Using techniques from painting to add a feeling of depth to photos

[SandyBridge]

Hey there! I just learned about atmospheric perspective in an art history class and wanted to add my two cents on it. It's really fascinating how it adds depth and realism to a painting. It's especially cool to see in landscapes, and Persian tattoos often use this technique to give the designs a more 3D feel. Have you seen any Persian Tattoo's that use atmospheric perspective? It's a great way to add depth and interest to a piece of art!

 

[pnbarne]

For those of us who haven’t been in a classroom for awhile, can you elaborate?

Hey there! I just learned about atmospheric perspective in an art history class and wanted to add my two cents on it. It's really fascinating how it adds depth and realism to a painting.

 

[alecdann]

For those of us who haven’t been in a classroom for awhile, can you elaborate?

Wikipedia has a great explanation of this you can find here. Quick explanation: Artists add a blue cast and reduced contrasts to mimic the visual experience of objects in the distance. Conversely, giving an object a warm cast and added contrast makes it seem closer. This technique can be useful in post-capture processing where you want a subject to stand out from the background.

 

[DRwyoming]

What do you think?

Absolutely, painters from the renaissance onward knew a lot about creating depth in landscape photos using things like you list.

Favorable light alone can be huge as can things like dust and haze in the atmosphere making distant hills more and more blue and less and less distinct through Aerial Perspective giving a great sense of depth. Accomplished landscape photographers look for these conditions when possible but some of this drama and depth can be enhanced in post as well assuming the light was decent and the shot was well setup to begin with.

But yes, no doubt we can learn a lot from what painters have studied and practiced for centuries.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Last time I was at the Grand Canyon, some guy came up behind me and complained about the haze in the distance. I said "There's a Photoshop slider to remove that (sort of), but I'm not so sure it's a good idea".

 

[alecdann]

Last time I was at the Grand Canyon, some guy came up behind me and complained about the haze in the distance. I said "There's a Photoshop slider to remove that (sort of), but I'm not so sure it's a good idea".

In Camera Raw and Lightroom you can use the Dehaze slider. Not something to use with a heavy hand, but a great slider for a lot of purposes beyond just reducing haze.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

In Camera Raw and Lightroom you can use the Dehaze slider. Not something to use with a heavy hand, but a great slider for a lot of purposes beyond just reducing haze.

Yeah, I'm aware (which is why I mentioned it), but I try to stay away from it (and the Clarity slider especially) as much as possible.

My on-topic point in my Grand Canyon story is that without the haze, there wouldn't be as much atmospheric perspective for depth. Painters can obviously add all the detail and clarity on the horizons of their work, but know better.

Chris

 

[EricBowles]

Wikipedia has a great explanation of this you can find here. Quick explanation: Artists add a blue cast and reduced contrasts to mimic the visual experience of objects in the distance. Conversely, giving an object a warm cast and added contrast makes it seem closer. This technique can be useful in post-capture processing where you want a subject to stand out from the background.

This is really easy to use today with a background layer using the Dehaze slider moved to a negative value and a slight shift in WB. You can manage the degree you want that is appropriate for the image. Negative Clarity, Reduced Contrast, Reduced Saturation, and Exposure/highlight and Shadow adjustments can mimic Dehaze.

 

[Basil]

I would recommend to watch the video of Jim Welninski "Think like a painter"

Advanced Black and White Artistry

You go to Cources - Advanced Black and White Artistry and scroll down. There are two Bonus videos, which you can downloaded for free. One of them is "Think like a painter" where Jim analyses the paintings of
Albert Bierstadt
Thomas Moran
Hamilton Hamilton
Thomas Cole
Frederic Edwin Church
Asher Brown Durand

Jim teaches how to see and apply some technincs to photographs. Many of us are good in processing but sometimes it is important to know where and what to apply on the photo. I have purchased a "Black and White Artistry" bundle a couple of years ago and use that knowlenge in my processing. I have also "Imaginal Image" and "Imaginal Colour" from Jim Welninsky. The cources are quite expensive and long but I feel like being in a kind of a university, so deep and detailed the studies are. But sometimes it is very long and getting boring ;-)

I also learnt a lot from Serge Ramelli. His youtube-videos are dynamic but sometimes he repeated himelf and had a lot of ads. But it is worth to have a look.

