Re: Serious 3D and mailing list trivia

[Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Do any of you think the 3D medium will move into the more "serious", 
>"professional" realm?  It seems to me that all uses of 3D these days are 
>"gimmikie" (sp?), which might prevent today's serious 3D photographer from 
>thinking about entering the field.

Commercial uses of 3D have ALWAYS been "gimmicky". Much as I love it, I have to
say that the whole field of 3D photography is largely dependent on its "gimmick"
value. In our daily lives, we don't really recognize our vision as being
binocular. We don't think about depth, and therefore don't really consciously
"see" the depth in front of us. Only when we look at something as unusual as a
3D picture are we consciously aware of the depth. But after a few minutes of
acclimation, we quit thinking of the pictures as having depth unless that depth
is being exploited somehow--in other words, being used as a "gimmick".

On another matter entirely, I can't say I'm too pleased with the new
"mini-digest" mailings which are coming about twice as often as the old digests.
I keep puzzling over these messages from a few members who seem to think that a
30,000 or 35,000 byte digest was some mammoth, unwieldy monster that filled up
their hard disks and took hours to read and I wonder what the hell they are
talking about. A one-a-day digest is just about perfect, at least for me. Now
they're coming at me two and three at a time (doubling or tripling my E-mail
cost to receive them). I'm not kept any more current on discussions, and I'm
finding it harder to read and coordinate thoughts since I have to jump back and
forth among digests much more than before to find and follow threads. Please
consider going back to the one-a-day digest!


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