Topic: 3D Pop

[hookstrapped]

I don't how many of you read enough internet photography stuff to be familiar with the idea and quest for 3D pop...

My journey started with this tl/dr thread I found when I got my Minolta Autocord, where the OP was trying to replicate the 3D pop of his Autocord in large format

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-4636.html

Discussion ensued. This was put up as a good example of 3D pop, and the person who posted it was arguing it has to do with the sharpness of the silhouette, i.e., sharpness of the edge of the in-focus subject, more than bokeh characteristics.



I think bokeh characteristics matter insofar they should not be distracting, and lighting definitely plays a part in the sense of separation you get that gives you that 3D impression, but there also seems to be a consensus that certain lenses are better at it. The Heliar design, a 5-element version of a Tessar triplet, kept coming up. More searching and articles read and that did seem to be the consensus.

As for my Minolta Autocord, I would get that pop in close pics, but generally not so much. Its lens is a 4-element version of a Tessar.

So when I came across something written about the Koniflex, a short-lived Konica TLR from the early 50s with a 85mm Heliar lens, I decided I wanted to have one. I found one in decent shape and a good price, so now I have one.

I mentioned it on the Just Picked Up.. thread, and Sandeha posted this pic from his Voightlander Brillant with a Heliar lens and I think it displays what I'm talking about very nicely.


090712_del1_12 by Sandeha Lynch, on Flickr

I think these pics from my Koniflex with the 85mm Heliar show that 3D pop not only in the minimum focus portrait of Satish. The tree and flowers, the man reading, the guy in the middle of the crosswalk (would be better if he were in focus and the guy in blue t-shirt wasn't there) -- but even then I think the effect is there.










Anyway, I think I got what I was looking for.


(Now I just need to come up with a new excuse to get another TLR...)

[Francois]

3D pop definitely isn't within reach of all lenses.
One thing that helps is having a good distance between subject and background. Having just enough DOF to cover the entire subject and a smooth bokeh are all that's needed.
I don't think I have a single lens that gives 3D pop...

[hookstrapped]

A nice dancing about architecture quote from another thread on the topic

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165412

OK here's another theory, by analogy with audio reproduction. A number of audiophiles are certain that modern transistorized amplifiers that are highly corrected so that distortion is vanishingly small, do not sound as good as tube amplifiers with measurable distortion in the 0.5 to 1 percent range. This is often attributed to the fact that tube amps produce second harmonic distortion, which is, for some listeners, pleasant and musical. Transistor amps tend to generate odd-order harmonics, not so pleasant.

Now, old lenses tend to have under-corrected spherical aberration. Modern ones are highly corrected to have very little of it. What if the spherical aberrations are what produce the magic that one may feel is missing from shots taken with modern lenses? Could that be what produces the 3-D effect? Or if not spherical aberration, then perhaps one or another of the seven Seidel aberrations that are now corrected out of existence?

[Francois]

I really don't know...
But I'm thinking of starting work on a 700mm lens adaptation and I know this lens is a simple 2 element achromat, so we'll see...

[Indofunk]

3D Pop is the name of my 80s Casio keyboard/drum machine duo.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I agree with what you've written here. I skimmed through the old thread and was surprised by the range of opinions on it, but good 'pop' seems bound to arise from a fortuitous combination of effects, some lens related, some subject related.

The Planars on my Rolleiflex and Hasselblad had it, which really set them apart from most of the MF gear I've used. Other cameras are nice enough, but the 'softness' of the bokeh of these two make a huge difference, IMO. I could tell at a glance from how the subject stood out. I think my Pentax Ltd 43/1.9, a seven element lens, has that capacity too.

[Francois]

3D Pop is the name of my 80s Casio keyboard/drum machine duo.

Is that the one you can find in New York, London, Paris, Munich  ?

[Jeff Warden]

I like threads like this. (That Large Format thread was very interesting and remained civil for thirteen years. :-))  "Pop" is hard to pin down but I like it when I find it. That motorcycle image is really nice and shows the effect.

Here are two of my recent images. The glove is sharp but not at the perimeter because of the limited depth of field. The bottle is sharp at the edges and is also a great distance from the background which I think helps with the 3D separation.

The bottle image was made with an 80mm Planar, and I might have used a 10mm spacer too but I'm not sure.
The glove image was made with a 60mm Distagon, again probably with a spacer.

[Jeff Warden]

A brief aside: Chuck Close once said that photographic technology hasn't improved in the last hundred years or so. Of course that's easily proven false, but whenever I look at Shorpy pics like that motorcycle cop I have to concede his point.   

[Bryan]

This is one I took last year, I think it has 3D pop not only from the focus and lens but also the lighting. I shot it with aRolleiflex Automat.  You can see the rigging is in sunlight but the background is shaded by cloud cover.  I wonder if fill flash would enhance the effect. 

Bumpers and Rigging by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

[Indofunk]

3D Pop is the name of my 80s Casio keyboard/drum machine duo.

Is that the one you can find in New York, London, Paris, Munich  ?