The third technic I often use for wildlife photography is a frequency separation. It gives me the possibility either to emphasis a structure (for example, of an elephant skin) or separate an animal from a background. There are some videos on these theme (Frequency Separation) in youtube. I use the software "Wow! Frequency Equalizer Pro 2". It is kind of high-pass blooring-sharpening depending of lines thickness and resolution. With "Portrait" setup it can draw a 3D-pop if there is no one and separate an object from background.
The further separation can be reached with Nik Filters. But, of course, it is all not only artistic but can be "artificial" and must be used very carefully and decent.

What I would expect from @Steve 's video is how to apply some painting methods to wildlife photographs becasue the above videos and technics rather regard to landscape photography.
And then we all can try ;-)

A few ideas are comming into my mind. For example, an animal or bird portrait made as a human portrait (also low and high-key) with all those rules for light and posing technics (well.. posing isn't easy but head-shot, full body shot, etc).
And the other idea is to imitate some leopard or other predator painting. You know, we often take photos of big cats at night with spot light where only a part of the animal (for example, head) is lighted. I am quite sure that there are some paintings of big cats with pray on the very dark background. Do you know some?
And the next step are all those impressionistic paintings which we can achieve with panning technics, IMC (intentional camera movements) and in camera multi-exposure. Oh, it will be already for a few videos... ;-)

Very interesting videos on that Jim Welninski site, as mentioned. Very thought provoking!
Thanks for posting the link.

 

[MotoPixel]

When I was reading through this thread early this morning, it brought to mind a photo that I ran across in the Nikkor Lenses Group on Facebook yesterday. A prime example of the impact of atmospherics on the depth cues in an image.

I was struck by the feeling of 3 dimensionality to it and that the photographer had resisted the urge to let the object in the background be out of focus. In fact one commenter took the photographer to task for not blurring the distant object...in quite a rude manner.

In any event, I asked the photographer, Harvey Rogoff, if he minded me sharing the photo here as an example and he was more than happy to oblige. Shot with a Z7 and Z 24-120 w/CPL.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

When I was reading through this thread early this morning, it brought to mind a photo that I ran across in the Nikkor Lenses Group on Facebook yesterday. A prime example of the impact of atmospherics on the depth cues in an image.

I was struck by the feeling of 3 dimensionality to it and that the photographer had resisted the urge to let the object in the background be out of focus. In fact one commenter took the photographer to task for not blurring the distant object...in quite a rude manner.

In any event, I asked the photographer, Harvey Rogoff, if he minded me sharing the photo here as an example and he was more than happy to oblige. Shot with a Z7 and Z 24-120 w/CPL.


View attachment 52876

But at the same time, the distant pyramid is a bluer cast, so more atmospherics than focus cues.

This is really an excellent example given the pyramid size. If one didn't know about the size differences here and someone had used the dehaze slider to remove the blue cast and shore up local contrast, the pyramid could look like a "not that much larger" object that is right behind the pharaoh. Perhaps this would even be a good case for a touch of negative Haze slider (if one wants to leave the impression of a larger object much further back).

Chris

 

[MotoPixel]

But at the same time, the distant pyramid is a bluer cast, so more atmospherics than focus cues.

This is really an excellent example given the pyramid size. If one didn't know about the size differences here and someone had used the dehaze slider to remove the blue cast and shore up local contrast, the pyramid could look like a "not that much larger" object that is right behind the pharaoh. Perhaps this would even be a good case for a touch of negative Haze slider (if one wants to leave the impression of a larger object much further back).

Chris

Chris,

Yes, that is what makes this scene, for me, so 3 dimensional...if it were a clearer day, the effect of the haze might not have caught my attention the way it did. Interesting how our visual system works on so many levels.

I may play with this image a bit to see what adding a little more haze might do...or a little less. May try that in PL6 with local adjustment. I won't post here since it's not my photo.

