Apparently people differ strongly on which images have 3D pop. Or what 3D Pop even means. It seems. I browsed a lot of images on Flickr, searching for 3D, Pop, Depth keywords. Hm, yeah there were some but rather rare. In the end I found out a Flickr group completely devoted to 3D Pop:
3D Pop | Flickr
Can we agree that this group contains lots of images with a strong sense of depth (ok,
illusion of depth) and that this is a desirable property? Some look even 3D to me, but yeah, that's me.
Lots of fast primes from lots of brands, not many zoom lenses that I could see. Apparently there is lots of CaNikon too, it's not like vintage/Voigt/Leica primes are all over the place and modern designs can't do it.
Hey, did I ever see Sony? Not sure...
(Oh and IF you browse that group, make sure to hit "L" for screenfilling image for a better impression)
There are lots of images with strong subject separation (or what was called "pop" in this thread) in that group and a handful with "3D pop" (either completely or in part):
(mostly 3D pop for me, blur not as strong due to the perspective and look of the lens)
Agreed, although there aren't really "surroundings", something for the eyes to grasp, but there's still depth (in reality as well as in the image).
(mostly 3D pop for me, also some additional use of blur and perspective elements/lines)
Yes, although the subject isn't clearly defined. It would work much better with something with clear borders, a bit shiny, red. Also, if the wood wouldn't be this saturated, the effect would probably stronger.
(only in part, works well because of the small area in focus, the line to it and the busy blur, which creates the illusion of more DOF than there is)
(only in part, relies heavily on blur, so mostly "pop")
This is 3D Pop to me, but it could be better. There's a very good transition from sharness to blur on the ground. Also there are different objects visible at different distances from the sharp parts which create some form of layers. Still, it would work much better, if the subject itself were completely in focus (which would only work if it were smaller, obviously - without changing the blur on the ground). Also the strong colors on the ground work against emphasizing the subject against its surroundings.
(only in part, also relies on blur - might be 50/50 for me)
I agree, this is more in the category of pop. The transition to the blur is too sudden. The only observable transition is on the dog itself (which makes it a mixed case, alright). The background is recognizable, but only barely so. Further back, no depth can be discerned.
As mentioned before there are of course lots of nice examples which rely purely on blur or a combination of blur + additional factors like colors, lines etc. It's generally pretty rare to see images with pure 3D pop and I don't think this thread showed many effective examples as well.
If you really draw a clear distinction between the categories 3D pop and pop, I think there are not many shots left which fall into the former... and of those the vast majority will likely rely on a strong use of color (like it has been explained here as well) or differences between bright and dark areas. And only after that lens choice becomes a defining factor... So in a way it's not surprising why there are no definitive answers.
For me personally it doesn't make sense chasing after that at all. I think the most effective shots are often a combination of different elements, including things like blur, elements of perspective etc.
I'll add some examples in another post.
I find this to be effective (also on the space shuttle, so no chromostereopsis there):
Space Shuttle (primeuser)
Also good, although subject too wide, not enough space around it. The rest is all very effective. Nice transitions around the subject:
Young woman sitting on metal chairs
I find this to be effective due to the transitions, this time as layers (Ice cream cup in front blurry), back also blurry and more strongly so as you go back:
Boy sitting in front of his ice cream cup
Pop, (no 3D): Not enough depth cues in the background. The young woman pops out of the blur:
Young woman, POP only
Quite effectuve due to the smoke, lowering contrast in the background, making the subject stand out more:
Boy with sparkler
Spiderman ticks many boxes on my list for effective 3D Pop:
very clear cut subject, perfecly sharp, colorful, red;
wall in front has some transition of sharpness from front (left) to back (right). Background is very blurry, but still recognizable.
Could be even better, if the background weren't so colorful and if there were more visible transition to the back.:
Spidey
This works well (even tough is leaves little space around):
Havanna (?)
This works well despite weirdly overworked colors and contrast (the very nice transition, wet and the shiny ground are helping, I think).
Boy on the path
...
--
TheOtherSideOfBokeh
