Stereo Musings, my two cents.

[Mark_Poole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mark Poole)]

     There has been some stimulating discussion on "which format is better" 
     and the "Quick & Easy OK Results vs. the Toil and Trouble Superior 
     Results" methodology.  
     
     My personal Stereo experience has had many expensive mistakes, but 
     rather than pound my head into the wall, I try to learn from them.
     
     None of it has been easy - and I guess that is why I stick with it.  I 
     have had to work at it to get better.  I started out with a hand-built 
     twin-rig, and it has produced decent results.  I take 2x2x2 slides 
     with it.  I have discovered a number of limitations, and I bought the 
     Realist to see if it would fill those gaps.  I still plan to use the 
     twin-rig (I love hyperstereo) when I have time to set up and compose 
     landscapes.
     I will use the Realist for people shots.
     
     The twin-rig is much more complex, twice as many settings, worrying 
     about the IR trigger batteries and connections, etc.  It is also very 
     heavy.  I set the thing on auto-exposure with fixed aperture. But I 
     just send off my slides to be processed normally, and simply drop them 
     into a 2x2 "steal the light" viewer.  I can change lenses to get 
     different views.  I can also change the orientation from horizontal to 
     vertical, due to the 90 degree flip mounts I included in my 
     construction.  My twin rig is also into it's third iteration in as 
     many years.  I learn more each time I use it.
     
     The Realist is beautiful.  I love it's pragmatic simplicity.  I hate 
     not having a built in exposure meter, but I had an old Pentax during 
     my days as a high school yearbook photographer, so that's nothing new.
     The focusing is novel, the range-finder technique is a hoot.  I find 
     the two windows for viewing and focusing a little on the tiny side.
     I am getting used to having no autowind, and having to manually cock 
     the shutters.  The hardly audible click when I trip the shutter is 
     pleasantly disconcerting.  I am used to a lot of whirring during that 
     operation.  The thing is lightweight.  I feel like I can carry it 
     around without getting stares.  Film & development costs are cheaper.  
     Mounting is an interesting exercise, especially if you have cats.  I 
     have an old fluorescent light-fixture, a piece of translucent white 
     plastic, a pair of scissors, and some heat-seal mounts.
     
     My wife prefers the Realist shots, because I can get more impromptu 
     images of people in action. She likes people. I like people too, but I 
     also lean towards trying to emulate Ansel Adams (in my dreams).
     
     Which format is better? From what vantage are we to judge? The simple 
     answer is the one that has driven people to madness through the ages: 
     "It all depends..."
     
     Chicken Cop-out= Maybe I will be able to form a definative opinion 
     after I try a few more formats and then, after years of use in each, 
     set down to write my stereo memoirs.
     
     On to the second thread of this discussion:
     How do you get better shots?  You shoot some film, you look at it, you 
     scratch your head, you read some books, you do the hooky self 
     assignments suggested in the photo magazines, you use other people's 
     work as a stimulus to try something different, you enter contests, you 
     look at the expressions on the faces of people viewing your shots and 
     then you shoot some more film and look at it...
     
     I read in a recent National Geographic that their pros shoot literally 
     _thousands_ of shots for _every single_ image you see in each 
     magazine.  What is their secret? The luck of catching that single 
     special moment is enhanced by taking a thousand shots before and after 
     it.
     
     A relevant quote (which I forget the name of the author):
     "Chance favors the prepared mind."
     
     Oh, yes, what cameras do National Geographic Photographers take on 
     their assignments? The simple answer:
     "It depends on the assignment."
     They never take just one.  Some take at least a half dozen.  And they 
     modify their mix, based on the conditions they expect to encounter, 
     and the subject they are photographing.
     
     I can appreciate the arguments on both sides, but I have to lean 
     towards the "hard winding road" aspect of photography.  I have been 
     forced to learn more about this art, because I have seen what "good" 
     is and strive to reach for it.  Others might want something to simply 
     record important moments in their lives, and not deal with the hassle.
     
     I leave you with the "Star Wars Pop Version o' Life's Struggles":
     Luke- "Is the Dark Side stronger? "
     Yoda- "No, it is quicker, easier to obtain..."
     
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Mark Poole               |  Mark_Poole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
     The ants find kingdoms in a foot of ground -William Rose Benet 
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 


------------------------------