3D, Technical or not?

[PHOTO3DGUY@xxxxxxx]

IF Stereo is not more complicated or technical than flat photography, 
THEN why are not more people engaging in 3D photography? 
Whether one art form is 'better' than another is not the issue.
I crawl around on the sandy desert floor at risk of encroaching on who knows
what to film tiny desert flowers in 3D using 2X2 format and slide bar
techniques with bellows and other attachments.  To me, obtaining a 3D image
of these little gems of nature IS more complicated and technical than taking
one single image for a flat photo. And the results are worth the effort.  I
enjoy very much being able to: a) see in the final results what I couldn't
actually see in person, and b) see the enjoyment others have who view the
images.   And it's nice sharing with others how it is done, instead of having
that "I can do something that you can't do" attitude. 
So I don't elude to placing 3D on a pedestal for pomposity, yet, when one
does go to a little extra trouble to make a superior 3D image, a little suger
(recognition of the effort one went to)  helps the medicine (cost of film,
cameras, travel expenses, gritty teeth from sand storm) go down.  
There are untold numbers of examples of  flat photography to which 3D either
would not add anything, or would actually detract.  Thus let the form fit the
function.    
Which reminds me of  the argument of whether a Subaru 4x4 Outback was a
better vehicle than a Lincoln Continental.  You can drive both to the front
door of the Ritz, with varying degrees of comfort. But just try driving the
Lincoln to the Sunset Wine and Cheese Party at Fonts Point in Anza Borrego
Desert (CA) through several miles of sandy washes.  Use the tool that
accomplishes the desired end results. 


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