Are Digital Prints Two Dimensional or Three?

[tgtaylor]

This is not meant to start another digital vs film flame war among pundits of one or the other. Instead I am hoping for honest, informed and unbiased feedback from those that have meaningful experience with film and digital imaging and printing.

In a discussion on one of the digital photography forums earlier this year it was maintained that the printed digital image appeared flat and 2 dimensional when compared with a film print whether it was printed digitally or not. This opinion appeared widely shared on the thread with some speculating that the 3 dimensionality of a film print was due to film's multiple layers. Since reading that thread I have noticed film manufactures advertisements touting the 3 dimensional aspects of film images along with a new 4th layer.

Are prints from digital cameras truly two dimensional?

[Eric Woodbury]

Any 3rd dimension is in the mind of the beholder.

If there are more than 2 dimensions, then I suggest that they are not related to space so much as emotional response to an ineffable quality within the print. Such qualities can exist in many printing techniques, not limited to digital, negative, offset, carbon, etc.

[Walter Calahan]

They're all 2-D.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

Strictly speaking, you wouldn't be able to see a 2-D object because it would have no depth. A print has a very small depth, but it's there.

As to the question, I have seen crummy prints from both digital and film sources, ones that had a "flat quality" to them. "Flatness" is not inherent in technology. I tend to prefer film photography and darkroom prints, but I have seen plenty of photographers with stunning vision shoot using other types of technology.

[Gem Singer]

A flat print is a two dimension object whether printed optically or digitally. A skilled printer can create a three dimensional look to a print on inkjet paper as well as silver gelatin paper.

Think of an optical illusion drawing with ink and paper. The three dimensional look doesn't depend on the type of paper or ink that was used. Some will see it coming out of the paper and some will see it going into the paper.

[Darryl Baird]

Skilled printers, using all print corrections, masks (real or digital), and particularly split toning can craft a print that appears to lift off the surface... like what Gem is saying. It's a perceptual thing and many artists take advantage of these tools... not just photographers.

Another attribute is the apparent focus and amount of sharpness rendered by all the usual photo-suspects: depth of field(dof), focal length, aperture shape, lighting, and subject matter. We (socially speaking) have developed a recognition for what I'd call "photographic-vision or photographic-language" and understand that lenses produce a version of our visual world we recognize and decipher. Their sharp/soft areas get competed by our mind's eye. An example is a round object like an orange, if you have just enough DOF, the whole things will be wonderfully round or three-dimensional to the eye.

That said, I think the original makes a difference too. I prefer film negatives and digital prints.

[Preston]

"A skilled printer can create a three dimensional look to a print on inkjet paper as well as silver gelatin paper"

I think this is a key statement. I have seen side-by-side inkjet prints of the same neg on identical papers where one looked 2-dimensional, and the other looked decidedly 3-dimensional. The better looking print had a tactile quality that the other lacked.

Upon closer examination I noticed that very small changes in contrast was what created the difference between the two prints. It was quite illuminating, and a very worthy goal to pursue in my own work.

-Preston

[SergeyT]

Here is the basic formula for photoshop users:

Stretch + Oversharpen + Shrink = 3D

[Mark Barendt]

The difference isn't in the media.

"Separation" with DOF and/or lighting is one factor, another factor can be having the same viewing perspective of the print as the lens had of the scene.

i.e. My dentist has photos that cover the ceiling above the chairs. In one room the photo was shot with a long lens and it looks flat. In another room the photo was shot with a wider lens, probably at the wide end of "normal". The field of view the camera had creates a 3D feel for that print in that chair, the viewing distance is perfect and people who sit in that chair feel like they could walk into that scene.

[Steaphany]

This thread comes close to home with me, since my dSLR, the Sigma SD14, also produces images with a 3D feel. What Sigma enthusiasts have come to call the "Sigma Look".

The basic failing of most digital cameras is the Bayer color mask applied to the imager. Typically, when employing red, green, and blue, dyes, there are twice as many green photosites than red or blue. This means that the resolution varies with color. Additionally, most Bayer masked cameras have an antialiasing filter in the light path which amounts to a soft focus filter. It reduces the stair step Moiré patterns at the expense of image clarity. Since a Bayer imager does not detect all colors at every photosite, sophisticated software interpolates what the missing colors "should be" at any particular location.

Now compare this to film and the SD14. Yes, the SD14 and film can be classed together since they both detect color images by recording the contribution of all primaries at every photo sensing location. Both employ a stacked architecture where the specific primary colors are detected by layers. Neither have any need for an antialiasing filter nor is their any need to calculate missing information.

A distinction between film and the SD14 is resolution. Despite the advertised imager size of 14 MP, the SD14 only has 4.7M photosites. The 14MP comes from counting the three layers of the 4.7M photosites. Since many high end cameras now claim to greatly exceed 14MP, this means resolution is not the source of the Film or Sigma Looks.

A while back I found an article which describes an investigation into the SD14's imaging performance compared against the Canon 5D and 20D which explains the factors which contribute to photographs possessing a quality where they are perceived as 3D, having the look and feel of a film photograph:

How does the SD14 stack up against high end cameras like the Canon EOD 5D?

For anyone unfamiliar with the SD14 or the photographs produced, here is a gallery on Sigma's web site:

SD14 Sample Image Gallery