On Dan Shelley's misinterpretation

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dan Shelley wrote:
---
First, Dr. T... (Get ready, this is more emotional than normal...) re: Your
last note about other types of 3D work being novelty... I feel the need to
let you know that when I read your note, I was a bit insulted... How is it
that all other types of 3D (other than Realist) are not capable of being used
(thru hard work) to create truly great examples of 3D art? Everything else
does NOT have to be a novelty, and some of us work extremely hard to create
our own particular flavor of 3D. Cut us a little slack... We are not "WRONG"
just because we don't happen to choose Realist type slides as our media of
choice. It is one thing to have a personal favorite, it is quite another to
reject all others as insignificant because they are not your personal
favorite... (Back to information dissemination mode...)
-----
And Dr. T replies:

I have never seen such a gross misinterpretation of something that I said.  
Perhaps I should not reply now since I am very upset... I suggest that you 
go back and you read again what I wrote.  What bothers me is that I spent a 
lot of time writing this piece, trying to present a few thoughts which I 
believe are shared by others in 3-d, and then I get slapped in the face 
with the above TOTAL & GROSS MISINTERPRETATION.

The spirit of my previous posting was universal and had nothing to do with 
a specific 3-d format.  I never labeled any format as "wrong" or revealed 
any personal preferences in my writing.  I never said that other than 
Realist formats are not capable of being used through hard work to create 
great examples of 3D art.  That's what YOU read and it is totally wrong.  
And I would like to suggest that before you reply like this you take the 
time to read carefully and UNDERSTAND what you are attempting to criticize.

What I said is that every new technique in history of photography or in 
one's life is a novelty at first.  Realist slides were a novelty in 1947 
for the world and a novelty in 1988 for me.  And so were SLR pairs, close-
ups, SEM micrographs and, now, computer-generated images.  While the 
novelty is still on it is easy to get impressed by something less than 
great.  Mediocre work passes as good when standards are lacking.  My first 
Realist snapshots were seen, at the time, as masterpieces.

With time, novelty wears out and we then have saturation.  I am personally 
saturated with Realist slides and I am looking for the better quality.  My 
question (and this has nothing to do with any specific format) is how can 
we still produce quality work after the novelty wears out.  And my answer 
is hard work, and this answer also applies to each and every 3-d format.

Where did you read that I favor a specific format over the rest?  
Ironically, The two examples that I gave of Mark Wilke and Stan White were 
NOT examples of Realist format.  I talked about Mark's SLR hyperstereos.  
Stan is using SLR close-ups mainly of tabletops to express his imagination.  
The Realist has nothing to do with anything... I am involved in many types 
of 3-d photography and I am used to seeing the final results in a slide pair 
projected or in a viewer, that's the only common thread.

I do not know what kind of stereo imaging you practice (and I don't care to 
know, frankly).  If it is computer imaging it fits nicely with my work 
since it can be presented in slide film and it is being currently submitted 
in slide competitions.  Yes, it is still a novelty (note: "novelty" says 
nothing about the content) since very few people practice it, as compared 
to traditional photography, but it will get more and more popular as prices 
of hardware and software go down and power goes up.  More and more stereo 
photographers will choose to compose 3-d images in the comfort of their 
home sitting in a chair and infront of a computer.  No doubt that good 
computer 3-d imaging requires hard work... And I do not doubt that one day
I will be involved too.  And I do not doubt that my first attempts in
electronic snapshooting will appear to my eye to be masterpieces just like
the Realist slides were for me in 1988.

So Dan, please, next time try and spend more than a passing glance in 
something that I labored long to write, try and understand it and try and 
reply publicly with something more creative and constructive than the above 
nonsense.

A very upset Dr.T., a.k.a. George Themelis.

--
Please note my new email address: DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply to this address as I am trying to shift all my correspondence there!


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