Re: The rise and demise of 3D

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

>What forces led to the demise of popular 3-d photography? 
>What led to its rise in the first place? 

These are loaded questions...  There is no clear answer but just hints of
what the answer looks like... Clearly 3-d is not for everybody.  Many
3-d wise men commented that a bad picture in 2-D is just a bad picture,
while a bad picture in 3-d is a total disaster (more than twice as bad!)

I like to collect 3-d slides from the 50s.  You should see some of the
junk that I find... Makes me wonder... Didn't they have waste baskets back
then?  The problem is that some of these pictures can give a nasty eye
strain.  I can see how 3-d got a bad name in the public's eye...

So 3-d is hard to do and it's bad for you when it is not done right.

The big question for me is this:  Is 3-d going to be popular again?
I am hoping for a steady growth this time.  Explosions are followed by
terrible lows.  Each one of us who enjoys 3-d has a responsibility to
spread the word around.  Stereo photography is not for every one but there
is certainly room for more people right now...

>Why only on my f22 shots?  Coincidence?

Yes, coincidence.  You have to remember the the leak does not show up in
the frame that you were shooting when the light was leaking, but before or
after, depending on the location.  Also the top and bottom are reversed in
the camera.


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