Nikon Digital Learning Center / Discuss
Current Discussion
Latest: 7 hours ago
Latest: 10 hours ago
Latest: 18 hours ago
Latest: 24 hours ago
Latest: 31 hours ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 3 days ago
Latest: 3 days ago
Latest: 7 days ago
3 Dimensions in a photograph
Get Closer! 
says:
All photographs are flat, 2 dimensional presentations, but are usually of the 3 dimensional world we live in. A response on another post recently asked about how to avoid "flat" looking photographs. So let's have a little discussion about the "clues" and "cues" we can use in a photograph to suggest depth in a scene. RULES for this post: You can simply comment, or add a photograph, either as an illustration of your point, or to ask how it might have been improved, re:depth, but no more than 1 photo per person, and nothing larger than Small or Medium size.
I'm putting 2 shots up to provide a couple of strong hints about some tactics we can use.
Posted at 8:40PM, 6 February 2008 PDT ( permalink )
evan hunter says:
Longer focal length and larger aperture is key..
Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
hgw664 says:
Howard Hughes used clouds for background to show how fast the planes were flying in his first movie. It's all about content and what makes the picture come alive.
Even computer generated photo's have to have some point of realism to them, or they wouldnt' sell.
Right now I'm still Shooting film and will try to get something from the snow storm we just had.
Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
felixspencer2 says:
i was hoping to achieve a 3D feel with this image by keeping the focus point at the central element and allowing the blurred out of focus foreground and background to add to the feel of area within the confined space.
Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
John Leonard, Vote For The Eye on jpgmag.com! says:
Light and separation. Using light to sculpt and define your subject.
Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
picfreak12 says:
One more consideration, as in the photos posted by Get Closer, lenses. Use of a tele tends to compress the image on the longer focal length and shorter focal lengths, fisheye, distort.
Combine light with focal length and you can achieve a good "representation" of 3d.
Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
GStrader says:
The main elements that we can control regardless of what focal length of the lens are aperture and shutter speed.
You can convey a sense of action or stop action with shutter speed, and DOF of the photo gives the depth perception.
Only one photo: DOF
Originally posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
GStrader edited this topic 3 months ago.
Graeme Smith says:
How about using a wide lens with to emphasize perspective and use strong diagonal lines?
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F189%2F440881630_cf0f8cbf49.jpg)
-- from Graeme Smith - (?)
Excuse the lousy shot - it's the only good example I had on Flickr… This shot is a little better but maybe doesn't show the technique as well…
Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
3dchris89 says:
I guess it's a matter of DoF, different light/shades across the scene and VoF? And maybe ambiguity of shapes (and avoiding it).
Hell it's probably just a matter of everything, but i guess those are the main points to look for.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
kravguy1 says:
No pic to post but overlapping similar images, such as in a graveyard, help create a flow and distance feel.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
picfreak12 says:
Here is an example of a shot with a small aperture and high speed. The subject of course, renders well for 3Dlike with the clouds in the background.
I would still hold that light is one, if not the most important elements in the 3D feeling then the lens' focal length. (This one was a 105 prime)
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
picfreak12 edited this topic 3 months ago.
frank.mara says:
This effect was achieved by back-lighting the candle in the front of the photograph with a small flashlight.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
DKAIOG says:
Exposure and focus set on the room in the middle, lights in the foreground and windows slightly out of focus. 18mm on the D40 kit lens.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
Well, here I am sitting in the Atlanta airport again, this time on my way home from leading a really fun workshop in Mexico, and contemplating some upcoming programs both private (Smokies, Galapogos, Yellowstone area and a return next year to Mexico for Holy Week) and public (Glacier NP, Tuscany, Tanzania). I love the trips but I hate to think of how much time I've spent hanging out in Delta's Crown Rooms. But I guess this is a great opportunity to start responding to this thread.
There have been some good responses, and none really wrong or bad, but mostly they have not quite got what I was looking for. Imagine a novice tackling "Illustrate depth" as an assignment and how useful the various comments would be as a roadmap to managing the photo's design. (I'm not looking for formulas here, those are death to creativity.) The ambiguous nature of many of the responses are not specific enough to really use as guides, so let me try describing my photos:
In the Tuscan landscape there are at least three specific design elements that create the sense of depth.
