All this talk about 3D ...

[Jeremy Payne]

... this seemed like a good shot to post from this weekend's shooting ...

D700 ... 50/1.4 ... ISO 800 ... f/2.0 ... hand-held two-shot stitch.

[attachment=18140:3D.jpg]

[popnfresh]

The tree needs more separation from the background. I think it would work better if the depth of field had been extended a bit more so that the whole trunk was in focus and only the background was out of focus. Finally, it looks like the color saturation is a bit jacked up, but that may just be the way it was in real life.

[Jeremy Payne]

it looks like the color saturation is a bit jacked up, but that may just be the way it was in real life.

Lightroom settings
Profile: D2x Mode 3
Saturation: +2
Vibrance: +2

[Ray]

The tree needs more separation from the background. I think it would work better if the depth of field had been extended a bit more so that the whole trunk was in focus and only the background was out of focus. Finally, it looks like the color saturation is a bit jacked up, but that may just be the way it was in real life.

Just the opposite in my opinion. As it is, the tree looks a bit 2-dimensional because the DoF is not shallow enough. A shallow DoF is not only useful in concentrating the viewer's attention on the focussed part of the image by blurring detail that may be distracting, but it also provides some 'perspective' clues as regards relative distances.

I know there's a simplistic notion that perspective has nothing to do with the lens and is determined solely by distance to the subject, and as far as it goes, within it's narrow definition, such a statement may be true, but it doesn't cover everything, in my view. The sense or impression of perspective can be altered by changes in DoF, even though the actual distance to the subject may be the same in 2 shots taken from the same position but at different apertures. That which is out-of-focus in any photo 'appears' to be at a different distance to that which is in focus. A shallow DoF therefore provides additional cues for the brain to work with when it reconstructs what cannot be anything other than a 2-D image on a flat piece of paper, into an impression of 3-dimensionality.

I tried to create a shallower DoF with Jeremy's tree shot using selections and gaussian blur. I think the tree now looks more round as a result, but you'll have to forgive me if you think I've done a bit of a hatchet job   .

[attachment=18150:3D_modified.jpg]

[popnfresh]

Just the opposite in my opinion. As it is, the tree looks a bit 2-dimensional because the DoF is not shallow enough. A shallow DoF is not only useful in concentrating the viewer's attention on the focussed part of the image by blurring detail that may be distracting, but it also provides some 'perspective' clues as regards relative distances.

I tried to create a shallower DoF with Jeremy's tree shot using selections and gaussian blur. I think the tree now looks more round as a result, but you'll have to forgive me if you think I've done a bit of a hatchet job   .

I was trying to give my opinion of how to improve the shot generally, not how to make it look more 3D per se.  Your tweaking of the image does indeed make it look more 3D, but I think it actually looks less round than before. To me the trunk looks almost triangular.

[Ray]

I was trying to give my opinion of how to improve the shot generally, not how to make it look more 3D per se.  Your tweaking of the image does indeed make it look more 3D, but I think it actually looks less round than before. To me the trunk looks almost triangular.

I see! However the subject of the thread is about 3D. Any triangular effect is probably due to the inadequacy of my blurring technique.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I see! However the subject of the thread is about 3D. Any triangular effect is probably due to the inadequacy of my blurring technique.

I thought when I first saw it that I had my trifocals on sideways. 

[Ray]

I thought when I first saw it that I had my trifocals on sideways. 

Sorry Eric, but I recently had a fall on a slippery bank after a heavy shower of rain. Trying to protect my hips and my back as a I fell, I instinctively slapped my right hand on the ground to break my fall. It worked, but I broke my wrist in the process; at least I fractured it, and my right arm is now in plaster for the next few weeks, so you'll have to excuse my sloppy photoshop work. I'm normally right-handed, but have now temporarily become a one-armed, left-handed person.

But I'm sure you get the idea. A shallow DoF can enhance the 3D effect.

[John R]

Maybe I am missing something. Is the only content of this image supposed to be a 3D effect? Because, 3D or not, it is not a very good image and the purpose of any effect, is to enhance or bring out what one wishes to convey. What is the point or motif of this image? Is it the moss, its character or texture? It looks to me like a failed attempt at shallow depth of field. So one should simply stop down until the the desired effect is realized. On the other hand, if in achieving the desired depth of field, the image still looks bland or ordinary, or fails to convey what one intends, because of its surrounding or other elements, my suggestion is to recognize this and move on. I have deleted hundreds of images where the DOF was not conducive to the overall look of the image.
 
JMR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Sorry Eric, but I recently had a fall on a slippery bank after a heavy shower of rain. Trying to protect my hips and my back as a I fell, I instinctively slapped my right hand on the ground to break my fall. It worked, but I broke my wrist in the process; at least I fractured it, and my right arm is now in plaster for the next few weeks, so you'll have to excuse my sloppy photoshop work. I'm normally right-handed, but have now temporarily become a one-armed, left-handed person.

But I'm sure you get the idea. A shallow DoF can enhance the 3D effect.

Sorry for your fall, Ray, and I hope you recover quickly. Being "wrong-handed" is indeed a major annoyance.

And I do agree that a shallow DoF can enhance the 3D effect.


Eric

[Ray]

Sorry for your fall, Ray, and I hope you recover quickly. Being "wrong-handed" is indeed a major annoyance.

And I do agree that a shallow DoF can enhance the 3D effect.


Eric

Thanks for your kind consideration, Eric. My left hand produces strange result when writing, yet I believe my left hand is directed by the right side of my brain which is the artistic, religious but impractical side.

I wonder if I should now take up painting with my left hand to explore the true creative nature of my personality. I might produce something better than anything Jackson Pollock has produced   .

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I wonder if I should now take up painting with my left hand to explore the true creative nature of my personality. I might produce something better than anything Jackson Pollock has produced    .

While you are at it, see if you can get the coveted 3D effect (to get back on topic).