resolution mode, maybe I will feel like using a dusty tripod I have ? For the remaining, it will be more easy to keep with me than many others superb cameras.