1) Aerial perspective--this phenomenon is the effect of things getting lighter and lighter as they get farther away. The increasing lightening and haziness of the distant ridge lines is caused by atmospheric conditions and provides an intuited sense of depth.
2) Size constancy--we expect things of similar nature to be of similar size, so when one is smaller than the other, we assume it is farther away rather than a smaller version of the same thing. The building on the first ridge line is considerably larger than the silhouette of the building on the next to last ridge.
3) Juxtaposition--some of you alluded to this; when something blocks a full view of something else, we assume it is in front of the other object and so infer depth rather than consider that the second object might simply be a partial object.
In the second, of the Maasai warrior, several of you seemed to get the idea. In this case the illusion of depth was created by a very shallow depth of field from using a telephoto lens and large aperture. (It is not enough to say "DoF." You have to say what kind.) However, it needed more than that. If the dung hut behind him had been the only distant object, having it soft would have been minimally effective since it is so dark and subtle in tonality we would not have paid much attention to it. But by having the very soft, but prominent, splash of brightness and vivid color, including the "echo" of the red color in his clothing, in the ground, we are made aware of the activity going on behind him.
Of course "Juxtaposition" plays a part in this shot also.
I'll try to get back soon to make some specific comments on your posts, but keep thinking about this and try to spell stuff out in a way that it could be used as a shooting guide, without ambiguity.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
GStrader says:
Sorry, I did not know we were writing a shooting guide...
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Doug Felts says:
How 'bout this one, Closer?
Living in the Northwest, we do get to see some wonderful "layerings" of the tree-covered hillsides and mountains.
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Doug Felts edited this topic 3 months ago.
alatimed says:
Its all about perspective:
A method of presenting an illustration of the three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional surface.
1.) In linear perspective, the most common type, all parallel lines or surface edges converge on one, two, or three vanishing points located with reference to the eye level of the viewer (horizon line of the picture), and associated objects are rendered smaller the father from the viewer they are intended to seem.
2.) Atmospheric, or aerial, perspective creates the illusion of the distance by the greater diminution of the color intensity, the shift in color toward an almost neutral blue, and the blurring of contours as the intended distance between eye and object increases.
3.) Twisted perspective, a convention of representation in which part of a figure is shown in profile and another part of the same figure is shown frontally; a composite view.
4.) Foreshortening, the use of perspective to represent the apparent visual construction of an object that extends back in space at an angle to the perpendiculars plane of sight.
Alen
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
jamesrdoe says:
I'm not sure I completely agree with all the examples. There is a difference between 3D and 2D with multiple planes. The first shot in the thread is very much 2D looking but it looks like there are 4 different planes (still a great shot). It does give a sense of a 3D world but in a different sense than say a wide angle landscape giving you more perspective. A small DOF doesn't necessarily make something look 3D either though it can. I find with a small DOF if it slowly renders the subject out of focus it creates a very 3D look. Having DOF just eliminate the background can sometimes give you the look of a 2D background.
I agree with alatimed and would like to add that lighting really helps create a 3D look. I often find on a heavily overcast day depth can be harder to achieve and it sometimes can really flatten pictures
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
Some specific responses:
alatimed--you bring up two good points that I had not touched on yet--linear perspective and foreshortening. Twisted perspective sounds like Cubism in your description and I'm going to have to think on this a bit, but, like jamesrdoe says about DoF, use of that approach could create either a dimensional feel or a flattened one. Although in the broadest sense to say "its all about perspective" is true, because everything in life is about perspective, but as a specific method of describing and informing a viewer about 3 D space there are additional tools that are not "perspective" rendering in the strictest sense. You could stretch a point to include Size Constancy and Juxtaposition in the concept of perspective, but I think you could make an equally valid argument that they are separate issues. Other things like bright tones and warm colors project, and dark tones and cool colors recede can create an illusion of 3D space, but would not come under the umbrella of perspective. Also directional lighting can be used to create depth and that would not be a perspective issue.