 

[Whiskeyman]

The idea actually came to me to do the video when I saw a post in the Critique section about 3D pop. Looks like it's on everyone's mind, so hopefully the video will go over well.

When has one of your videos not gone over well, Steve? If it has, you've hidden it well, and I've not seen it!

I'm looking forward to your video on the subject!

 

[bleirer]

This was a quote from the writer I used to start the thread: On a clear day, the effects of atmospheric perspective are less severe, but they work the same way. Objects might get lighter and a touch bluer as they recede into the distance. But this happens over kilometers, not meters.

 

[Steve]

When has one of your videos not gone over well, Steve? If it has, you've hidden it well, and I've not seen it!

I'm looking forward to your video on the subject!

LOL, look no further than my Nail The Shot series LOL

I find that gear and using gear type videos go over far better than more artistic ones. Still, I think I FINALLY have the script done for it and will hopefully get it out soon (this one has been super tough for me to figure out).

 

[fcotterill]

LOL, look no further than my Nail The Shot series LOL

I find that gear and using gear type videos go over far better than more artistic ones. Still, I think I FINALLY have the script done for it and will hopefully get it out soon (this one has been super tough for me to figure out).

This sounds most intriguing. Sounds like you've broken new ground
Thank you, Steve

 

[Steve]

This sounds most intriguing. Sounds like you've broken new ground
Thank you, Steve

LOL, I don't know about that. All I know it that it's a lot tougher to explain this concept than I thought!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Local edits, the concept that certain portions of an image are masked off and manipulated independent of the rest of the image are the focus of ON1 software.

 

[bleirer]

LOL, I don't know about that. All I know it that it's a lot tougher to explain this concept than I thought!

I think part of it is that there are other ways for the 3d of the world to be represented on a flat print but still look 3d to our perception, for a flat shape on a print to give the impression of being a form with depth and substance and being near or far away from another object, and to represent relative size and distance. Atmospheric perspective is just one but if the eye has other cues to go on it will also use them, such as the 'other' perspective: linear perspective. Also other cues like objects being in front of or behind other objects, shadows and textures giving form to shapes, selective focus implying distance, size of known objects like people and animals in the image, and probably more. So the absence of atmospheric perspective is not a killer if other perspective cues do more of the heavy lifting.

 

[Steve]

I think part of it is that there are other ways for the 3d of the world to be represented on a flat print but still look 3d to our perception, for a flat shape on a print to give the impression of being a form with depth and substance and being near or far away from another object, and to represent relative size and distance. Atmospheric perspective is just one but if the eye has other cues to go on it will also use them, such as the 'other' perspective: linear perspective. Also other cues like objects being in front of or behind other objects, shadows and textures giving form to shapes, selective focus implying distance, size of known objects like people and animals in the image, and probably more. So the absence of atmospheric perspective is not a killer if other perspective cues do more of the heavy lifting.

Much of that is what's in the video. I think the biggest trick is that people also have varying definitions of what "depth" looks like in an image. I just finished shooting it and was just telling my wife that I hope I'm not tossing myself into the hornet's nest with this one. She said it won't be the first time LOL!!

 

[bleirer]

Much of that is what's in the video. I think the biggest trick is that people also have varying definitions of what "depth" looks like in an image. I just finished shooting it and was just telling my wife that I hope I'm not tossing myself into the hornet's nest with this one. She said it won't be the first time LOL!!

Looking forward to it. You have a good way of putting theory into pragmatic advice so I'm sure it will be very worthwhile.

 

[Dom]

one of my fav. landscape photographers, Robert Rodriguez Jr., gave a very interesting talk about this topic

 

[jimbrown1]

I’ve found that using contrast and light in a similar way to how painters do can really add depth to photos. For example, softening the background with less contrast or saturation can make the foreground pop, almost like pushing elements further back. I also love experimenting with light—highlighting the subject while letting the rest fall into shadow helps create that layered feel. One shot I took in an alleyway using side lighting turned out great, giving the scene more depth with a blurred background. It reminded me of how tattoo artists play with shading and contrast to make designs stand out and give them a three-dimensional look. Anyone else have tips or experiments that worked well for you?