Equipment & Techniques > Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography

2D Images which have a 3D-Look

<< < (3/3)

EricWHiss:

--- Quote ---Or becasue weve learned over time that photographs of small things have less DOF
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
--- End quote ---


I doubt that , because the effect seems to be universal - but I do get your point and think its valid in other examples of learned visual rhetoric such as a scene lit with blue gels on the lights means the scene is supposedly at night time.

Ray:
I'm not sure what you are getting at regarding the toy model appearance. Perhaps that's because I haven't seen large prints of these baseball images. Are you saying that even in large prints these figures would look like toy models?

The obvious reason to me why they might look like toy models is that the figures really are small and, as seen here, are in a very small image.

As regards 3-D effect, the lower image is outstanding, perhaps due more to the lighting than the OoF parts on the left.

Fritzer:

--- Quote ---That's true but with one important distinction. In the real world we cannot focus on something that is out of focus. As soon as we attempt to do so, it springs back into focus almost immediately.

With the camera we have this relatively new phenomena where out-of-focusness can be recorded and then viewed with fully focussed eyes, and qualities such as bokeh, for example, can be examined.

When the eye takes in a scene, it will flit from side to side, and with each shift of the gaze everything's in focus. In a photo of the same scene, it's possible that parts of the image will be OoF and there's nothing the viewer can do to bring those parts back into focus. They are and remain out of focus because they were, in the original real world scene, either nearer or farther than something else in the scene that was in focus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
--- End quote ---

Which is one of the most sensible statements re. depth of field I've ever seen  .
People tend to forget how much visual information the brain is able to process in just a splitsecond, and without it being a conscious effort.
Even the smallest items don't have a limited dof for the brain, it's just a virtual reality created by the limitations of photography; the eye sees whatever it chooses to see and the brain puts together the pieces at will.

Morgan_Moore:

--- Quote ---Which is one of the most sensible statements re. depth of field I've ever seen  .
People tend to forget how much visual information the brain is able to process in just a splitsecond, and without it being a conscious effort.
Even the smallest items don't have a limited dof for the brain, it's just a virtual reality created by the limitations of photography; the eye sees whatever it chooses to see and the brain puts together the pieces at will.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
--- End quote ---

I thnk eyes do have quite narrow dof

In fact I can see my own dof changing in sunny weather !

Obviously when looking we refocus fast on the bits of a scene we are interested in

But when we are looking at something like a person we are focused (both mentally and physically) on the person

Hense a prtrait with narrow DOF can represtent our 'experiecee' of that person

f22 isnt alwats more 'true'

S

Ray:

--- Quote ---I thnk eyes do have quite narrow dof

In fact I can see my own dof changing in sunny weather !

Obviously when looking we refocus fast on the bits of a scene we are interested in

But when we are looking at something like a person we are focused (both mentally and physically) on the person

Hense a prtrait with narrow DOF can represtent our 'experiecee' of that person

f22 isnt alwats more 'true'

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
--- End quote ---

It's true the eye has a very narrow field of vision and one seems to be able to focus only on a relatively small area at one time, so in a sense a full size head portrait with eyes in focus but ears and tip of nose out of focus might be close to what one would see if one were looking at a person directly in the eye from a close distance.

However, if one were looking at a life size print of that same person from the same distance, which had been taken at f22 so that ears, nose and the entire face was equally in focus, then the same principle would apply. Because of the eye's narrow field of vision, if you focus on the eyes in the portrait, the tip of the nose and the ears on the portrait are out of focus. But at least you have the option of creating your own 'out-of-focus' areas.

In a sense you get a dozen or more portraits combined. One portrait with one ear sharply in focus and the rest of the face OoF. Another portrait with the left eye sharply in focus and the rest of the face OoF, and yet another with that sprout of hair on the tip of the nose in sharp focus and the rest of the face OoF, and so on.

Now that's what I call value for money   .

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page