jamesrdoe--you make a good point that aerial perspective may simply create a layered look rather than a sense of depth, and shallow DoF alone is not sufficient to create depth. From that "perspective," I think in my first shot I have something a bit schizophrenic in terms of depth. The aerial perspective might suggest depth, but the long DoF, maintaining apparent focus all the way to the fourth horizon line, wants to flatten the scene into the layers you mention. Also, you make a good, but incomplete, point about how the character of light contributes to this issue. In a soft, flat light situation (overcast, open shade, inside a light tent) creating dimensionality is difficult, but certain kinds of directional lighting (on a bright sunny day or using direct flash) can also create an essentially flat scene. Front light (coming from the direction of the camera) and Back light (coming from behind the subject) will also give very flat representations of the scene. To create a sense of depth the light needs to create a pattern of light and shadow, by crossing across the surface of the subject (Side light, Top light, Bottom light). Cross light is what creates texture in a scene, whether it's the sense of texture from the ridges of a weathered board, the features of a face, or the various components of a landscape.
felixspencer2--although one could infer depth from the change in focus in your shot on an intellectual basis, the image has such an abstracted or still life quality that I don't think someone would respond intuitively to a sense of depth.
picfreak12--I think I'm paraphrasing your thoughts with this--use of longer focal length lenses gives one more ability to create a more obvious graduated DoF, and use of wider lenses allows for a more pronounced use of Size Constancy differences. I want to nitpick two things, though.
1) Too many people use the word "distort" casually with no clear indication of what effect they see as "distortion." All photographs are distortions; rather than some images being distorted and some not, it's usually more about the degree of effect. To say a fisheye lens distorts because it bends straight lines is wrong because that is what it's supposed to do. To have a moderate zoom lens that bends straight lines at the extreme ends of the zoom (pincushioning and barrel distortion) would be a distortion or abberation because it's indicative of poor lens performance rather than intended performance.
2) To say telephoto lenses compress the image is widely believed and wrong. The effect of compression is a result of the relative position of the camera to the subject. The farther away, the more compression. The choice of a telephoto lens is simply to limit the angle of view for the primary subject, but if you shot the same photo from the same position with a wide angle lens and then cropped the shot down to the same image area, the compression effect would be identical in the two photos, although the cropped and enlarged one would suffer substantial quality degradation from the reduced resolution caused by the crop.
Nomad Solos--even with the shallow DoF in your shot, it does not convey an immediate sense of depth because of the lack of gradation in the ground, as described by jamesrdoe.
Graeme Smith--although the use of strong diagonal lines adds more energy to the photo, the effect of depth in this shot is from linear perspective, the CONVERGENCE of the diagonal lines that we otherwise assume are parallel. This is magnified by the use of a wide angle lens in a close position which helps to exaggerate the convergence.
DKAIOG--although the difference in focus may make a contribution, the strongest suggestion of depth here comes from linear perspective, the rapid convergence of the ceiling lines.
DL Morris--the washed out sky is awkward, but I think your aerial perspective combined with a lot of DoF has the same schizophrenic character of my first shot mentioned earlier. There is some depth created by the Size Constancy issue of the large poles (lodge poles? Tepee frames?) compared to the small trees on the second and third ridge lines.
Nomad Solos--my objective here was not so much to create a shooting guide (although not a bad idea) as to encourage specific thinking. In 35+ years of teaching photography I've discovered that if I'm only dealing with a topic as a photographer I can accomplish good results without necessarily understanding why something works or does not work. Yet if I am forced to verbalize the solution in a way others can understand it, it clarifies my own understanding.
Doug Felts--no visible photo.
Thank you all for your participation and I'll be looking forward to any additional comments anyone might have to contribute. Much of this concept is situational and can't be absolutely codified, but I think the exercise of pondering it is useful.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
alatimed says:
@Get Closer! - I was referring to twisted perspective as having two or three images representing that 3rd dimension, diptych or triptych... But I believe your right, term comes from cubism...
Also, this is a great discussion, it brings you back to basics and initiates critical thinking into more advance techniques...
