Depth perception in photos and camera types

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

There are many ways to accentuate depth in an image... One easy way is framing the image such as using the branches of a tree to frame a landscape...

Of course, using a shallow depth of field, with only your subject in focus will give the illusion of depth in a two dimensional image...

Lighting can also increase or decrease the perception of depth. An example of this (but certainly not the only example) is using a hair-light to separate your subject's hair from the background...

As mentioned, using a wide angle or especially an UWA lens with a predominate subject in the foreground will accentuate depth as a long focal length will tend to flatten distances. However, a catch-22 situation is that the long focal length lens will normally produce an image with a more narrow DOF leaving the subject in focus and the BG OOF.

---

Thanks. Yes a a shallow depth of field increases the perception of depth, as well as the techniques you mentioned.
Regarding the wide angle lens I think that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a plain image not tricked out by specific lens. I leave 4 photos,

Looking for this,

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2422/...87b7763e_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7150/...a11c6d23_b.jpg

Not looking for this,

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3131/...2ff865c8_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3346/...7507dace_b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

As I read this I get the impression that it is a desperate attempt to justify getting the cheaper camera :)
But then I am biased against the DSLR and naturally chose an MFT as most suitable for what I do with photography where I try to emulate the style of creating a 3D look in a 2D medium where this is appropriate.
Actually my MFT is a DSLR in almost everything, it doesn't have a mirror, so my distaste is for what is known as a DSLR today and am grateful I do not have to use one :)

---

Just gathering several opinions before I buy another ****ty camera/ pardon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inkanyezi

I am afraid that you might have misunderstood the issue completely.
As I have stated before, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the camera.

There is nothing that makes a certain type of camera give you "more" depth perception; then of course it is also a question of more than what?

The impression of depth, or rather illusion, largely depends on lighting in the actual image.

Of course, you could go ahead and buy such a camera, but you wouldn't automagically get images of that kind with it, as the important factor is not the camera, but the knowledge to use it and the lighting. An image with similar perceivable "depth" could be taken with just about any simple point and shoot camera, even with a modern smartphone or a tablet, provided its resolution is just good enough. A large part of the impression of the image also is the post production treatment.

The clue is that you need to know how to accomplish what you want to do - not which camera.

---

Thanks

What youre looking for is composition. Having something on the foreground strengthens the feeling of depth.
George

It might be a good idea to get a book on composition like Michael Freeman's "Photographer's eye". Meanwhile google "leading lines", as these are present in the first two photos you like but are missing in the other two.

Hi Flok,

As George said above - it seems tae be composition rather than another camera ye should be looking at. Cameras don't produce depth perception, photographers do.

Ye can get depth perception from a £5 market stall camera...

http://i62.tinypic.com/15re0k0.jpg

from a 20 yo APS camera...

http://i62.tinypic.com/10nuz42.jpg

or an expensive camera body with a cheap lens...

http://i62.tinypic.com/k120p.jpg

It's not about the camera...:cool:

It is the old tram-line business and many people are simply attracted to the tramlines without bothering to think where they are being taken ... often nowhere if particular interest as is illustrated on all the tram-line images shown here. In the last I do not really think a couple of parked cars is interesting I often control my urge to take a tram-line picture because there is nothing at the end of the line ... perhaps I am over fussy in this respect.

Really, and said in the most kindly way, you need knowledge of how to take photos rather than another ****ty camera :)
Not sure what a ****ty camera looks like.
If you are keen on depth then buy another like you already have and set them up on a bar and get into 3D photography and play around with the base distance between the cameras for depth perception.
I wish there had been the web and sites like this when I started because I spent a lot of money chopping and changing gear to no great good :)
In passing I have heard judges adversely comment on unsupported foliage hanging into photographs :]

Three examples from my "B" list ... not shots I have used.
Not that much depth here but at least the foliage is supported ....St Bathins' Churchyard
http://i62.tinypic.com/p64q0.jpg
Blackhead Beach
http://i57.tinypic.com/4h5qgl.jpg
Expectation ... perhaps a tram-line shot but with all the faces looking at the near character and his dominance I think maybe not
http://i57.tinypic.com/2d7btbc.jpg
Trolley Derby
http://i59.tinypic.com/25fk7yq.jpg

All taken with my old Nikon 5700 bridge camera [ 35-280 zoom ] and none at less than 100mm equivalent lens to my suprise as I checked EXIF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

Three examples from my "B" list ... not shots I have used.

---

Thanks I understand what your saying. And your right about it.
Personally regarding the camera aspect of it I disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgGE3VH_LpE

My problem almost surely is regarding the lens 24mm, got to do my home work about it...

Big thanks!