how to create depth? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/24/2007 09:20:12 AM · #1

buon giorno, it's me again asking questions.
maybe you know it, what are the ways to create depth in photos?
I know there must be some lighting technique, I just can't find them.
I have been playing with compositions a lot but still there is something missing.
I really really would like to find all possible and not very possible ways to create depth.
grazie!

Svetlana

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

02/24/2007 09:24:03 AM · #2

A wide angle lens can help. Here I've used a wide angle lens (17-55) with a very shallow DOF (F2.8) and light on both the subject (heart) and the model (me).

Diagonal compositions can also help to give the feeling of depth.

Message edited by author 2007-02-24 09:24:11.

02/24/2007 09:25:51 AM · #3

really nice photo Cindi! thank you!
I think I mean more like 3d effect? is it possible without creating 2 images and looking at them through special glasses? is it possible in a photo?

ooooooo...17-55 is that big extremely expensive lens? :) I was holding it once, I felt like I was holding something sacred:)

Message edited by author 2007-02-24 09:28:20.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/24/2007 09:31:28 AM · #4

oh, one more question: what is the difference between 17-55 mm lens, a fish eye lens and a "super wide angle" 12-24mm? thank you!

kenskid

Nikon D700

02/24/2007 09:32:54 AM · #5

Sometimes HDR processing can give a slight 3 D look.

Cutter

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/24/2007 10:59:08 AM · #6

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

oh, one more question: what is the difference between 17-55 mm lens, a fish eye lens and a "super wide angle" 12-24mm? thank you!

17-55 2.8 is a very high quality all around lens. I use my Nikon equivilent for 75% of my work...portraits, landscapes and general walk around lens. Great lens.

A 12-24 or 10-20 "super wide" is what I have over the fish eye because it doesn't have such a "funhouse" effect...the bubbling in the center. The super wides are a more obvious choice because there are more dynamic in that you can use them for a wider range of things from unique people/candids, to landscapes to architecture. Hope that helps.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/24/2007 11:04:18 AM · #7

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

oh, one more question: what is the difference between 17-55 mm lens, a fish eye lens and a "super wide angle" 12-24mm? thank you!

Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8:

Nikkor 12-24mm wideangle:

Nikkor 10.5mm 2.8 fisheye:

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/24/2007 11:04:55 AM · #8

I think your "main tools" in creating a 3D appearance on a 2D medium, is light/shadow and depth of field. The shadow that is cast on the other side of the nose or cheek (or whatever object) tells us that an image is occupying 3D space. Or the way an image moves from out of focus, to sharp focus, to out of focus, again tells us that the image is 3D.

One more tool is patterns. The use of repeating patterns or familiar patterns which the eye knows in a 3D environment. Placing your subject within the pattern creates the 3D appearance.

If you study the master's paintings, these "tools" are what they primarily used. And I think we can gain the same insight by looking through our "favorites" here on DPC and identifying which of them seem most 3D.

Here is a subset of my favorites that I felt made good use of their tools to create the appearance of 3D images:

These next two, I think, are really unique. Whenever I look at the image of the tiger, I swear he is jumping off the image coming straight at me. Totally amazing!

And the image of the boy uses a familiar pattern to fool the eye into it is seeing a 3D image and it so totally works on me!

Greetmir

Nikon D60

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

02/24/2007 11:17:10 AM · #9

Ok ... well as an ex Technical Director of high budget live Theatre ... almost everything (visually) is about making the stage look deeper than it is and making the actors upstage, center stage and downstage look much farther apart and enhance the 3D feel of it all.

This is done several ways ... which you now make me realize that I can take advantage of in my photography since you mention it and I thank you.

1. Added backlighting and side lighting always helps separate someone or something from the background or someone or something behind them.

2. Cheating perspective with set building and painting. For example ... if the set is a kitchen floor (or flagstone path or cobblestone road or ...) the set painter will not paint it like a chess board. They will paint it with a vanishing point in perspective. Not OVERLY obvious but it doesn't take much to do magic with the perspective of the audience (viewer). In still photography you can even get away with more as people are not walking around through the "set"

3. Lack of focus in the background. This can even be done live and can cheat DOF. Diffuse use of smoke or mist can make the background look MUCH further away ... and another thing they use is theatre are scrims ...

... from Wikipedia (saves me a LOT of typing and explanation) ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A scrim or gauze is a very light textile made from cotton, or sometimes flax. Its light weight and translucence means it is often used for making curtains. The fabric can also be used for bookbinding and upholstery.