Alen
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
picfreak12 says:
GetCloser...
I agree that the exercise is good for technical knowledge, which I will volunteer in my case, is limited.
I studied photography almost 25 years ago and let the hobby go by the wayside due to financial constraints and, when I could, I had simply forgotten my passion.
Most of my technical know how is gone, if not tucked in very neatly away so well I can not find it. Although, I have to say, when I have a camera in my hands, I seem to remember things as if the action of photographing helps me release the memories.
On the subject of telephotos, and I bow to your expertise and continued experience, is it not fair to say that although it is relative to the position of the subject the perspective is compressed by the nature of the longer focal length reducing the planes between subjects? i.e., a subject that is 30 feet from a bear, taken at a zoo, would appear close to if not next to the bear? I understand that the same effect can be obtained from a wide or "normal, 55mm, lens, but the subject would have to be nearer to the camera.
Is that not what you meant? Sorry, but just putting in my terms, layman's terms that is.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
DLMorris says:
GetCloser - thanks for taking the time to do this, it's much appreciated.
The sky is actually on purpose, meaning it's not wash out, but painted out. The original was really poorly exposed and most all of what you see is after a lot of work in Elements. I mainly wanted to show I understood what you were talking about.
thanks again.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
GStrader says:
Thanks for the observations, GC...I had actually intended to post another shot, but the shallow DOF in that shot beckoned to me, and i would have had to search for the other one. In any case, I enjoyed this discussion.
I get rather bored with all the threads discussing the merits of this or that lens, and the like...what I look for here is solid learning on taking better photos.
The staff moderators have done a fantastic job of it, and I hope that you will continue it for some time.
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
GStrader edited this topic 3 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
picfreak12--the focal length has no bearing at all on the compression effect. That is based strictly on the distance from the camera to the various subjects in the shot. If you have a person 30 feet in front of a bear (not nearly enough if there is not a barricade of some sort between them) and the camera (the photographer as well probably, but it's the camera position that is critical) is 10 feet from the person, then the person is so much closer to the camera than to the bear that there will be an open, expanded sense of space.
If, in the same scenario, the camera is 60 feet from the person, then the person will be so much closer to the bear than the camera that the effect will seem a compression or flattening of the space.
Choosing a wide angle or telephoto lens in these situations will be to control the angle of view and limit the capture of information to what is important. In the first shot you would probably have to choose a wider lens to get everything in because of the close camera position. In the second shot you would normally choose a telephoto to get a tighter, more limited capture. However, the choice of lens did not have anything to do with the effect of expanding or compressing the space.
Try this--set up shots like these and shoot them with long and short lenses from the same camera position. Then take the wider shots and crop them in post processing to match the smaller area captured in the longer shots and you'll see the perspective is the same from the same camera position regardless of what lens is used.
Remember this effect is relative and applies in all shooting. We generally use a short telephoto to do head and shoulder portraits so we can have a little working distance from the subject, to make them more comfortable, but to also compress the space from the nose to the ear and flatten the head. When we use wider angle lenses to do this kind of portrait we are so close to the person that the difference in distance from the camera to the nose and camera to ear is so relatively large that we get the pronounced, sometimes bulbous nose that is not flattering for anyone.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
picfreak12 says:
Get Closer thanks.
I will do the exercise and check out the results.
I look forward to your contributions to begin "remembering" the more technical nature of photography and limit my shoot and guess or shoot and hope!
PS.
You see that I did mention a zoo, right? LOL
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
Yes, I did see your zoo reference and figured you were not being unsafe, but lots of people read this stuff and I've learned you have to be careful about suggestions. I've heard too many stories like the mother who put jam on her kids to get a bear to stand closer so she could get them in a photo together, and lots more.
The older I get the more I understand the sentiment in the last passage in Somerset Maugham's book "The Gentleman in the Parlour," where a traveling salesman is asked his opinion of the human race.
