2

This photo, a self-portrait by Will Burgdorf from 1930 strikes me as rather spectacular. I've seen and taken many portraits with shallow DOF, but do not remember it having this sort of 3D-effect. Can anyone elucidate what is going on here, and maybe how to recreate to? The photo can be found at Wikimedia Commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Will_Burgdorf_Fotografie_Selbstporträt.jpg

  • What 3D effect? I don't see any three-dimensional effect here. It's just a normal two-dimensonal photo with shallow depth of field and some creative lighting/posing/framing. Maybe you can describe the effect you are enquiring about in more detail? – osullic Jun 09 '22 at 00:10
  • Also, could this question about the Brenizer Method be of interest to you? – osullic Jun 09 '22 at 00:17
  • @osullic The image seems to have widely different effects on different people. I, and some (but few) others, see an intense 3D-effect, to the point where I move my head and expect the perspective to change. It's as strong as it is for 3D movies (the two I've seen, long ago) or 3D displays. – Matthias Winkelmann Jun 09 '22 at 01:03
  • What type of display are you viewing the image with? Some displays have subtle shifts in appearance when viewed from different angles. If the image each eye receives is different enough, the brain can interpret depth information. – xiota Jun 13 '22 at 02:40
  • @xiota Apple Pro Display XDR – Matthias Winkelmann Jun 13 '22 at 06:38
  • Close one eye and shift your view left and right, does the brightness or any other aspect of the image change? Also, does it still look 3D if you print it out? – xiota Jun 13 '22 at 11:13
  • Are you referring to the shallow depth-of-field? The very narrow range of "in focus" and the varying degrees of blur away from that narrow range will give your brain clues about depth -- reconstructing the 3D head. – L. Scott Johnson Sep 15 '22 at 12:11

3 Answers3

4

It’s magical when a two-dimensional flat photograph exhibits the illusion of depth. This is especially true when its deliberate based on repeatable skills. Many of the old master portrait photographers had such talent. Fortunately, this talent still exists but it’s rare.

This image owes its illusion of depth to its high contrast. Portrait photographers usually light the face with a lamp positioned high to simulate afternoon sun. If lit by a single undiffused lamp, the shadows cast go dark, void of detail. This yields “hard” lighting that gives the illusion of depth. Some subjects are enhanced as this can be perceived as very masculine lighting. On the other hand, most subjects are handled better by adding a second “fill light” that illuminates the shadows, so details come through.

The bottom line, the flat two-dimensional photograph can display depth if the lighting and perspective are well controlled.

Alan Marcus
  • 39,160
  • 3
  • 48
  • 91
  • I do agree that flat lighting can be counter productive to creating depth, and this isn't flat lighting. But shadows also go dark if lit by a single diffused source from a short distance; the shadows do not need to be "hard." And the lighting ratio in this image is really not that high overall (forehead/sides of face/background). – Steven Kersting Jun 08 '22 at 11:37
  • 1
    The shadows under the nose and under eyes are black void of detail. The lighting ratio for this effect is approximately 9:1. that's a main high to simulate afternoon sun and a fill four stops subordinate. – Alan Marcus Jun 08 '22 at 14:02
1

It's just short subject distance perspective; typically associated with using a wide angle lens (to allow the composition from short distance).

I don't have an example human portrait at hand, but I have this image...

enter image description here

Steven Kersting
  • 17,087
  • 1
  • 11
  • 33
0

It's mostly about lighting from an angle well off the camera lens' optical axis combined with a very wide aperture to get narrow depth of field.

Here the key light is fairly hard from above and wide to camera right, with much weaker and softer fill almost directly to the left of the subject.

In the case of this portrait, the effect is even more noticeable because the focus is somewhere between the tip of the nose and the lips, rather than the eyelids that are further away from the camera. There also seems to be a hint of tilt involved, as the field of focus seems to be slight further back on the right side and slightly further forward on the left.

Based on the date of the portrait as well as the appearance of this and other works by Will Burgdorf, it was probably taken with a large format camera. Most LF cameras at that time were what we now call "view" cameras with a bellows between the front lens board and the rear film holder. This allowed for independent control of tilt and shift movements of the lens. It may be that the slight tilt seen in this self portrait is intentional, but probably more likely that the camera was just not carefully adjusted to insure the lens board was exactly parallel to the film holder. Or it could have been that the film itself was not laying properly flat against the film holder.

Michael C
  • 175,039
  • 10
  • 209
  • 561