What Lenses/Techniques Produce "3D-like" Images?

[BruceSD]

.
I read plenty of articles on lens sharpness and bokeh; but what about "3D-like depth"?  What lens(es) do you own that to your eye create subject/background depth that makes the subject look as if it jumps off the page?

Also, does technique play a part in creating images with such depth?  I would not be surprised to hear that greater depth can be achieved by using: certain apertures, subject/background separation distance, and even subject illumination.

Personally, I've found that I achieve my best depth when using short, fast, premium telephoto lenses (85mm - 135mm), AND by capturing multiple shots of the same scene that I merge in post into a single "Brenizer Bokeh Panoramic" image.   

Here's a link to my Flickr group with many examples  -  https://www.flickr.com/groups/4202848@N22/pool/  .     While I can achieve good 3D-pop with a single capture; I find that the depth is elevated to another level through the use of the Brenizer method.   See my friend Ed Noble's website (https://www.edwardnoble.com/bokehpano) for an excellent tutorial on this technique.

Here's links to five Bokeh Panoramic images with a crazy amount of 3D-pop  -   
 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/patjakub/52035965800/in/pool-4202848@N22/                 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steven_hight/14366503344/in/pool-4202848@N22/ 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steven_hight/26331371894/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steven_hight/25472829905/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steven_hight/24421183213/in/dateposted/   

[Birna Rørslett]

Many of these examples are tiresome to the eye. They confer something 'unnatural' to them. Large-format photography didn't impart the same response for me. And I did quite a lot of 4x5" photography in the old days.

[richardHaw]

they look like toys

[Ian Watson]

Unnatural indeed!

It is one thing to use visual cues to make the brain see depth in a two-dimensional photograph. These tricks go too far and the brain is not fooled.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Any talk about "3D pop" and usually "microcontrast" borders on the territory of pseudoscience.
It is usually about the separation between the background and the foreground, I think you nailed it with those samples.  They really do pop.
The problem with these photographs in my opinion is that they look almost uncanny, they certainly look unnatural.
It appears to be a fancy method of focus stacking.  I have used similar techniques to achieve this (such as my Olympus IOTY 2022 photo), I did not realise there was a name for this technique until now.

Needless to say, I will simply refer to it as focus stacking.

[BruceSD]

Thanks for the comments.

Each of image that I linked to above was a compilation of around 50 individual images.   I agree that they look un-natural.   Maybe a 50 image Brenizer Bokeh Pano compilations are over doing it?

Here's a link to a "bokeh pano" of mine that I made from just 5 images.     https://www.flickr.com/photos/f2guru/48541178812/in/dateposted-public/           This one has better 3-D pop than my single image photos of this same subject; yet this 5 image BBP is not as un-natural looking as the 50 image ones are.   

Like many things, maybe this technique can be over done?  Maybe there's a sweet spot where the BBP images have the greatest 3D pop without looking un-natural.   I think that I'll experiment with this in the future, and hopefully find the number of shots that are the sweet spot for my gear.

[BruceSD]

Needless to say, I will simply refer to it as focus stacking.

"Focus stacking" is a completely different technique.  Not at all the same as BBP images.  Check out this link to read about what BBP really is  -  https://www.edwardnoble.com/bokehpano

[Matthew Currie]

I think in this case it's not focus stacking, but rather stitching narrow angle telephoto shots together to achieve a wider angle composite, which gives the effect of more blur owing to using a long lens at a relatively close distance. I find it a bit disconcerting because the focus falls off so abruptly, in a way that we're not used to at wider angles and longer distances, and it ends up looking a little like the exaggerated effect of a tilt lens.

I've seen some examples of this technique in which the extra bokeh effect seemed to work, by making an otherwise distracting background abstract,  but it seems in some here as if they're framed like environmental portraits, but with the environment doing little except to demonstrate the effect. A matter of taste, I guess, but I think this is a technique that does not lend itself ideally to complex and identifiable backgrounds.

[Akira]

It's okay as one of the technique for the expression, but that doesn't work for me.  I didn't like those "diorama effects" by tilting the bellows to create the extreme shallow DOF either.

[golunvolo]

The 105mm 1.4 does that. I found it out the hard way while taking some photos for a family. Wanted to aw them...something like this 3D effect came out. If it is what you want, you will find it there.

[Dogman]

It's okay as one of the technique for the expression, but that doesn't work for me.  I didn't like those "diorama effects" by tilting the bellows to create the extreme shallow DOF either.

"Diorama effect" is a good term for this.  I'm not fond of it but it could be effective when used in moderation with other, less modified photos. 

I like the look of many old lenses with abberations left uncorrected.  That's probably why I like B&W photography--the "old" look before color moved from an acceptable option to dominance.  Here's some recent dog photos.  The first with the 85mm  ƒ/1.8 Nikkor-H.  I've always like this lens.  It was one of the first lenses I bought when I started photography.  The second is with a recently purchased Carl Zeiss 25mm ƒ/2.8 FZ.2 lens.  I posted this shot before.  The CZ lens is noted to have curvature of field and soft borders.  It's not the sharpest of lenses I own, granted.  But I like how it renders. 

Can you see 3D pop in these images?  I kinda do but it's more subtle than the software-based results.

[Airy]

3D-pop is not measurable but can be felt every now and then.

I saw funny theories about that, associating 3D pop with leaded glass for instance. Boring, unfounded stuff comparing apples with oranges to make a point, the kind internet is full of.

My feeling (not based on serious statistical work): it is likely to happen on pics shot at rather wide apertures, with directed rather than diffuse light, and a physically deep scene, provided the lens is sharp and contrasty at said wide apertures. Colour contrast also contributes, helped by the fact that the eye "sees" different colors at different distances (bright red seems to be behind other colors for instance, or is it the contrary).

Optics emphasizing contrast (Zeiss lenses in general) may produce such "pop" impressions more often than others. Vignetting (often high with Zeiss, again) may also contribute. Techniques for increasing the blur off-focus (tilt, etc.) are a different story.

[John Geerts]

Many of these examples are tiresome to the eye. They confer something 'unnatural' to them. Large-format photography didn't impart the same response for me. And I did quite a lot of 4x5" photography in the old days.

Yes,  overdone most cases which leads to very unnatural results.

The Brenizer technique works best, if you want to enhance your canvas for purpose of a better composition for instance.

[MEPER]

In the old days the classic Voigtländer Heliar lens was known for its 3D look and was used a lot for portraits.
I think the same was the case for the classic Apo-Lanthar.
I have one of each but have not used them that much. It is possible to adapt those to be used on digital bodies.
It could be quite fun. I am sure the uncoated old Heliar will give a vintage look like these images.
The 3D look seems to be there ?

https://www.dujingtou.com/article_24238.shtml

[MEPER]

Also some image examples here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.577407042752868&type=3&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22O%22%7D&paipv=0&eav=AfamtylZsobA6Yq3Ro6yZlioWzAjuQHU3uyDI2RzNoqvH2H9khnheQlPjIGQJXGJjFk&_rdr