“Sure I’ll tell you. I think they’re bully. You’d be surprised at the kindness I’ve received from everybody. If you’re ill or anythin’ like that perfect strangers will nurse you like your own mother. White, yellow, or brown, they’re all alike. It’s surprising what they’ll do for you. But they’re stupid, terribly stupid. They’ve got no more brain than a turnip. They can’t even tell you the way in their own home town. I’ll give you my opinion of the human race in a nutshell, brother: their heart’s in the right place, but their head’s a thoroughly inefficient organ.â€
And just for the record, even after 43 years as a photographer, I still do a lot of "shoot and hope." Some of my best and favorite photos from over the years have been the result of some planning using whatever technical and aesthetic skills I had acquired, but really worked because of some serendipitous aspect of the situation that I could not have anticipated. It's not that we don't want surprises and spontaneity, but that we want to prepare and hone our skills to catch them when they happen.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Doug Felts says:
Oops, I linked to a set that is automatically regenerated as my "Most Interesting"... edited, and reposted above.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
Doug Felts--Nice shot, but the same schizo aspects I mentioned for mine and DL Morris--the aerial perspective suggests depth but the long DoF with everything in apparent focus tends to flatten. One thing that helps is the cloud that bisects the mountains; the juxtaposition is probably the strongest depth clue.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
silverwolfe says:
this is an interesting 'exercise'.
and so many technical descriptions ;)
I suspect adding more 'dimension' is an important component in drawing the viewer into the scene.
I think lighting is an important aspect in helping create the illusion of the extra depth of 3D. You can have perspective and composition and subject, but w/o intriguing lighting, it'll just be, hmmmm.... empty. when we see the 'learning examples' in lighting exercises, we see the development of 'dimension' just from using the lights differently.
perhaps if you can catch the light enhancing the layers of the scene independently, drawing the viewers' eyes throughout the scene, it enhances the 3d feeling. I like to watch for this, try to catch it.....
I thought of this shot as soon as I saw the intro discussion.
I wonder if it gives the 'effect'..... ;)
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Algernon De Jesus says:
i guess DOF and adjusting the shadows helps a lot like this one:
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
WintrHawk says:
I've been playing with cloud enhancements myself. In particular I've been trying to use contrast to accentuate depth.
It seems that convergence and framing can also be used to give the impression of depth as well. I find that shooting with a wide-angle lens seems to help accomplish this.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
redandwhite says:
Using both light and shadows to sculpt an element of shape. The eye/brain relies on the shadows and lights to determine whether an object is round, square, etc.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
silverwolfe--having a technical discussion of aesthetic concepts may seem contradictory on the surface, but there is a long history of this. Prior to the Renaissance, artwork was primarily spiritual and symbolic, but during the Renaissance, as more secular subjects were introduced into paintings, a more natural looking approach to spatial relationships was introduced. One of the major contributions of Renaissance art was the development of scaling techniques such as foreshortening and linear perspective, techniques which we get by default of the camera's unique vision today, but I think it's useful to understand these tools so we can use them more deliberately and aggressively when they support the image we are trying to create.
Even the camera we use today is a direct descendant (even with all it's technological innovations) of the camera obscura and the (slightly) more modern camera lucida, which artists used back at least as far as the 16th century for help in rendering detail in a scene.
I think it's unfortunate that most people interested in photography (both pro and amateur) don't make much effort to understand the 169 year history of their medium, let alone the centuries of knowledge garnered from the creation of representational art in various other forms.
A failure to understand our place in the long view has led to things like the number of traditionalists who, for a while anyway, rejected digital photography as not as "true" or valid in some way as 35mm film shooting, ignoring the fact that at one time 35mm was the new kid usurping some previous traditional approach. During the Renaissance, musicians would decry painters as merely technicians instead of artists because they used "tools." I'm not sure what the musicians thought their instruments were, but it's the kind of supposed superiority of the old vs the new that never seems to go away.
Your photo, for instance, and many other landscape photographs of today are strongly reminiscent of the Hudson River School of painting, from the mid 1800s when photography was still in its infancy, around the time Samuel F. B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph but also generally accepted as the Father of American Photography, was teaching the Daguerreotype process to his students such as Mathew Brady, Samuel Broadbent, and Albert Southworth, who all went on to great fame and success in the new medium.
