Αυτη ομως πρεπει να σου κανει Ναθ. Ειναι απο τον ιδιο φωτογραφο. Για οποιον ενδιαφερεται ειναι καλο να διαβασει ολο το νημα που παρεθεσα πριν. Απο την αρχη, δεν ειναι πολυ 5-6 σελιδες. Ο Οrio φαινεται οτι εχει δουλεψει αρκετα στο θεμα 3d. Εχει τις αποψεις του και σε μεγαλο βαθμο μπορει και τις υποστηριζει με φωτογραφιες.
I begin with a photo that I managed _on purpose_ to make as 3D as possible, even if the light was not favourable at all for that.
I had a big help from the "Hollywood" Distagon 2/28, which is one of my "3D-maker" lenses:
Distagon 2/28 on EOS 5D
Lucca, Batoni exhibition advertisement:
http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/Lucca/5D__MG_5218.jpg
You will notice what is my concept of 3D in a photo: not the "binoculars effect" (a focused foreground object over a blurred background),
rather a photo whose objects display dimensionality and where you can "feel the air" in between the objects.
It is a more subtle concept - but, in my opinion, the real one.
Παρακατω γραφει για αυτην την φωτογραφια
In the Lucca photo I posted in the beginning of thread,
the lighting condition (flat diffused light) was against the 3D, yet the lens quality alone,
together with the composition (key factor) and the right aperture, made it.
Οπως βλεπεις συμφωνουμε ολοι στο θεμα του composition
και συνεχιζει
In the following photo, taken with a Summicron-R 50 (another lens that is good for 3D), having the ideal lighting condition (strong lateral light) was not enough to obtain a true 3D look:
Ο λογος κατ αυτον ειναι το διαφραγμα (δεν εχει θολωσει το πισω μερος -κτιριο. Να πω εδω οτι κατ αυτον και κατα πολλους το μυστικο εγκειται στο διαφραγμα.
http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/3D/_MG_2274.jpg
The problems are two:
the perspective, which is almost frontal (so it's less intuitive), and the aperture, which is too narrow and flattens the different planes.
The image looks nice and bold,
but the representation of volume is more committed to the interpretation of the viewer
(who "knows" that the flags are dimensional objects) than to the graphical representation.
On the contrary, this other image, taken only a few minutes before, with the same camera and lens, undoubtedly has some 3D:
http://www.oriofoto.net/temp/3D/_MG_2269.jpg
The perspective is similar to the previous image (frontal)
so what really changes and "makes it" here, it's the aperture.
At this selected aperture, the Summicron creates a focused foreground objects and a background that is not focused but not really blurred either.
It maintains some degree of dimensionality which helps the whole photo to keep a whole perception of dimension instead of flatness.
What does it is also the high microcontrast, which gives "sparkle" to the objects (and which is what makes a lens more suited to 3D than another one)
At the same time, the difference in rendering with the foreground model makes it clear that there is air between the two.
My conclusions:
1- lighting is important but is not decisive
2- perspective is important but is not decisive
3- composition is a bit more important than previous two, but not yet decisive
4- lens "fingerprint" (microcontrast, mostly) is important and often decisive
5- lens aperture is important and is _always_ decisive
Of course, the more factors you make concur, the more 3D the look.
But most important of everything else, you've got to know your lens.
You need to know at what aperture your lens has the "3D sweet spot"
and you need to know how to use it with regards to the distances in the objects of the scene.
_________________
Δεν εχει τοσο σημασια σε πρωτη φαση να συμφωνησουμε με την ιεραρχηση των 5 σημειων που σινει ως υπευθυνα για το 3d , οσο να κατανοησουμε οτι ολα αυτα παιζουν ρολο και πρεπει να ειναι τα γνωριζουμε
Με την πρωτη εικονα αυτου του ποστ παντως ο ανθρωπος εδειξε οτι χωρις τον καταλληλο φωτισμο πετυχε το 3d βασιζομενος σε αλλους παραγοντες (φακο, διαφραγμα, συνθεση).
