Why the new 3D effect on Facebook is hurting your images

About three days ago, we started seeing a new gimmick on Facebook, images that appear to “move in 3D” when you scroll through them or move your mouse cursor over them. This is a parallax effect and it can be accomplished by providing Facebook with a depth map (e.g. “arches_depth.png”) along with the original image (“arches.png”). The two need to have the same resolution and the depth map needs to be generated in a way that close objects are white and far away objects are black.

: arches_depth.png

: arches.png

Depending on the FB groups you followed, you might have seen the effect explode on your timeline, especially if you are in groups where 3D artists meet. This makes sense, because with 3D software it takes a couple of seconds to generate such depth maps. For many this was a welcome opportunity to re-post their old work – with a new twist.

What do you want us to see in your image?

It took a mere 24 hours for the first voices to exclaim: “This is annoying as hell. Stop it!”. Stefan Kohler of RawExchange jokingly said: “It’s ageing like HDR did, only much quicker”.

I don’t think oversaturation is the culprit here. After all, it’s new, it’s fresh, it’s free! So why am I trying to convince people to consider carefully wether the new gimmick is good for their work?

Think about it. What is it that you want people to actually see in your image. Is it the story you’re telling with your image? Or maybe it’s the composition, the careful balance of the main elements in your shot or the colors that form a harmonious color scheme. Or maybe it’s the expression of the person photographed, captured in a genuine moment that moved you as a photographer. A good image always invites the viewers on a journey.

It takes time, willingness and focus to engage with an image as a viewer. And herein lies the problem. The new Facebook effect is, above all, a huge distraction. The effect generates a spike in pleasure hormones, that don’t have a direct relationship to the image content itself. And as soon as the burst recedes, boredom sets in and most people will move on to the next post. What you as the artist have failed to accomplish at that point is to provide the viewer with a distraction-free environment where it’s easy for them to be drawn into the image and discover its hidden riches.

Allow me to compare the situation to that of an art exhibition. A young painter presents his work in an art gallery. He has a genius idea and hires a group of distinguished modern dancers to perform in front of his work during the opening night. Of course this will attract many viewers, he thinks. And yes the viewers are indeed captivated by the dancers and flock into the gallery from the streets, even when they would have passed it by without a glance. But the crucial question is, did his viewers actually spend more time directly engaging with his images. Did he manage to invite them into his paintings, to explore and discover his work for its own merits? Probably not. He entertained them, but the entertainment hasn’t helped his core mission, to have people appreciate his work and to be able to actually sell some of it.

Is it ever a good idea to use this effect?

Please don’t misinterpret my warning. My only aim is to raise awareness about the impact of distracting your viewers. If you are perfectly happy with your viewers just superficially glancing at your image (with most of their attention drawn towards the parallax stimulus) then I see no issue here.

Also, nobody says that you can’t do both: First post the original and distraction-free version of your image and, maybe as part of a behind-the-scenes post about the project, then post a 3D version. Behind-the-scenes posts are a great way for you to show your perspective, your process, some close-ups, some impressions from the shooting or travelling to the location. It’s not the story of the image, but the story behind the image, and that can be very interesting too for the viewers.

About the Author

John Flury (Obsoquasi) is a photo designer and 3D artist living in Zurich Switzerland. You can follow his work on facebook, instagram or on his blog. This article was also published here and shared with permission.

Marc Stokes

3d using iPhone portrait images has been a thing on FB for many months
- Ian Brace
  
  There starting to update it for Samsung usage so maybe that’s why the increase, but I think there reading to much into it.
- John Andrew
  
  Stopped following one site as every post seemed to be this rubbish.
- Huge Dom
  
  It is now beyond iPhone, basically anything photo from any device, even old film photos could be turned into 3D so it has widely boarded the scale.
Mark Spoo

Well here is my 4 cents (inflation you know) STOP STOP STOP using social media as a “FREE” method to advertise. If you are relying on social media to pedal your photography you deserve to fail as a photographer. An IPHONE is a communication device it is NOT a camera!!!!
Ok I am done. Back to my hole.
Tomasz Brodecki

Or… You just don’t know how to use them in a compelling way, so you feel the need to berate the technology altogether and call it a gimmick?
- John Flury
  
  I mentioned one compelling way to use it at the bottom of the article. But go on, what ARE compelling ways of using it?
  - Tomasz Brodecki
    
    My favorites use the feature as the opposite of distraction — i.e. as means to add the kind of value that’s unachievable in regular 2D art, like Charles Barnand’s experiments with counterintuitive depth:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/facebook360community/permalink/832160130451263/
    Or Oat Vaiyaboon’s now-famous attempt to convey the breathtaking heights and depths of the cliff landscape
    https://fstoppers.com/originals/hacking-portrait-mode-create-3d-parallax-photo-facebook-189359
    
    Also, that brilliant example of a completely 2D, seemingly boring composition of repetitive rectangles that only becomes dynamic once viewed as 3D (which I can’t seem to find in my history ATM). Think of what it can do to top-down aerial shots that by now are almost cursed with being dull ;)
    
    Don’t mind my instinctive initial negativity, guess I got triggered by that sort-of-clickbaitish headline ;)
    - John Flury
      
      these are some very solid examples indeed and they even reaffirm what I said in the section “What do you want us to see in your images?”. In these images, depth is part of their core mission and depth is what the artists wanted us to experience. So yes, I agree, the effect serves as an enhancement here.
CanonMinolta

It’s a gimmick … kinda cute and fun for some photos
“But serious” photographers don’t use FB anyway, so who cares if it “ruins” images
- John Flury
  
  I know quite a lot of very serious photographers (as in: full-time, established, financially successful) who see it as part of their marketing strategy. I don’t think you can make such a blanket statement.
John Rupkalvis

The real problem is calling these unnatural animations “3D”. They aren’t. They are just flat 2D animations, often of subjects that normally would not be animated.
harveyj

Like ALL mediums/modes of display it has it’s uses that are perfect and the effect can very much enhance the image or scene. But not all scenes are enhanced by this I agree wholeheartedly. If you’re going to use the effect, use it with purpose.