I think your photo suffers the same schizo effect of aerial perspective and extended DoF we have talked about in other examples, but the strongest indicators of depth here are the way the strong light on the trees projects forward against the receding character of the darker, cooler mountains, and the linear perspective in the S curve of the river.
In a perfect world (these are hypothetical suggestions; I realize there was a river in the way and you probably did not have a ladder with you) I would like to see a little more of the river on the left side and from a little more elevated camera position see a little more of the path of the river's S curve receding into the distance. You might also have pointed the camera down a little more, raising the horizon in the frame and clipping off a little more sky but adding more of the river in the foreground, which would have been wide and made the converging of the banks for the linear perspective more pronounced. Of course more of the sort of blank ground area in the foreground might have been boring and counter productive so the change in horizon position might not have worked as well.
Algernon--I don't think shadows had anything to do with the effect. The shot works nicely, but it's due to the exaggerated linear perspective with the large head rapidly shrinking the small point of the tail, and the shallow DoF.
Wintrhawk--looks like you spend a lot of time on the Bainbridge Ferry. I saw the first shot in another thread and really like the shot and the way you have massaged the clouds. Although the variations of the clouds, and having them behind the skyline does give at least an intellectual understanding of space, I think having virtually all the important subject matter at such a great distance makes it all pretty flat, spatially. I think the third shot (there was a rule limiting everyone to one photo but I'm making an exception for you because I think you make an invaluable contribution to this site in all the detailed posts you offer up) using the wide angle lens and juxtaposing that wonderful foreground object against the buildings, and having the reflection of the converging lines in the object gives a strong sense of space.
redandwhite--I like the repeated use of strong diagonal lines inf the image, but I don't think you have anything in this that works to create a visual sense of 3D space. Even your text belies the concept (maybe this was Freudian?) when you use the word "shape" which is flat by definition. When "shape" takes on 3D qualities it becomes "form."
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! edited this topic 3 months ago.
silverwolfe says:
@ GC: oh, gosh, I should've communicated my thoughts more completely!
I didn't mean to discount the technical explanations & discussions - they are valid, necessary & interesting. Nor was I discounting eons of history!! Since I don't have a bg in art or art history, I'm often hesitant to participate in these discussions, yet I learn a lot from them and like to try.
And yes, there are a variety of shots that I have taken at this location in diff seasons, some w/more river and less empty fg/rocky shores, trying to catch the beauty 'that light' creates. The location intrigues me, and I stop each time I go by, looking, waiting, sampling.....
I do have shots w/more river on a blue sky day that are much like you describe to attempt ;) You nailed it about changing the perspective on this shot would lead to more empty fg on the right. I was at the highest point avail w/o a ladder (altho, when not drizzling I maybe could move a picnic table behind me to stand on, hmmm.....). And walking upstream behind me a bit leaves the big rock in the bend largely in the center of the comp and large rocky banks & shoals showing !
In the summer the river is high and s-curves obviously thru photos, but w/fall colors the river is very low, leaving large rocky banks. This day, even tho it was drizzling, the dramatic beautiful clouds w/that slice of sun highlighting the beautiful fall colors, w/a hint of light on the bg ridges, caught my eyes.
I appreciate the time you & fellow posters are taking to discuss our attempts at demonstrating a 3D world ;))
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
I didn't think you were discounting the technical or historical aspects. You just gave me a jumping off place for one of my expositions. I don't think you should be reluctant to enter any discussion, either. Any opinion offered has the potential to give someone a different perspective, provide clarity on a topic, or open a new avenue of thought. Any thought or idea is like a pebble thrown into a pond, creating ripples of effect far beyond what we might know of its impact.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2054%2F2262472904_0ce71c0b4d.jpg%3Fv%3D0)
vidular says:
@Get Closer
Being new to photography, I have found this discussion thread to be very informative.
