Re: Novelty, Saturation and good 3-d work... (long)

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd just like to point out that all of Dr. T's comments apply to photography
in general.  There is almost nothing that makes them specific to 3D.  One
has only to look at surviving examples of early photography to see that
early photographers pointed their cameras at anything and everything.
It took many years before the novelty of "fixing a shadow" wore off, and
some artistic standards began to evolve.  Even today, there are some
people who argue that photography cannot be "Art" because it is primarily
a mechanical process.  (Don't flame me, I'm not one of them.)

In fact I made a similar point recently about 3D movies, and how
Hollywood has never gotten past the "gee-whiz" stage of throwing things
at the camera (and consequently, the audience).  I said that they need
to forget that they are photographing in stereo and just make a good film.

I believe Dr. T's comments boil down to the same thing:  Don't let the
stereo effect be the raison d'etre for the picture.  Take excellent
*photographs*, and let stereo be an enhancement to them.  You should
be able to look at either half of the stereo pair and say, "This is an
excellent picture".

(Now, having said that, I must also say that, occasionally, it is fun
to break that rule and play with stereo for stereo's sake.  It can get
old fast, though, if it's all you ever do.  As is often said, you first
have to learn the rules before you can break them with impunity.)

All IMO, of course.

	-Greg


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