B&W Stereo

[drdave@xxxxxxxxxx (David W. Kesner)]

>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?!

If you talk with any good B&W photographer (which I am not) I think you will
discover that 90% of the work is done in the darkroom. I have seen some
truely poor negatives turned into extraordinary prints. This is something
that is impossible with B&W slides.

Personally, I think the appeal of B&W is that you are drawn to the form and
texture of the subject.  With color you focus more on the subject as a
whole. For example look at a B&W of an old piece of barnwood. You see the
lines of the grain and the flowing patterns. The same shot in color you see
a piece of barnwood.  Now, of course if you shot a lush green field dotted
with bright orange poppies it would undoubtedly be better in color. If the
"right" subject is shot as a B&W slide it would make an outstanding stereo shot.

As one who has never entered a contest, are there seperate catagories for
color and B&W.  It sounds like there is no distinction for different
"formats". Does this mean there is little or no hope for a half-frame sized
slide ever winning?


David W. Kesner (no I'm not a doctor - just a nickname)
Boise, Idaho, USA
drdave@xxxxxxxxxx


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1209
***************************