[alamo5000]

In a recent conversation and well in every other conversation about FA limited lenses there is always talk of a "3D effect" that sometimes rears it's head. Not only is this desirable, it's lauded over... the problem is it seems to just show up on occasion, honestly with a variety of lenses.

I've had it happen with the 31mm and the 43mm, but I have also had it happen with the 21mm Limited as well.

First maybe we can get a few clear examples posted up showing what I am talking about...(feel free), but this is a throwdown challenge to the entire forum.

I say we run a series of controlled tests, individually, and as a group, with factors and variables all logged down.

My hypothesis is that the elusive but beautiful 3D effect is a result of a mixture of proper lighting. I think that part is more important honestly than the lens used or merely being able to separate out the subject from the background with a thin depth of field. I would bet one could get the 3D effect at a range of apertures, but the variable being lighting.

I say we as a forum all undertake this challenge so that we can not only understand it better, but recreate it in our own photos.

This challenge to the forum probably will require a lot of experimentation and definitely a lot of note taking. It might require someone with a studio and lighting equipment to toy around some, but it also might be something else entirely.

I say it's about time we crack this nut. Who's in?

[RGlasel]

I say we run a series of controlled tests

There is only a "3D effect" if our brain creates one. Camera sensors record flat 2-D images, there is no "depth" channel encoded in the files coming out of digital cameras, and we view those images on 2-D media. Any depth perception is an optical illusion. Even 3D movies and prints are optical illusions.

There are lots of way to fool ourselves into perceiving depth. One way is juxtaposing sharp and blurry portions of the image, and our brains use that contrast to perceive depth.

Another way to create this optical illusion is to use perspective, and our brains add depth to compensate for small images of large objects. The picture below also uses shadows to create an optical illusion of depth.


You don't need top drawer glass to create these optical illusions, either. I suppose it helps, but I have never paid more than $500 for a lens, so I can't speak from experience.

[goodnight]

But then it wouldn't be pixie dust anymore

[rrstuff]

In a recent conversation and well in every other conversation about FA limited lenses there is always talk of a "3D effect" that sometimes rears it's head. Not only is this desirable, it's lauded over... the problem is it seems to just show up on occasion, honestly with a variety of lenses...

I would try unsharp mask with high radius, equivalent to roughly 5lines per mm on the sensor, anywhere around 15-20% strength.

[alamo5000]

There is only a "3D effect" if our brain creates one. Camera sensors record flat 2-D images, there is no "depth" channel encoded in the files coming out of digital cameras, and we view those images on 2-D media. Any depth perception is an optical illusion. Even 3D movies and prints are optical illusions.

There are lots of way to fool ourselves into perceiving depth. One way is juxtaposing sharp and blurry portions of the image, and our brains use that contrast to perceive depth.

Another way to create this optical illusion is to use perspective, and our brains add depth to compensate for small images of large objects. The picture below also uses shadows to create an optical illusion of depth.

The contrast... the shadows... all that...+1. Yes, I agree. The selective use of shadows to create 'depth'...all that is what I lumped together into 'lighting'....

But how do you create it on a more consistent basis? What to look for? Lighting? Shadows? Perspective and angles?

Obviously this is a much more advanced level of photography but I am ready to take it to the next level.

---------- Post added 11-14-14 at 09:52 PM ----------

But then it wouldn't be pixie dust anymore

There is still plenty of pixie dust to go around... trust me. In fact, the better we get the MORE pixie dust we get.

---------- Post added 11-14-14 at 09:55 PM ----------

I would try unsharp mask with high radius, equivalent to roughly 5lines per mm on the sensor, anywhere around 15-20% strength.

I am not talking about creating this 'effect' entirely in a post processing environment. Not in Lightroom or Photoshop. Yes those things can enhance the shot, but this thread and purpose is for SHOOTING the most effective photos. What elements on the front end of things get us there? That is where this is supposed to be, not a lesson in some tricky post processing or photoshop.

---------- Post added 11-14-14 at 10:04 PM ----------




(photo cred Heward Jue)

[promacjoe]

as said before, any perception of 3-D depth, is an optical illusion. the brain sees what it wants to see, and expects to see. stereo optical images can give the perception of 3-D. A single image can only give you the illusion. there is an old saying that comes from portrait and landscape painting, it takes light to show dark, and dark to show light. to illustrate this, look at the full moon, the center of the image seems featureless although it does have some color graduations, but there's no discernible hills and valleys. It seems flat. Now look at the edge of the moon, distinct features are visible because of the shadows that accent them. This gives a better 3-D effect. A similar concept can be used in your photographs, but the lighting must be correct. the general consensus, at least four advertisement photography is to remove all shadows. This has always bothered me. Ansell Adams knew how to use light and shadow to get the best effect. study his photographs, you will learn a lot.

[alamo5000]

.. it takes light to show dark, and dark to show light... but the lighting must be correct. .... Ansell Adams knew how to use light and shadow to get the best effect. study his photographs, you will learn a lot.

Believe me I have studied Ansel Adam's work... not only his, but others who are good too (maybe not Ansel Adams good but still stellar)....

The whole dark to show light and light to show dark thing.... this is exactly the direction I was thinking of... 'but lighting must be correct'.... is the big caveat.

All this is the part I am trying to promote here...I am trying to learn it myself to get to that 'next level'...and others seem to want to know too.

You've hit the nail on the head (I think) but now lets learn how to do it.

[maxfield_photo]

There was an interesting paper written by Hirakawa Jun on the design philosophy of the FA limiteds. I'm talking about the optical design, though keeping the lenses small was also part of the philosophy. Perhaps someone can link it. In the paper he talked about how they left a certain amount of field curvature uncorrected. The thinking behind it being that forcing all the different wavelengths of light (which naturally focus on slightly different planes), all to focus on the same plane (that of the film), may help resolution scores on test charts, but ultimately hurts the lens' ability to render transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus.

Most lens makers today know that their lenses will be tested using flat field test charts, and that the higher a lens scores in contrast and chromatic aberration (or lack thereof), the better it will sell. I believe that the magic of the FA limiteds, the so-called "3D effect", lies in their ability to render natural and pleasing transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus because of their less-than-total correction of field curvature.

Just my theory.


[edit: Found the paper. The translation leaves a bit to be desired. http://www.northcoastphotographer.net/resources/Files/Pentax_Limiteds_Explained.pdf ]

[promacjoe]

Take the picture of the gentleman above, the light was coming from directly above his face and slightly forward. The acute angle accents his facial features. Another example is commonly applied during Halloween. Placing a flashlight directly below your chin to make a sinister looking face. Placement of light and shadow is an art form in itself. It is unique to the subject. We can only tell you how you can get the certain effects. It is up to you to apply these effects to the subject. In many cases, It is trial and error. Being able to visualize the effects, Before you take the picture, is the art.

[alamo5000]

Take the picture of the gentleman above, the light was coming from directly above his face and slightly forward. The acute angle accents his facial features. .... Placement of light and shadow is an art form in itself. It is unique to the subject. We can only tell you how you can get the certain effects. It is up to you to apply these effects to the subject. In many cases, It is trial and error. Being able to visualize the effects, Before you take the picture, is the art.

I am trying to get there but I need some help!!!

I don't even know where to start my 'trial and error'...

I am not sure where to begin... or if there are other elements involved...

[jbinpg]

Agree with Maxfield. Field curvature is the main factor. Much harder to get the pixie dust transitions with flat field lenses such as macros. - Jack

[promacjoe]

Okay, start with this. Do your own study of light and shadow. select a room with a central point of light such as a lamp. Hold the palm of your hand flat , square with the light so that the light Is hitting it evenly all the way across your hand. Now rotate your hand until you start seeing shadows, note the difference in texture and depth. Keep rotating your hand, and make a note how the light hits your hand. You can do the same thing using a hand mirror and looking at your own face. Study how the light effects the depth of field of your face. If you have a willing subject, you can take pictures at different angles to the light. Make notes of what you did to get that affect, and see what works best for you. This is the trial and error that you have to go through.

[alamo5000]

Okay, start with this. Do your own study of light and shadow. select a room with a central point of light such as a lamp. Hold the palm of your hand flat , square with the light so that the light Is hitting it evenly all the way across your hand. Now rotate your hand until you start seeing shadows, note the difference in texture and depth. Keep rotating your hand, and make a note how the light hits your hand. You can do the same thing using a hand mirror and looking at your own face. Study how the light effects the depth of field of your face. If you have a willing subject, you can take pictures at different angles to the light. Make notes of what you did to get that affect, and see what works best for you. This is the trial and error that you have to go through.

It sounds like you have a whole lot to contribute to the experimentation here...lighting, and use of shadows, I definitely need to learn a whole lot more about those...and how to create that kind of lighting. What kind of tools to use, what kind of lights, flash or something different? Studio lights? Who knows.

But I don't know if that's 'all' it is or if there is anything else. Could perspective have something to do with it? The plane of the background vs the subject? Should I have a subject (considering it's a person) lean slightly into the camera? Does camera angle have anything to do with it? What about focal length? With a short lens things in the distance look tiny...I guess it's just that diminishing view thing...How far from your background does the subject need to be? Which apertures are best? I mean do you want their nose in focus and nothing else, or back to the ears, or just beyond? When you get the soup right it's right.

I am sure all this has something to do with it...so I still think we as a group need to experiment a little and log down notes and see what we can come up with. Collective trial and error.

---------- Post added 11-15-14 at 08:39 AM ----------

There was an interesting paper written by Hirakawa Jun on the design philosophy of the FA limiteds. I'm talking about the optical design, though keeping the lenses small was also part of the philosophy. Perhaps someone can link it. In the paper he talked about how they left a certain amount of field curvature uncorrected. The thinking behind it being that forcing all the different wavelengths of light (which naturally focus on slightly different planes), all to focus on the same plane (that of the film), may help resolution scores on test charts, but ultimately hurts the lens' ability to render transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus.

Most lens makers today know that their lenses will be tested using flat field test charts, and that the higher a lens scores in contrast and chromatic aberration (or lack thereof), the better it will sell. I believe that the magic of the FA limiteds, the so-called "3D effect", lies in their ability to render natural and pleasing transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus because of their less-than-total correction of field curvature.

Just my theory.


[edit: Found the paper. The translation leaves a bit to be desired. http://www.northcoastphotographer.net/resources/Files/Pentax_Limiteds_Explained.pdf ]

That sounds super technical but also extremely interesting. I will read the link and see what I can learn. But to really create (consistently) a 3D look that people go gaga over there has to be some skill involved beyond just owning the lenses...

There needs to be some kind of basic (or more advanced) principles at play here involving the guy behind the camera.

[Norcal_Mike]

Wow, great images here. Personally I prefer these types of shots that don't scream over-production but still deliver results.

[alamo5000]

Wow, great images here. Personally I prefer these types of shots that don't scream over-production but still deliver results.

+1

Me too... I need to figure out the mechanics of all this stuff. While I am better (by far) than what I was when I started, I have a long long way to go to be able to take shots like the ones I want to take. Part of that is trying to crack the 3D code, not only for me, but for everyone.