The 3D effect ... ?

[helen.HH]

'3d Pop' for me is the combo of light , space, time / in focus, oof

When Time seems suspended as if floating by
blurred by memories
as we catch a Glimpse of something so sharp and ever present

 

[jkjod]

ABB015A.jpg by jkjod, on Flickr

Scan-140823-0010.jpg by jkjod, on Flickr

ABB023.jpg by jkjod, on Flickr

 

[Crazy Fedya]

 

[Crazy Fedya]

 

[Crazy Fedya]

 

[Brian Legge]

Depth of field cues can help but lighting is what does it for me.

 

[Dektol Dan]

In Reverse

In Reverse

As I wrote before, the 3D effect is tied to the rendering of the eye, and therefore optical illusions that are learned. We all familiar with this illusion of this <-> versus this )-( , where we are asked which combination is perceived as being longer. (Sorry, I don't have inward pointing arrows on my keyboard). This illusion only works for people raised in square cornered houses. Those raised in round huts are never fooled by the illusion.

Here we have the foreground out of focus due to depth of field, and the background sharp. This is learned.

 

[Sparrow]

... and not a bokeh in sight


No 06 par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity

 

[shortstop]

When I see the maxwell screen of my rolleiflex without enlarging lens with both opened eyes the image is stereoscopic. Assure it's not an illusion. Also having both opened eyes the lens remains one. Any explanation?

 

[tunalegs]

Here we have the foreground out of focus due to depth of field, and the background sharp. This is learned.

Or one may just be farsighted. 🙂

 

[Monz]

Hide and Seek by *monz*, on Flickr

[M6, 50mm Summilux]

 

[sevo]

When I see the maxwell screen of my rolleiflex without enlarging lens with both opened eyes the image is stereoscopic. Assure it's not an illusion. Also having both opened eyes the lens remains one. Any explanation?

Maxwell (like all ultrabright) screens rely mostly on the aerial image - the scattered image is subdued enough that your weaker eye may settle for the aerial image even though that is not aligned with the scattered image (you'll instinctively align the scattered and aerial image with the stronger eye or when viewing one eyed). That is, you can really have stereo vision through faint matte screens!

 

[tunalegs]

When I see the maxwell screen of my rolleiflex without enlarging lens with both opened eyes the image is stereoscopic. Assure it's not an illusion. Also having both opened eyes the lens remains one. Any explanation?

Have you ever used an old toy TLR with a brilliant finder? That is with one big lens in place of the ground glass? A fresnel screen is somewhat similar, except instead of being one big lens, it's many concentric lenses around each other. When you look at a ground glass you are only seeing a projected image, when you look at a brilliant finder you are actually looking though the viewfinder lens. When you look at a fresnel screen you are seeing something that is sort of between the two.

 

[Dektol Dan]

I'm Young Again!

I'm Young Again!

All of this talk was the subject of my Master's thesis for my MFA: spatial reasoning and composition. Jeezus that's 40 years ago. I'd love to drag out my example references. Anyway, here's a demonstration piece I made 40 years ago made of layered Orthochromatic Kodalith (nobody even remembers what that is today) and acrylic to demonstrate the learned, and often culturally learned, illusion of depth perception.

Yes, we are born with stereo vision. However, the same principle that allows modern SLRs to focus is also found in our vision. If I had the space I'd go into detail about that. It's enough to say that one eye can interpret space.

 

[Godfrey]

I like the subtle effect of three-dimensionality in this photo:

​

G

 

[Monz]

School Run by *monz*, on Flickr

[Olympus XA]

 

[shadowfox]

35/2.8 Zeiss Distagon with C/Y mount.

 

[pagpow]

This topic crops up from time to time. Each time it crops up, we have difficulty defining what it is we are discussing.

For me, 3D effect, sense of space, plasticity of the image is not the same as a sharply focused foreground subject against a defocused background field, or "pop". I am with Roger, cpc, and Darshan that a defocused background does not provide 3D characteristics.

These discussions also have at least three groups -- those who say it cannot exist, because all prints are two dimensional those who say it is created by some characteristics of the subject (receding lines, etc), some who say that it is created by characteristics of the lighting (side lighting, etc), and some who argue it is a characteristic of the lens, and possibly the aperture used.

I think that both subject and lighting can accentuate the effect. I also think that some lenses at some apertures bring it when others don't. There have threads identifying some of these.

Unfortunately, I cannot post pairs -- with one pic showing it and another not, but...

two lenses that I remember --

cv 40mm nokton, seems to provide this at 2.0 and 2.8, but not at 1.4

the Novar 6.3 on Ikonta c's also -- not so much the tessar

Am I blowing smoke or do others see it this way, too?

 

[shortstop]

Have you ever used an old toy TLR with a brilliant finder? That is with one big lens in place of the ground glass? A fresnel screen is somewhat similar, except instead of being one big lens, it's many concentric lenses around each other. When you look at a ground glass you are only seeing a projected image, when you look at a brilliant finder you are actually looking though the viewfinder lens. When you look at a fresnel screen you are seeing something that is sort of between the two.

You are a genius! Excellent explanation. I did the right choice in buying the model with fresnel lens. I assure that watching on this screen without enlarging lens is pure pleasure!

 

[shortstop]

This topic crops up from time to time. Each time it crops up, we have difficulty defining what it is we are discussing. For me, 3D effect, sense of space, plasticity of the image is not the same as a sharply focused foreground subject against a defocused background field, or "pop". I am with Roger, cpc, and Darshan that a defocused background does not provide 3D characteristics. These discussions also have at least three groups -- those who say it cannot exist, because all prints are two dimensional those who say it is created by some characteristics of the subject (receding lines, etc), some who say that it is created by characteristics of the lighting (side lighting, etc), and some who argue it is a characteristic of the lens, and possibly the aperture used. I think that both subject and lighting can accentuate the effect. I also think that some lenses at some apertures bring it when others don't. There have threads identifying some of these. Unfortunately, I cannot post pairs -- with one pic showing it and another not, but... two lenses that I remember -- cv 40mm nokton, seems to provide this at 2.0 and 2.8, but not at 1.4 the Novar 6.3 on Ikonta c's also -- not so much the tessar Am I blowing smoke or do others see it this way, too?

I agree with you. I see this 3d/round effect at a maximum grade in summicron 50. Less in rolleiflex planar 3,5, but here the result is "magic"; beside the 3d effect see the extreme sharpness typical of zeiss. These lenses give this result and alsobif the print remains 2d the effect exists.