Hi, Friday, November 12, 2004, 3:43:06 AM, J. wrote:
> I think in that case "likelike" would be > a much better term because IMHO it is impossible > for any 2D image no matter how good to > convey the sense of real space 3D photography > gives you, even mediocre 3D photography.... > JCO 'lifelike' isn't precise enough for what people are referring to - it could mean other characteristics. While it's certainly true that the 3Dness people describe doesn't approach genuine* 3D, the term certainly conveys quite well what (I think) people mean. Artists have for years been able to convey a sense of 3D to flat pictures, using a variety of tricks or techniques, including all the usual suspects such as aerial perspective, converging lines and so on. The way painters treat colour, light, shade and texture can help to give a 3D effect too. I'm thinking especially of oils by Rembrandt, some of which have an extraordinary depth and tactile quality. There was a similar feeling to some Russian landscapes that I saw recently in an exhibition - I think the artist was called Shishkin. He produced enormous canvasses which make you feel as though you are in the Russian forest. Different colours have different effects on the way you seen things. There is a continuum from red to blue of forwardness and recension. Photograph a red flower against a blue backdrop, such as the sky, and the flower will really pop out at you, whatever the lens. I imagine some lenses are optimised in some way I don't understand to bring these qualities out. In any case, it is certainly possible for a 2D image to convey a very strong sense of 3-dimensionality. -- Cheers, Bob *it's not genuine, of course. It's an optical illusion, just as the 3D effects created by perspective etc. are optical illusions.
