Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-28-2013, 09:24 AM   #46
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,939
The best way I can think of to describe it is that if your first thought is "Wait, did they photoshop the subject on that background? Oh, wait, no...." then its in the right ballpark.

02-28-2013, 06:38 PM   #47
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
No, I still don't get it. Either I see shalow depth of field shots with a single subject - these you can do with any lens as Brenizer stitches -



or shots with the some nice edge microcontrast because of good lighting. Even the kit 18-55 can do that.


02-28-2013, 06:46 PM   #48
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
When people refer to a image being 3-D it more about the subject being able to "pop" or stand-out from the rest of the subject/background within the image. It also very subjective depending on the person, personally I dont see it in the photos posted above ( no offence)
Its a combination of DOF, whats in focus and whats not, focal lenghts and subject distance's and background distance's that acheives the effect.
I love the shot, and it explains the subject perfectly. It also suggests a good photographer can make any lens "POP" . Don't let that secret out too far, although I have often maintained just that
02-28-2013, 07:47 PM   #49
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,939
I was just going back through my flickr stream to see if I had any shots that could also qualify, using the whole bokeh/lighting/etc factor in mind. I'm not sure if this qualifies, but if it does, then it certainly is more than just a lens thing because this was shot with a Samsung point and shoot. It certainly has isolation going on, but I'm not sure if it would stretch to the point of 3D-ness




02-28-2013, 11:03 PM   #50
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
The following shot would have been more '3D' if the floor was more in focus and more of his body. I think you really need to be able to decipher the background relative to the subject.
Pentax K-5 & DA*55 @ F/1.4


This shot is more '3D' IMO as the face is very sharp and you can still 'read' the background.
Pentax K-5 & DA*55 @ f/4


This shot is also '3D' but it is the middle ground that pops
Pentax K-5 & DA*55 @ f/4


Of course linear perspective and other visual elements placed in the scene that can be 'read' (and that are not defocused to non-existence) help define the space around the subject.

Disclaimer: These examples I've given may not be all that representative according to some people's definition but there's more to photography than 3D pop and subject isolation.

Last edited by bossa; 03-01-2013 at 01:01 AM.
03-01-2013, 02:09 AM   #51
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
A good discussion and examples in this old thread - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/84806-bokeh-3d...tml#post862483
03-01-2013, 02:15 AM   #52
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
I don't know, is this 3D to anyone?

Probably not, as the DoF is infinite...

03-01-2013, 02:32 AM   #53
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by snake Quote
I don't know, is this 3D to anyone?

Probably not, as the DoF is infinite...
That's so 3D it's poking me in the eye! No that's not a winky but a sore eye.

PS: That's a stunning photograph.

03-01-2013, 02:58 AM   #54
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
That's so 3D it's poking me in the eye! No that's not a winky but a sore eye.

PS: That's a stunning photograph.
03-01-2013, 03:34 AM   #55
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
QuoteOriginally posted by Sagitta Quote
The best way I can think of to describe it is that if your first thought is "Wait, did they photoshop the subject on that background? Oh, wait, no...." then its in the right ballpark.
You mean kind of like this ? -
03-01-2013, 03:39 AM   #56
Pentaxian
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
You mean kind of like this ? -
Yes, that is it. Perfect focus on the whole subject, isolated from a background that is clear (not blurred) but subdued.
03-01-2013, 04:12 AM   #57
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 84
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
Yes, that is it. Perfect focus on the whole subject, isolated from a background that is clear (not blurred) but subdued.
Also called 'too much power on the fill flash' -technique?
03-01-2013, 11:13 AM   #58
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,939
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
You mean kind of like this ? -
Thats pretty much it exactly. The separation of subject and background (and fore, I suppose) looks like it has to be very, very clearly delineated for this to be pulled off, which means strong contrast involved as well. The off camera flash seems to help nudge yours well over the edge into 3-D Land. This is a good thing, and makes me jealous. LOL

EDIT: Go to Flickr and punch in "Sunset Portrat" as your search terms and you'll be hit with a ton of images fitting this description. Almost every one seems to use off camera flash in some manner (since its a sunset in the background with a well lit subject in the fore).

Last edited by Sagitta; 03-01-2013 at 11:21 AM.
03-01-2013, 06:10 PM - 1 Like   #59
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
I really don't 'get' this obsession with separating the subject from the background. Most great art is contextual by nature and based on building relationships, not deleting them.

Recognizing the overall structure of a composition as opposed to seeing it as a conglomeration of separate components (or objects) is a problem for a lot of amateur artists who aren't educated in the Arts generally. Having taught Art at a Tertiary level I have found that it is a major undertaking to educate students to operating on the canvas as a whole instead of drawing tiny objects floating around in the middle of it. The subject (in a sense) is the painting/photograph and not necessarily the subject matter. One way to overcome this is to zoom in and draw close-ups that extend to the edges of the canvas thus ensuring that everything starts to relate to the edges and surface of the canvas.

Just like a painting on canvas the surface of the photograph is flat and tends to be rectangular so, as such, there needs to be structural references to that surface (and edges) so as to allow building the most powerful visual composition. Photographs are not windows but a surface and this needs to be respected to a degree IMO.

Most of us have been saying here that you need transition from *front to back* in some way (linear, DOF, overlapping shapes etc) to create this '3D' effect but I think that some people are confusing brightly lit flat-foreground-shapes contrasted with naturally lit OOF backgrounds as 3D. In this situation the 'subject' is not 3D but it's relationship to the rear space is.

IMO, subject Isolation tends not to promote this 3D affect and trying to reduce the so-called '3D effect' to a fixed formula is also not very wise.

PS: A 3D-Look can be created in a few different ways so there's really no 'one-way' to produce it and so one should give up looking for simple rules and formulae to produce it; The type of space (natural/man-made), the subject, the lens, the format etc all contribute to the possibilities. From my personal perspective, I feel that a visual 'look' should not be the sole objective of the artist anyway and that the final result should be produced from the many possible artistic questions and considerations taken into account when making an image - these should be based on the message the artist wants to get across about the subject and not style alone.

Last edited by bossa; 03-02-2013 at 02:30 AM.
03-01-2013, 07:25 PM   #60
Veteran Member
WiseOx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Whitby (near Toronto), Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 429
Listen to the man, wise words. Transition....not just isolation.



Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, depth, fa, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, picture, reviews, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
What is a Q "Must Have" lens UncleRed Pentax Q 9 01-26-2013 10:37 AM
What exactly makes a lens a "MACRO"? wedge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 04-26-2010 11:11 AM
What is difference "APO" and "ED" glass in a lens? kathyk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 03-06-2008 08:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top