[MF3D.FORUM:410] Re: fl/30

[Tom Deering <smile@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/4/00, David Lee wrote:

>> not everyone can see stereo errors (non-orthoscopy).

>I can appreciate your decision to use the same inter-lens spacing for every
>image, but you seem to be implying that non-orthostereoscopy is an error. I
>believe it is simply an artist and aesthetic question which is neither right
>nor wrong. Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who may be trying to
>figure out what to do for themselves, I will add my 2 cents by saying that I
>seldom use the ortho separation. I prefer to get a full range of depth in
>most images, just as I work very hard at getting a full range of contrast in
>my black and white images even though the scenes my be very low contrast in
>reality. (And I suppose that by definition a black and white image is not
>ortho -- is that an error too?)  Do these scenes look real? Certainly not,
>and in many cases I wouldn't bother with them if I could not make them look
>better (to me anyway) than real. This does not make it right, it is just
>another opinion for Bill and others to consider.

That's about the best treatment of this issue that I've ever heard.

When art and science collide, as they do in stereo photography, an 
otherwise artistic pursuit tends to attract many non-artists.  The 
composition and expression attracts right-brained art-types, while 
the precision and apparatus appeal to left-brained scientific-types. 
And we all like to make pretty pictures.

Rules may make artistic concepts more tangible for left-brained 
people, but art can only be partly understood this way.  For example, 
there's a rule for composition which states that the subject should 
lie along a line one-third from the edge.  As an aid to the 
non-creative mind, it's useful.  But that doesn't make centered 
photographs "wrong."

The scientific reflex to quantify and categorize is valuable, but the 
subtleties of art do not always lend themselves to this kind of 
thinking.

Tom Deering, a scientist