Skip to main content
C
Carolyn30638584axeh
Participant
June 21, 2023
Question

3D stills

  • June 21, 2023
  • 3 replies
  • 717 views

I'm a collage artist looking for a way to make my scanned images look 3D or layered in space. My friend suggested FCPX Photo Depth, which achieves what I want but I requires working with Final Cut Pro. This seems unnecessary since my end goal is a still image, not to be used for film. Any suggestions or tips?

This topic has been closed for replies.

3 replies

Trevor.Dennis
Community Expert
Trevor.DennisCommunity Expert
Community Expert
June 22, 2023

@Carolyn30638584axeh 

 

Hi Carolyn.  Can you show us an example image?  Maybe one of your images, and an example of the look you'd like to achieve.  Are you talking about shading with highlights and shadows to give the image depth?  Even a simple drop shadow can lift an image from its background.

    C
    Carolyn30638584axehAuthor
    Participant
    June 22, 2023

    Sure. So the best example I have is actually a 3D artwork of stacked images between layers of glass (see https://www.dustinyellin.com/projects/the-triptych) by Dustin Yellin. The second one is similar- it's an FCPX Photo Depth example, which brings an object forward. I want to achieve this dimensional work with my collages (see the sunflower as an example). I hope this makes sense!

    Trevor.Dennis
    Community Expert
    Trevor.DennisCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    June 23, 2023

    My goodness.  You are jumping right in at the deep end with those images, and there is absolutely no single click solution. 

     

    Three things come to mind when it comes to depth.  The near field is going to be sharper, either through the lens' depth of field, or the haze that covers distant mountains.  Near field objects might cast shadows on what is behind them, and lastly, objects might be lighter or darker according to distance, but this is arbitrary, so we can use it to differentiate near and far objects.

     

    This is quick and dirty, and exagerated for effect, I have tried to separate the image into three layers, and clipped curves layers to each of them to adjust how bright they are.  The nearest flower appears to be closer because it is brighter, and the more distant flowers have also been blurred.

     

    Anything more than a tiny tweak with curves can affect colour, so you set the blend mode to Luminosity to fix that.  The near field objects are at the top of the stack.  The raster layers (with the flowers in) have been made Smart Objects so you can fine tune the blur amount nodestructively.

      Peru Bob
      Community Expert
      Peru BobCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 21, 2023

      Moved from the After Effects forum to the Photoshop forum.

        Mylenium
        Mylenium
        Legend
        June 21, 2023

        What would AE or FCP do that you couldn't achieve with Photoshop? sounds like a weird idea, TBH.

         

        Mylenium

          Conrad_C
          Community Expert
          Conrad_CCommunity Expert
          Community Expert
          June 23, 2023

          Not sure about Final Cut Pro, but After Effects has been a go-to for this kind of work for decades. The key is that After Effects combines support for Photoshop layers with the ability to work in 3D relatively easily. It’s a quick way to achieve the second example of a parallax effect for a still image in video, and it can be faster to set up and more visually consistent across layers than tweaking the blur,  brightness, size, and perspective of each layer by hand in Photoshop. But what really drove me to After Effects for this over 20 years ago was that AE layers and effects are always nondestructive, and I really wanted to be able to make any change I wanted later. (This was at a time before Photoshop added Smart Objects, and even today, Smart Objects are still more awkward to use than natively nondestructive layers).

           

          In Photoshop, you split apart a photo into layers. Drop that layered Photoshop file into After Effects, which can create a composition timeline with the layers preserved. Enable the 3D switch for all layers, and stagger the layers back in distance by adjusting each layer’s Z axis property (which I do by dragging/scrubbing).

           

          Once that’s done, you just need to set up a Camera layer with the depth of field you want, and focus it on the closest object. That gets you automatic and realistic depth blur into the distance. Next, you add a Light layer, and now you have a light source across all layers that darkens with distance and can cast shadows. At that point, if you want a still image, you’re basically done, just export.

           

          If you want the animated parallax effect (very popular in documentary videos), you just animate the XYZ Position properties of the camera layer.

           

          The only problem is having to learn After Effects, which is not easier than Photoshop. It’s only faster than Photoshop after you’re already familiar with After Effects basics.

          C
          Carolyn30638584axehAuthor
          Participant
          June 23, 2023

          You may have persuaded me to get AE. It sounds like a round-about way of doing things but if you can control the depth and add light, that makes all the difference. 

          Do you think LinkedIn also has good classes for AE?

          Sorry for all these questions. 

          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
          Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices