Reading mode: Light Dark

Richard Avedon's photos with 3D qualities

Go to last post
S

SandyF

Forum Pro
Messages
16,362
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,134
Location
US
I'd like to begin a new thread to discuss what creates a 3D effect and how one achieves this. I have absolutely no doubt -- having spent the afternoon studying hundreds of Richard Avedon original photos http://www.corcoran.org/avedon/ -- that photos CAN indeed have a "3D" effect, a fullness and richness of depth, a verisimilitude of reality. Of course many/most of these were taken with 8x10 film camera, but anyone seeing these photos would not question the reality of 3D-ness (reference recent threads).

I personally believe we have a head-start to this -- on our DSLR-level cameras (not 8x10 film) -- because of our Sigma/Foveon cameras. What techniques enhance the effect?
Detail capture? Edges? Sharp transitions?
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
I always thought that the 3D effect of a photo, the verisimilitude you mention, is related to gradations, to tonal subtlety and to contrast more than to any other factor. Lack of noise helps.

Enrique
SandyF said:
I'd like to begin a new thread to discuss what creates a 3D effect
and how one achieves this. I have absolutely no doubt -- having
spent the afternoon studying hundreds of Richard Avedon original
photos http://www.corcoran.org/avedon/ -- that photos CAN indeed have
a "3D" effect, a fullness and richness of depth, a verisimilitude of
reality. Of course many/most of these were taken with 8x10 film
camera, but anyone seeing these photos would not question the reality
of 3D-ness (reference recent threads).

I personally believe we have a head-start to this -- on our
DSLR-level cameras (not 8x10 film) -- because of our Sigma/Foveon
cameras. What techniques enhance the effect?
Detail capture? Edges? Sharp transitions?
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
Click to expand...
 
Enir3 said:
I always thought that the 3D effect of a photo, the verisimilitude
you mention, is related to gradations, to tonal subtlety and to
contrast more than to any other factor.
Click to expand...
Almost all the portraits are black and white; the light and contrast in some was enormously important, lots of shadow and variation of tonality. In others the light/contrast was more flat on the face. Of the 100's of photos and portraits, the ones which particularly stay in my mind are Arnold Schwarzenegger (lots of contrast and dark area), ditto Arthur Miller (the only one of the people portrayed I've actually met in person), angled, very contrasty, and Henry Kissinger. You can find most of these online by google search (Kissinger's portrait is famous). There was an enormous Kissinger print, maybe 4x the A0 size I've seen in exhibits, silver gelatin print. Enormous detail on the print, almost no noise.
Enir3 said:
Lack of noise helps.
Click to expand...
most of the portraits had almost no noise, even the huge ones like Kissinger. Some photojournalism type photos (Berlin Wall New Years Eve series for example) had immense graininess; these didn't have the "pop" of the individual portraits. The composition was more critical. The portraits were generally figure against white backdrop, nothing in the background. The original print of John F. Kennedy was also memorable; add it to the list above.

The actual prints convey so much more reality than seeing the photos online.

This exhibit has been around Europe, and closed today in Washington, DC. We visited because a colleague of husband's just arrived from Europe had wanted to see it and missed it in several European locations. I'm not sure if the exhibit is planned now for other cities. Definitely worthwhile visiting if so.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
Would you care to explain to me what this 3D look is? All I'm seeing are photos where the light was well controlled as was the Depth of Field.

Crud, a decent wide angle lens with f/8 will give the image a 3D look.

Like this...



Or this...



Or even something like this...



I think the thing with the Foveon Sensor is that we'll tend to use wider angle lenses to compensate for the 1.7x Crop of this sensor whereas the other manufacturers are between Full Frame and 1.6x so they get a bit more width from their lenses. so a 18mm on a 1.5 would be 27mm where it would be closer to 30mm on a 1.7x.

Oh and umm all three of these photos were taken with different bodies so it's a pretty good idea of what others are capable of.

--



'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln
 
I would be interested in any other economical digital cameras that has this 3D effect, especially compact digital, if anyone knows of such a camera.

I've seen some of the Fuji DSLR images and I think they are nice too, because they use a modified Bayer sensor design, but I am not sure how "3D" they are.

I really like the 3D effect that the 70 mm EX lens produces. I may buy it when I can afford it.

BK.
 
It's an illusion since a photograph lives in two dimensions. The ability of the photographer to suggest the third dimension is the challenge. It is done with smooth tonal gradation (which is where a view camera and sheet film) have a advantage. It is done with control of depth of field and control of the focal plane (the movements make this easier to accomplish). It's done with the control of local contrast and global contrast.

It is not an effect the it is an illusion. There are no better masters of this illusion than Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and Minor White. Check out their work in a gallery if you get a chance.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 
Have you ever seen one of his (Avedon) prints, in person? the actual print, not on the web? I hadn't until today. This "3D ness" is quite marked, the richness, depth, detail of the print. You won't see it on the web probably. This is truly "masterful" photography... and it's not even my preferred genre (b&w portraiture).

I've seen 3D-ness in Sigma/Foveon prints too... at PMA trade shows... different.. mostly color..

I won't judge your examples, as I haven't seen your photos printed trade show size (ie exhibition size)

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
The focus of course was always on the eyes... I keep thinking of the Kissinger print, as it was so large, again maybe 4 times an A0 (A0= 33x46 inches) and I examined the print VERY closely and closeup. We stood approximately at chin line level inches away as well as more distantly of course. And I was pointing out detail of the edges for example to husband and his colleague. Lines of the black suit to the background, sides of face, ears. On the planes of his face and detail of his face, part was out of focus the depth of field was so closely controlled. That was interesting.

