Any suggestions on making awesome 3D photos?

Stereo pictures general talk

Moderator: alex

Any suggestions on making awesome 3D photos?

Postby skyemail » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:32 pm

I see many 3D photos on the Phereo website that are just breathtaking and wonder how they are created.

Certainly the tips for making great 2D images also apply to 3D... Things like having good lighting, good composition, holding the camera steady and getting the scene in focus are important for creating good quality 3D photos, but there seems to be more to it.

Are there some tips or tricks to improving 3D pictures that anyone is willing to share with the "amateurs" among us?
Thanks for any ideas you can share!
User avatar
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: Any suggestions on making awesome 3D photos?

Postby linuxluver » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:27 pm

Choice of context seems to be important. For me, a good 3D photo is both interesting as a photo / image and at the same time makes use of depth 'cues' well. It's beneficial to have various objects / elements in the photo at a variety of depths, but not so many the brain can't make sense of it - eg. a dense tree or bush - LOADS of depth variety....but often too complex to please the eye. At the same time, it's also important to make the inclusion of the 'connecting' depth cues (the line, the surface, the - whatever) look natural and not contrived. It's best if it is an organic and necessary part of the image. Easier said than done.

I'm no pro....but I have done some thinking about the 3D shots taken by others that I have admired.

On the other hand.....depth is the best "filter"...and almost everything looks better with the addition of depth information / comprehension. So I don't worry about it too much. A scene is a scene...and it's inherently interesting or it isn't. You may have noticed I often upload 20 or 30 images at once. Sometimes more. Some of them will be 'good'. Others I include just to provide additional context around the event or scene. In this case, the images aren't stand-alone...they are intended to be part of a set. Some good...some not as good as the good ones. But hopefully, as a whole, they are at least interesting for a curious person. To me, one photo doesn't tell the whole story about place or event. I prefer many images...and they allow me to build my own 'gallery' in my head for aiding in interpreting subsequent images in a same set or series. :-)

One other thought....if you can control the interaxial distance, you can take some interesting photos that will have depth in contexts where the human eyes would never see depth. Like the 3D image of the space shuttle contrail re-entering the atmosphere - comprised of two consecutive photos taken several (many?) kilometers apart.
User avatar
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:07 am

Return to General Discussion