Re: The rise and demise of 3D

[egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx (Eric Goldstein) To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

At 9:08 AM 1/28/96, PHOTO3DGUY@xxxxxxx wrote: (snip)
>Just what does "serious" medium mean to you; For it's far more technical, complicated, demanding and an art than standard flat imaging. 

Stand back, I'm off my medication. :-\

No offense meant to anyone, but I just don't see your argument here. Stereo is not "far more technical," nor complicated than plano photography. Neither is it vaguely more technical, nor complicated. Most of us have grown up with and cut our personal/professional teeth on flat, and so have to re-learn stereo. But if we all started out with stereo, there would be no reason to assume that we would somehow face a greater, more complex challange. Look at it this way: if you took twin children, and started teaching one to be a 3-D photographer and the other a flat shooter, on what basis could you agrue that one of the children would face a greater challange than the other? If we were teaching one of the children color photography and the other b/w, or if we were taughing one still photography and the other videography, which one faces the more difficult task? 

In fact, I'd suggest that since the stereo medium is more cognitively familiar and intuitive, it would be the "easier" of the two mediums to learn to master.

And I _really_ take exception to the notion that stereo is more demarding than plano as an art form. This is akin to saying that oils are more demanding than watercolors. Or than the stereo recording engineer faces a tougher challange than the mono engineer. Ted P. makes the point well: 

At 8:19 AM 1/28/96, TPapoulas@xxxxxxx wrote: 
>While I don't disagree with the comment that 3-D "more faithfully preserves the information in a scene" (and I am an avid 3-D enthusiast), I don't think it's fair to broadly state that 3-D photography is superior to 2-D. To me, that's the same as saying color photography is obviously superior to black and white. If you look at 3-D photography as an art form, not just a means of gathering more accurate information about a scene, then it is neither superior nor gimmicky. Many beautiful photographs that are powerful in 2-D by using the relationships of shapes, light and depth of field would would lose impact if you added depth. Would all black and white photos be better if you added color? I don't believe that.

>I love 3-D photos, but there are many ways to create images and none is inherently "better" than another.

Well said. Can't think of a thing to add, except to say that for scientific, research, or demonstration purposes, I can see where the 3-D medium might be more "useful" than plano in some applications and for some purposes. But if we're talking artistic/expressive, commercial, or even archival/educational, I think it's hard to argue than one medium is superior to the other from an artistic/expressive POV. 

More a discussion of the practicioner than the practice, IMHO. In other words, one particular photographer might have superior skills or a preference for a particular medium, but that doesn't make it "better." 

Ok. I feel better. Back off the soapbax, on the meds, etc, etc, etc. 

Eric G.
egoldste@xxxxxx



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