3d

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

StarDust

StarDust

Active member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I have been trying to understand what makes a photo looks like 3d

Some photos look 3d that make me feel if I look from the side of the screen, I will be able to see the side of the subject.

After thinking, one thing caught my attention is the good isolation of the subject from the suroundings.

Simply get a blurred foreground + a blurred back ground, and a good sharpness of the subject

Please critique as you wish

Z09_0920_DxOResized.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
StarDust said:
I have been trying to understand what makes a photo looks like 3d

Some photos look 3d that make me feel if I look from the side of the screen, I will be able to see the side of the subject.

After thinking, one thing caught my attention is the good isolation of the subject from the suroundings.

Simply get a blurred foreground + a blurred back ground, and a good sharpness of the subject...
Click to expand...
Yes you're on to it. The flatter the DOF and the less definition in the BG the more 3d the subject will look. That's one of the reasons the 400mm f2.8 is popular with wildlife photographers in spite of the bulk/weight. When it works it's pure magic.
 
Member's gallery
Depth of field is increased by having a foreground, middle ground and background, which is the mantra of landscape photography and can also apply to wildlife photography when the opportunity is presented. It's not so much about a blurred foreground, generally the foreground to be attractive to the human eye is left sharp with the middle ground, the subject also sharp, and the background blurred. In this scene, which is not straight and does need to be straighten, might have been more pleasing to the eye had the foreground also been sharp. The action in the scene is very nice but the birds behind the blurred foreground take the eye away from the main subject of the birds in flight. Also, the entire scene is a bit greenish, perhaps a white balance issue. But you are recognizing the depth of field issue and that is a start in the right direction of creating a pleasing scene.
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
Depth of field is increased by having a foreground, middle ground and background, which is the mantra of landscape photography and can also apply to wildlife photography when the opportunity is presented. It's not so much about a blurred foreground, generally the foreground to be attractive to the human eye is left sharp with the middle ground, the subject also sharp, and the background blurred. In this scene, which is not straight and does need to be straighten, might have been more pleasing to the eye had the foreground also been sharp. The action in the scene is very nice but the birds behind the blurred foreground take the eye away from the main subject of the birds in flight. Also, the entire scene is a bit greenish, perhaps a white balance issue. But you are recognizing the depth of field issue and that is a start in the right direction of creating a pleasing scene.
Click to expand...


While I appreciate the comment, I am Not sure about having the forground in focus to simulate 3d effects.

I find that 3d is more pronounced when both the background and the forground are blured ( slightly blured not very blured like in portraits).

keeping the middleground in the focus with the forground will flaten the image.

Everytime I dislike an image without knowing why, I find that it is a flat image regarding either equaly distribuited light (like photos taken in mid day while the sun is high on the sky) or a flat image is also produced when most of the image is in focus.

bluring the background only without including the forground in the image will produce beautifull portraits without 3d feelings in my opinion.


Another subject:
In landscape photography including the objects that are very close to the camera in the landscape produce very pleasing images. It breaks the rythm of a flat image. But in such case the middle ground and background both in focus but not the objects that are very close to the camera. This is not my idea, but I read from many photographers not sure when and where and found it to please my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
StarDust said:
While I appreciate the comment, I am Not sure about having the forground in focus to simulate 3d effects.

I find that 3d is more pronounced when both the background and the forground are blured ( slightly blured not very blured like in portraits).

keeping the middleground in the focus with the forground will flaten the image.

Everytime I dislike an image without knowing why, I find that it is a flat image regarding either equaly distribuited light (like photos taken in mid day while the sun is high on the sky) or a flat image is also produced when most of the image is in focus.

bluring the background only without including the forground in the image will produce beautifull portraits without 3d feelings in my opinion.


Another subject:
In landscape photography including the objects that are very close to the camera in the landscape produce very pleasing images. It breaks the rythm of a flat image. But in such case the middle ground and background both in focus but not the objects that are very close to the camera. This is not my idea, but I read from many photographers not sure when and where and found it to please my eyes.
Click to expand...

Each to their own, of course, but you did post in the critique section: perhaps you meant to post in the presentation section. When asking for a critique you will get a variety of responses, some will sound good to you, others will not. There is no need to provide a counterpoint or your point of view. Read what you get, use what you want, move on and do what pleases you. When someone does take the time to respond with their point of view be thankful and always look at their work, this includes my work, as their work is the proof that they might know something about photography. Just my advice.
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
Each to their own, of course, but you did post in the critique section: perhaps you meant to post in the presentation section. When asking for a critique you will get a variety of responses, some will sound good to you, others will not. There is no need to provide a counterpoint or your point of view. Read what you get, use what you want, move on and do what pleases you. When someone does take the time to respond with their point of view be thankful and always look at their work, this includes my work, as their work is the proof that they might know something about photography. Just my advice.
Click to expand...

I will never ignore any comment or critique, but it does not mean I have no opinion.

Apology if I offended you because honestly it was not my intention.

And it is not a presentation because my knowledge is zero compared to some experianced photographers in heare you included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top