Tonality was strikingly detailed on many others.

On the 'smaller' prints, maybe 11x14 or 14x16 type sizes, you had the impression of immense detail and well as depth even on those sizes, that the photo was practically waiting to be blown up and unlock that detail in a larger size. Sorry to ramble on so, but IF someone hasn't seen this quality of photography/printing in person, up close and then at normal viewing distance, LOL, it's quite extraordinary.

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
Well, isn't this a film print?

Film has excellent resolution.

I think the size of the images also played a role and maybe even the way they printed it. Is it a photographic print or a giant inkjet-print?

BK.
 
To understand the 3D effect in photographs, you should look at paintings. Not all painters have the knowledge to produce the 3D effect. Look at paintings of photographs.

The shadows will be colored, not simply black or darker the adjacent illuminated surface. The shadows will have interior illuminations or reflections that are a result of adjacent things bouncing off their light to illuminate the shadow. The adjacent major illuminated area will not be effected by these adjacent things bouncing off light (much), but the shadows will be noticeably filled in with partial colored fill light.

And then the interior shadow will have gradations of tone. The shadow will have its own "bounced around" light changes and you will see that in the middle of the shadow will be more illuminated and near the subject object the shadow will be darker. Then the tip of the shadow may have a coloring where it meets the normal illuminated major surface. I don't know if you could follow this. But you should look at paintings of white boats; paintings of automobiles and paintings of shiny things.

So the shadow is where most of this 3D information is found. Another feature is what I call "translucent flesh". The skin has depth. This depth is a feature of translucence, and then tiny pores and hairs help. So, the more resolution you have, the better, the more 3D effect you could possibly have.

But the problem with the Bayer sensor is that it fills in pixels where there were none. And this is not 3D information, this is not more resolution, this is just padding. So, the Foveon sensor keeps this 3D information; it doesn't fill in pixels by calculation.

To generally help any picture look more 3D, you should be lighting from the side so that 3D shadows are created. And possibly this can help the translucence of the skin. But the bayer sensor is going to trash your work some through its calculations for pixel fill.

If Avedon used an 8x10 camera with a 360mm or 300mm lens, he was picking up resolution. Film is layered and there is no "pixel fill". So, you have the 3d effect with film when you have the resolution of the large format. Go look at Hollywood portraits.

With film, however, you have the problem of developing for shadows to retain the details. Maybe these portrait photographers did not want to retain shadow details many a time. And then there is the art of developing for a Number one paper with long tonality.

Is film/paper equal to 8 bit printed images? Which has more colors? Probably film/paper. So, you have film/paper as being a better candidate to retain 3D information.

Anyway, the Foveon sensor retains 3D information. From the example I have seen, Canon doesn't. Perhaps at some level of resolution like 39mp you will start seeing the 3D effect some in a Bayer sensors.

Anyway, Sigma should talk it up and spread the news about this 3D effect in their cameras.

...Timber...
 
that should read, were NOT explicitly spelled out. Some photos (maybe the grainier at night ones in Berlin for example) were not with the large format cameras. I assume all were film, note he died in 2004.
 
To see the 3D effect just look at the shadows of a photograph. Look at how the shadow changes its darkness and lightness. Look at how the shadow looks darker when next to a light thing and lighter when it isn't. Look at the edges of the shadow. Look at the color of the shadow as a consequence of being near an object reflecting light.

...Timber...
 
One key point you picked up, the skin (or more rightly flesh) had "depth" or at least the illusion thereof.
S.

added:

also: you just do not see online the same as you see an actual print. I've known this from seeing booths full of prints at PMA as compared to studying photos online, but today reinforced this fact. A lot of us in the computer-digital age just aren't looking at prints often enough.
 
It's lighting, it's contrast, it's depth of field, it's the back drop he's using...

Overall, it's everything together and I would tend to say it's everything but the camera as I've seen similar looks to what you're describing in person and I would venture to guess with the right printing techniques most could emulate his work.

The problem is, with these guys anything you do will be so sought after and eventually replicated that you won't be unique anymore which really makes this just another fad that pretty soon will be to the me-too extreme.

Often though, the lens has a lot to do with it and if you go checkout the lens that is known as "The Magic Drainpipe" you'll see this very quality is why a lot of people really covet this lens and it wouldn't surprise me if this guy were using one at the time he took these pictures (remember even if he's shooting with a Foveon based Sigma his mount can be replaced with that of the Canon).

Also, considering he passed away in 2004 the only Sigma he could've possibly used was the SD9 and possibly the SD10 but the truth is given his age he probably didn't shoot with either.
SandyF said:
Have you ever seen one of his (Avedon) prints, in person? the actual
print, not on the web? I hadn't until today. This "3D ness" is quite
marked, the richness, depth, detail of the print. You won't see it on
the web probably. This is truly "masterful" photography... and it's
not even my preferred genre (b&w portraiture).

I've seen 3D-ness in Sigma/Foveon prints too... at PMA trade shows...
different.. mostly color..

I won't judge your examples, as I haven't seen your photos printed
trade show size (ie exhibition size)

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
Click to expand...
--



'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln
 
Wow, I just love your post.

It sounded very eloquent.

Maybe Sigma can use you as an interview on their Sigma SD15 site under a video interview called "The Power of the Pixel."

BK
 
What lens was used with this shot and what were the settings?

Also, if what they're saying about this is accurate then it could likely be the presence of more of certain colors creating part of the effect but overall I think it's more the settings you were using.

--



'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top