• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

Photo Assignment #63: Two-dimensional (COMMENTS)

Forums New posts
bigboy292000

bigboy292000

0
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
707
Reaction score
30
Location
Frisco
This assignment will challenge you to look at the world in two, rather than three dimensions!

Most of the times, when doing photography, we strive to show a scene that has deliberate “depth” to it. We use depth to try accurately represent the world around us and make it more real.

For this assignment, you should look for and capture something that looks “flat” or “two-dimensional”. The object / scene do not need to be an actual 2D object (like a drawing) but your goal should be to show very little of the “depth” of the subject being photographed. Think of it as making your capture look like a canvas itself.

Two wheeled content is not required for this assignment.

Camera phone, point & shoot, DSLR, or even film; all shooters are welcome. For this assignment there are no limitations on photographic techniques or post processing. Do keep in mind that the creativeness and technical execution of the photograph will count far more than any computer magic. All forum posting rules apply.

Your photograph has to have been taken between now and & Monday, August 29th at midnight.

Some examples of what I have in mind:

Subject that is rather “flat” by itself:

2d_1.JPG


Using back-light to make the things look “flat” (silhouette):

2d_2.jpg


Shadow-playing:

2d_3.JPG


Have fun! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
can't see your photos. :(

this is going to be hard to keep that 3rd dimension out and still keep it interesting.
20110716-DSC0050-M.jpg
 
Tracker said:
can't see your photos. :(

this is going to be hard to keep that 3rd dimension out and still keep it interesting.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... on photos, can you see them now? Not sure why they would not be visible. I tried few browsers and they all show? :eek2:

On the challenge itself - I realize it is a bit different. The "2D" appearance is something that you'd have to specifically look for, or create yourself (as my samples 2 & 3 show).
 
:shrug: no love with live.com links. stripped out and manually tried, says page not available.
 
Interesting.... Using Firefox, if I try to the copy image location and paste it to a url box and hit enter, it saves the image to my machine. If I try to "view" the image at it's root address, it too saves the file to my machine. Yet it displays properly in the thread.
 
I've come to the early conclusion I think in 3D. I just can't get my head around a 2D concept. I've scouted my 'sources' and see what others have done, but it's just not clicking. Hmmm......:doh:

Maybe that's why I shoot/prefer aperture mode 99% of the time?
.
 
BTW, there was a service disruption today in Skydrive for a few hours so for those that had problems viewing photos - no, it was probably not your computer, eh... the internet tubes were clogged! :D
 
M38A1 said:
I've come to the early conclusion I think in 3D. I just can't get my head around a 2D concept. I've scouted my 'sources' and see what others have done, but it's just not clicking. Hmmm......:doh:

Maybe that's why I shoot/prefer aperture mode 99% of the time?
.
Click to expand...

:)

Here, I dug up another shot that I think illustrates the general idea:

While the subject was obviously NOT "flat", under-exposing the house roofs almost took the third dimension out of the picture. You may accomplish the same effect by editing the photo (post processing - if you do not know how to / can not underexpose) - but the idea is the same.

2D_4.jpg


In this particular shot, I was playing with the concept of rooftops playing the role of "far away mountains" against the dramatic sunset color. I am still not sure if it worked well but there you go. :)
 
OK, digging through archives, I found these... Are they on the right track?

#1
1221564404_FAWUF-L.jpg


#2
DSC0578-1-L.jpg


#3
1024478250_G7FaA-L-1.jpg
 
so BB, we need some feedback on what's been posted.
#2
986919234_RV9Fj-M-1.jpg


#3
20110716-DSC0007-M.jpg


#4
20110716-DSC0030-M.jpg
 
I feel like #1 and #2 posted by M38A1 definitely fit; the shot of the moon, for example, was taken when full, which makes it appear "flat" (no edge that shows "3rd dimension"). Photo #2, while obviously showing a 3D world, has an almost "canvas" feel to me. The photo #3 though has a distinct 3D feel for me, I guess due to the light spilling over the wall at an angle.

Also - photos #2 and #3 posted by Tracker also definitely hit it, but I feel #4 does not, as it shows "depth" behind the window. In fact, both of those show how the texture/color alone can carry a shot, without the 3rd dimension feel.

Hope this is starting to make sense. :)
 
Technically, all photos are 2D, so I assume you mean deliberate representation of flatness from the creative standpoint. Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?


A painted wall in old-town San Angelo:

wall001small.jpg


Filming a commercial a few weeks ago:

IMG_2442.jpg
 
Tim Kreitz said:
Technically, all photos are 2D, so I assume you mean deliberate representation of flatness from the creative standpoint. Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Yup! Your second example though still comes through with a lot of "3D" feel in it, but your explanation of the idea is great. I guess I did not express it very well. :doh:
 
Let me try explain the thought process here a bit:

The main point of this challenge is to try separate what you "know" from what you "see".

Here is what I mean:

Let's say you are under the incredebly starry and clear sky, with great visibility of it all. You are taking it all in and have that "geez, I feel small" feeling.

Now - if you took out frames of referece out of the space around you, so you viewed only the section of the sky (like in a photo frame) - then, suddenly, the view of the sky looks "flat". Even though you know it is space (light years of it) - what you actually seeing is essentially "flat" from your viewpoint as there is no frame of reference to give you that 3D feeling.

Hence the separation of what you know and what you see in front of you.

Take the above example of bike silhouette. You know it's a bike (a 3D object) with sky behind it. But because the photo has been under-exposed as it is - the "3rd dimension" of the bike was essentially "flattened". So what I see here is more like a 2D object even though I know it is not.
 
I like the challenge; it's just a tough one. It's really easy to cross over into that 3rd dimension, even with a relatively 2D. The red/black tile is on the fence for me because of the texture of the grout/tile. The window sign, given a different angle might work similar to Tim's wall mural.
Anyways, for me, it'll be a lot more mental pre-prep to come up with the concepts to try an execute.
 
Tracker said:
I like the challenge; it's just a tough one. It's really easy to cross over into that 3rd dimension, even with a relatively 2D.

Anyways, for me, it'll be a lot more mental pre-prep to come up with the concepts to try an execute.
Click to expand...

Ditto.... This one is certainly a challenge to everyone. Don't let that run everyone off though. Work with it as I'm also interested in how this one develops.

And Gary, you're right. The prep/planning will be the difficult part. Execution not so difficult. (well, in theory.....)
 
OK, this might be backwards in that it still has a 3D look, but it's on a flat 2D plane. Misses the mark, right?

801958473_r4qcn-L.jpg
 
M38A1 said:
OK, this might be backwards in that it still has a 3D look, but it's on a flat 2D plane. Misses the mark, right?

801958473_r4qcn-L.jpg
Click to expand...

I am conflicted about this one personally. LOL - see how you get me in trouble with my own assignment? :rofl:

You catch me knowing that this is a flat surface but seeing a clearly 3D object in it (albeit, due to flatness of light, it is not very much so). So while it is different than the idea I had, it strikes me as an example of separation of perception of the scene (I feel it is "flat" due to knowing it is a mirror-like surface) and the scene itself (a building with the sky behind it).

Very cool!
 
Is this heading in the right direction?

It is Hen Egg mountain north of Terlingua. By day it has lots of folds and texture.

IMG_0542.jpg
 
I feel the first example from Fiddyone works. The second though - is a 2D object to begin with, right?

ed29 nails it. It is a 3D scene... I think. :) But what I see is 2D.
 
COOL! I get the concept. Question now is if I can execute it on purpose rather than by chance. It is very 3D in person. Here is the same mountain 'in a different light'. It is 7 miles of depth as the crow flies.

IMG_0568.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top