Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Street and Documentary' started by quezra, Jan 17, 2013.
Is this what people mean when they say 3D pop?
Yes and no. There are different types of 3D pop. This photo profits mainly by the dof, while there are also many photos with 3D pop and a deeper dof. They accomplish this with some lens properties (like field curvature) as well as careful framing.
It's ironic that these lenses that are said to have the best '3D look' are not that great on the usual measurements which are made with mainly 2D-like subjects. Carl Zeiss explained this phenomen in their planar lens name guide in-depth. After all, there's no lens that does it all best.
Thanks Poki! I'm still trying to get my head round this idea, I mean it seems intuitively simple but what it entails in composition is harder to figure out. Do you (or anyone) have any examples with relatively thick DoF and 3D pop?
Korn's second pic of his daughters has 3D pop... we'll to my eyes it does, anyway...
<a href="http:[email protected]
"1024" height="605" alt="Metal HDR"></a>
I know its not the NEX but ive been told this photo has 3D pop
^ Yeah that works for me too...
(I'm inclined to move my head back from my monitor in case the steel cable hits my nose)
You mean like this?
Here, have a hand... of Short-horned Lizard | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
(Not my photo)
Haha that's cheating!
Thanks guys, it seems there's two conceptions of it - one is superb subject isolation (not necessarily with background blur), the other is "popping" off the page so to speak. And combining both gets some stunning effects (like lifeinphotos!). I must try this more But I still like the effect my photo had, even if I accidentally cut off a bit of the rightmost girl's body
This is one that I thought was pretty poppy
3D pop needs a combination of factors to work unusually well together to give a stronger illusion of depth. This of course depends on the subject so no single formula would work in all circumstances.
• DOF has a lot to do with it
• and perspective too
• gleams/highlights playing against graduated shadows is the main 3D ingredient as any pencil sketch artist would only know too well
I know it when I see it, but it's not something I've ever aimed for specifically in my photography. Maybe I should give it more consideration in the future... good thread!
Q: gleams/highlights playing against graduated shadows
I'm going to give this 3D pop a try, but please elaborate on the above advice.
In any basic sketching class 101, students are taught how to draw a sphere on paper. Pic below is an example of the principles of shading... which are made up of three basic components:
• the highlight (or gleam)
• the transitional (or graduated) shades on the object - going from light to dark
• the cast shadow
The above drawing tells your mind that you are looking at a sphere, but in reality it's only an illusion of a sphere - it's just an arrangement of light and dark shadings around a 2D circle on paper.
The example above also has an advanced component:
• reflected light
This adds to the 3D illusion that a table surface is reflecting light back onto the bottom of the sphere. There is NO table obviously, just an illusion of a table because a by placing a shadow in that manner suggests the sphere is resting on a surface (if the shadow isn't touching the sphere, it would appear to be floating ).
A photo containing certain objects with the correct (or ideal) amount of lighting and shadow values should augment this principle to a greater extent so that the photo would appear to 'pop' more than normal. It's not easy to accomplish obviously, as the illusion of unusually deep 3D in 2D photographs doesn't happen all the time.
What amazes me is the 'Steel Cable' photo that Lifeinphotos posted achieves this 3D pop from mostly perspective alone - with hardly any dramatic lighting - in fact the lighting on that is very very flat. Fascinating!
Wow, learning everyday! Thanks for that excellent explanation Dioptrick
Live long and prosper!