[Sagitta]

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.

[kh1234567890]

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.

[Lowell Goudge]

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

[Sagitta]

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

[bossa]

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.

[kh1234567890]

A good discussion and examples in this old thread - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/84806-bokeh-3d...tml#post862483

[snake]

I don't know, is this 3D to anyone?

Probably not, as the DoF is infinite...

[bossa]

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.

[snake]

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.

[TOUGEFC]

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 ? -

[arnold]

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.

[jiimaa]

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?

[Sagitta]

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).

[bossa]

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.

[WiseOx]

Listen to the man, wise words. Transition....not just isolation.