Lead-off track is 3D Pop Muzik

[Jeff Warden]

This is one I took last year, I think it has 3D pop not only from the focus and lens but also the lighting. I shot it with aRolleiflex Automat.  You can see the rigging is in sunlight but the background is shaded by cloud cover.  I wonder if fill flash would enhance the effect. 

Great shot Bryan, and I think you're right about the darker background. The background is also very simple (featureless sky, etc) and that allows the more complex texture and details of the foreground to stand out.

[Flippy]

Pedant note: the Tessar is a four element design. There is no triplet Tessar. There is no five element Tessar. Even the Tele Tessar has four elements.

Back on topic, this is a discussion for the ages. I've seen some sort of thread about this idea on every photo forum I've ever been on. I don't even know that what I see as giving a good "3d" look is what other people are talking about. For me, something like this comes to mind:
Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

or
Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

I'm generally thinking of an image that has several discrete "layers" of focus, rather than "here's a sharp thing on top of a soft thing".

[hookstrapped]

Flippy, I think what most people mean by 3D pop is more or less "a sharp thing on top of a soft thing". That's what the "pop" refers to -- a sense of standing apart from, in front of, a background. I think when a 2D image gives the impression of depth, it needs to be somewhat clear and exaggerated. See the tilt-shift craze. So multiple layers of depth, beyond two (or three, as illustrated by tilt-shift), is perhaps beyond what our eyes and brains can translate into "3D". When you think of how 3D cameras like the Nimslo or Nishiki work, or any stereo photographs, the slight difference in shooting angle primarily acts to separate subject from background.

I came across a bit of advice on using a fast lens, a f1.5 Jupiter 3, that I think is relevant. For maximum clarity and pop, don't shoot wide open if your subject is close, because the whole subject will not be in focus. You might get the eyes in focus, but the outline of the head might not be that sharply defined. I think that describes my portrait of Satish. That was shot at minimum focus distance wide open, f3.5, and it probably would have better pop if shot at f4-f5.6. Also, the completely undefined background probably doesn't help. Something discernible in the soft blurry background I think aids the sense of separation.

[Pete_R]

... "a sharp thing on top of a soft thing" ... a sense of standing apart from, in front of, a background.

Something discernible in the soft blurry background I think aids the sense of separation.

I hadn't really considered this before but, having looked at all the images in this thread so far, that's exactly the conclusion I came to.

I also agree the pic of Satish didn't really work for the reasons you mention.

[Francois]

I might be mistaken but I have the feeling that the best setup to get the 3D pop is probably an old M42 SLR.
Focus, lock the aperture down to check the exposure and the depth of field at the same time. Press the button and presto.
A longer lens would also help.

[hookstrapped]

I might be mistaken but I have the feeling that the best setup to get the 3D pop is probably an old M42 SLR.
Focus, lock the aperture down to check the exposure and the depth of field at the same time. Press the button and presto.
A longer lens would also help.

Well, if the lens is either a Heliar or Planar...

Also, it seems easier to achieve on medium format, maybe because of an ideal lens type / focal length combination (75mm - 85mm?). Also, more likely to avoid excessively shallow DOF, which undermines the effect, with medium format because of generally slower lenses.

[Indofunk]

You might get the eyes in focus, but the outline of the head might not be that sharply defined. I think that describes my portrait of Satish.

The outline of my head is not sharply defined IRL ... nor are any of the thoughts inside it

[hookstrapped]

Micro contrast

https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

[Jeff Warden]

Micro contrast

https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

That's the first time I've read a definition of micro contrast that I've actually understood.

[Francois]

This is an interesting point of view...
But still I don't get how a lens can be both sharp and unsharp at the same time.
So I get back to the effect of the lens design on depth of field.
Depending on the formula and the location of the aperture, it will produce various degrees of fade-out. And this affects how soft the tones are in the out of focus areas and how fast the fall-out is.

[hookstrapped]

Some more samples from my Koniflex (85mm Heliar), with Lomo Potsdam film, aka Orwo 54+, in D96.

[Moto-uno]

Here's hoping I've got this correct with the posting of "3D Pop" images . Peter

[Moto-uno]

  ^And it's not because of the plant in the background  .  Peter

[Kai-san]

Did some printing today and noticed that increasing the contrast in Lightroom seems to amplify the 3D effect. Probably because it sharpens the outlines of objects in focus. This one is shot with a Nikon F3 and a 55mm Micro Nikkor.

[mikec]

I put this one in the NM Film Photographers exhibit at one of the Albuquerque libraries.  It seems to me that the combination of perspective and focus produced a nice 3D effect.  Never sure if anyone sees the same thing I do though.


ATSF 2926 by Mike Connealy, on Flickr

[hookstrapped]

I think Mike's and Kai-san's pics show the importance of clear sharp outlines of the subject to the effect. Mike's is quite striking. I think it owes its sense of separation to difference in tonal value (let's add that!) and the role of lighting more than difference in focus due to depth. Real interesting...