Among some older photos I had the following and thought it contains some of the elements that portray depth. In particular the vanishing point, atmospheric softening, shadows and object size (people, trees). I wonder how much the content of the image contributes to the feeling of depth versus the purely technical aspects (e.g., camera, lens, post processing). I would think this image could have much 3D potential but yet it still seems a little flat to me. Is it possible to enhance the illusion of depth using post processing or is the key the image content itself?
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
vidular edited this topic 3 months ago.
picfreak12 says:
@Get Closer...
I think the shot below, shot with a macro 105, does convey 3D form based on dof, variable along the leaf, shadow, adding to the perspective and texture of the leaf.
I've been doing a lot of thinking on your writs and find the education invaluable. I now find myself thinking alng the lines of 3D and how to best portray it for my viewers.
I'd have to confess though that this one was way before your input and perhaps happenstance, or fortuitous coincidence of knowledge and chance.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent says:
Here's my contribution: "Anti-Gravity Dreams"
This photo is far from "flat" for me and evokes a strong sense of dimensionality for a few reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong:
• Contrast: The contrast between the highlights of the marble against the relatively flat background (fire hydrant) bring the subject out of the photo's ground. At least in terms of color and contrast, the photo avoids being "flat." That alone probably wouldn't provide dimensionality, but it may contributes to the perception at least a little bit. (If the marble were red it might not appear to have as much dimension.)
• Interaction of subject with background: I don't know how to say this eloquently, but it seems to me that the way the marble casts a shadow below itself -- and simultaneously disconnected from itself -- implies a strong dimensionality. The illusion of the marble floating in mid-air makes the marble "pop out" to the eye. Though it's an illusion, it's a compelling one.
• Juxtaposition and Shallow Depth of Field: While the marble and its background are clear, the glass marble itself has created a very shallow depth of field for the air bubbles trapped within the transparent glass of the marble. The DoF here is not provided by the camera lens but by the focusing/diffraction effects of the spherical glass in the marble. Looking at the marble, you can see the progression of sharp and clearly defined bubbles near the surface to less- and less-defined bubbles deeper within the glass. Since we might assume the bubbles are of a similar size, the diffuse localized focus tells us this object has dimension.
Not that any of this went through my mend when shooting. But this discussion helped think about this. Thanks!
Again, please correct any fallacies I've dredged up here.
Rich
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent edited this topic 3 months ago.
nalani.texas says:
@get closer! Well said...happens more often than not!!
And just for the record, even after 43 years as a photographer, I still do a lot of "shoot and hope." Some of my best and favorite photos from over the years have been the result of some planning using whatever technical and aesthetic skills I had acquired, but really worked because of some serendipitous aspect of the situation that I could not have anticipated. It's not that we don't want surprises and spontaneity, but that we want to prepare and hone our skills to catch them when they happen.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
lryan110458 says:
I always thought this shot really conveyed a sense of depth. The subject is fully lit, his bandmates behind him are in shadow, and the spectators behind them are fully lit.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
dwalkertx says:
"to encourage specific thinking...Yet if I am forced to verbalize the solution in a way others can understand it, it clarifies my own understanding." - GetCloser
I totally agree. It's almost like taking a test multiple choice test vs. an oral exam. The latter is much harder to do.
My own amateur work...
This picture, I feel doesn't hit the 3D mark. It has multi-planes but not enough gradual Dof or enough texture on the dancers in the foreground.
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3134%2F2291914722_d1c986ebdf.jpg%3Fv%3D0)
This feels more 3D. The cross light from the monitor gives texture to the kids face. The person right behind him adds a little more and the background plane with the dancers and the crowd I think adds a bit more "feel" to the picture.
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2122%2F2291117829_b4dac17f78.jpg%3Fv%3D0)
I also think this is closer to 3D. The doesn't feel flat with the texture from the lighting and the background has a deep perspective that draws the eye towards the dog.
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2270%2F2269756433_bd712b86f8.jpg)
anyone have opinions on these?
Originally posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
dwalkertx edited this topic 2 months ago.
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon Digital Learning Center discussion threads
Flickr Blog | About Flickr | Terms of Use | Your Privacy | Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
| Deutsch | English | Español | Français | 
| Italiano | Português Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! All rights reserved.
You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here
