Bad 3-d vs bad 2-d

[erker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Erker)]

George wrote:

>  I went through them and was amazed by the low
>quality of the 3-d photography [in the 50's slides].

  The average non-photo buff's photo album may not
look a whole lot better. If you looked you would find
a lot of badly exposed prints (many due to the processing,
but were not re-done), heads dead center in the photo
with lots of head room above (and feet cut off), and blurry
shots from camera shake or using the camera closer than it
can focus [I've seen a lot of baby photos like that.]

  My wife and I get a lot of complements on our 2d
photos (prints). It's mostly because we throw out the
blurry ones and make the lab reprint the too dark or
too bright ones. Some people never throw out any
unless they are totally black.

  But 3d does give you more ways to go wrong: Slides that
are under or over exposed can't be corrected in printing.
Mounting allows for the psuedo, mis-alignment and other
errors that George mentioned. Out of focus areas are
okay or desired in 2d but usually wrong in 3d. Too much
deviation in the image (closeup and infinity in same
shot). Etc etc etc.

  Maybe we can say that a good 3d is better than a good
2d but a bad 3d is much worse than a bad 2d. A bad 2d
shot usually won't give you a headache from looking at
it, but a badly shot or mounted 3d certainly can. And
most non-buffs are bad photographers.

Greg (keep the list the way it is) Erker



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