Scrims have also seen extensive use in theatre. The variety used for special effects is properly called sharktooth scrim. However, in theater a scrim can refer to any such thin screen, and are made out of a wide variety of materials. The advantage of scrims is that when lit from the front they can appear opaque to the audience, until a change in stage lighting (lighting from behind) makes them almost fully transparent. When lighting behind a scrim to make objects "appear" behind it, the scrim itself should not be lit, as it will detract from the translucency. Lighting to make the scrim appear opaque should be done at an oblique angle to the scrim. The general rule is anything lit behind the scrim (even lights that originate from the front) will be seen by the audience. Scrim has a rectangular weave that is similar in size in its openings to a window screen.

Another type of scrim is called bobbinet / bobbinette, this material has a hexagonal hole shape and comes in a variety of hole sizes. It is used for a number of lighting effects in the film and theatre industries.

Scrim can also be used in theatre in combination with a cyclorama or backdrop. The idea is similar to the other uses. When the drop is lit (or images or video are rear-projected onto the back of the drop), the images or colours projected are visible. However when the drop is not lit, the images or colours will disappear. A scrim can also help dull the image, creating a greater sense of depth.

Another effect is caused by layering two scrims, or even by placing a mirror behind a scrim and lighting it: the familiar moire effect. This can often cause audience disorientation.

Scrim is also used in clothing, usually covering the face or head. This allows the wearer to see out, while preventing others from seeing in. This may also be combined with camouflage to completely hide a person, such as a sniper.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Lighting on a scrim can be VERY VERY fussy but can yield incredible results in the field of "illusion of depth or distance".

I hope this helps you Svetlana as you already have my brains cooking as to how better to use the knowledge I already had about live theatre for photography ...

Thank you so much for your question and I hope this helps you explore new ... erm ... well ... EVERYTHING. :)

Hugs,

me

Greetmir

Nikon D60

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

02/24/2007 11:27:34 AM · #10

See? ... Look at the tiger (and your own Study of a Young Girl) ... especially at the lighting on tail, back and right shoulder (his left) ... and on your left (right as we look) cheek. Back/side lit making him (and you) jump OFF the darker more out of focus background. :)

On "Study" ... the lack of a backlight (faking reflected light) was fulfilled by a light halo on the back of your head and arm to "lift" you from the background. Backlight, methinks, would have been more real looking and even MORE incredibly gorgeous probably, now that I look at it again ...

ROFL! ... YAPPIE alert! hee hee

oh ... oh ... oh ... Here is another SUPER example of depth illusion via DOF and size perspective that I just saw on another thread ... The ball and the "pitcher" are only 2 to 3 cm away from each other ...

Here is the original ...

Message edited by author 2007-02-24 12:04:12.

02/24/2007 03:27:13 PM · #11

Originally posted by Cutter:

thank you Cutter, it helped a bit.)

02/24/2007 03:28:11 PM · #12

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by silverfoxx:
oh, one more question: what is the difference between 17-55 mm lens, a fish eye lens and a "super wide angle" 12-24mm? thank you!

Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8:

Nikkor 12-24mm wideangle:

Nikkor 10.5mm 2.8 fisheye:

thank you Louis!! yes, its great with examples. now i know how it looks like. it's good to know for some time in the future:)

02/24/2007 03:30:22 PM · #13

Originally posted by dwterry:

If you study the master's paintings, these "tools" are what they primarily used. And I think we can gain the same insight by looking through our "favorites" here on DPC and identifying which of them seem most 3D.

thank you so much David! yes, this is why I got that idea. Ive been studying "master" painting a lot lately. an it'sa really great idea to look at the favs here on dpc and analyse them (and it's an aesthetic pleasure, too:)

02/24/2007 03:31:32 PM · #14

dear Greetmir, have I told you lately you are fantastic? :)
theater!!
*off to read more about stage technique*
thank you!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/24/2007 04:10:22 PM · #15

layers

and not the photoshop kind.

02/24/2007 04:16:54 PM · #16

Originally posted by Gordon:

layers

and not the photoshop kind.

like they painted, right? with those tiny dots and many many many tiny bricks layers on each other to create that 3d effect?

like Mona Lisa is painted, with dots. sfumato.

Message edited by author 2007-02-24 16:18:18.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/24/2007 04:36:50 PM · #17

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

Originally posted by Gordon:
layers

and not the photoshop kind.

like they painted, right? with those tiny dots and many many many tiny bricks layers on each other to create that 3d effect?

like Mona Lisa is painted, with dots. sfumato.

That's true, I was thinking more about composing with foreground, middle ground, background as a starting point, but adding more of those layers into the image. The more layers, the more interest, the trick is in getting them to work together - but they add depth in many ways.