Re: Judging "Real Talent"

[crowell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Crowell)]

At 11:01 PM 3/3/96, JValaVIDI@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>drab.  For those I had to stop and put on my "creative, artistic license"
>stereo glasses and look for something beyond the obvious in the image.  I
>generally couldn't see anything!  This kind of bothers me in a way too
>because I have a "weakness" for Black/White photography.  I usually spend far
>more time looking over a B/W image by the classic photographers (Ansel Adams
>et al.) than a full color one.  Can anyone explain why  B/W stereo doesn't
>give the same effect as a B/W planar image.  Or have I just not seen a good
>one yet?!
>

Well, one reason might be that in B&W you're going after more
graphic aspects of the image, which are less evident when things
are at different depths.  I mean, something that gives you a
simple, bold composition in 2D might be broken up by having bits
of it at different depths.

Also, it seems to me that a lot of what I like about B&W has to
do with capturing texture, which you already get in spades from
stereo.

I dunno, does that make sense?  Maybe the latter is actually an
argument for doing certain kinds of B&W shots in stereo...

-Jim C.


------------------------------------------------
Jim Crowell
U.C. Berkeley School of Optometry
360 Minor Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 642-7679
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



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