3-D Usage (2)

[P3D Paul S. Boyer <boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

O.K.!  O.K.!  Call off the gadfly swatters!
My posting on "3-D Usage" may have been a bit snooty
in tone, but what I said about the sociological
function of terminology is nonetheless true.  And I
did tried to recommend a kindly approach to new
stereographers.

In general, the cognescenti *love* explaining their
expertise.  Many times I have benefited greatly
from this perfectly human love for demonstrating
competance.  In the computer world, all one must
do is approach a guru with the proper respect
(smiling and bowing helps, with a few references to
ones own humble knowledge) and you will be
innundated with very valuable advice for which
you would have to pay dearly at seminars and
schools.

Now, very rarely one may come across an isolated
enthusiast who produces surprisingly good work --
but this is a very unusual phenomenon.  I love it
when it happens, because it demonstrates so
nicely what an individual can do.  My experience
has been that most workers in isolation produce
mediocre results, and miss perfectly obvious
tricks well known among the general community of
the hobby.  Mismounting of stereo slides is almost universal
among people who have not bothered to read on the
subject, and without guidance it is not easy to find
good descriptions of mounting technique.  Not many
loners are likely to come across the right
references, or be lucky enough to find a copy of
the Stereo Realist Manual.  I know a fellow who
started by stapling his slides in their mounts!
(It doesn't work.)  His work suggested that the
concepts of focus and exposure were unknown to him.
Without criticism, he was without any standards
for comparison.

Most beginning stereographers I have
known are rather poor photographers to begin
with, and just like everyone else, must learn
the vaguely defined esthetic principles of the
art, as well as the special esthetic principles
peculiar to stereography.  My experience in
photography clubs indicates that individual
performance quickly rises under the stimulus of
criticism, competition, and exchange of
technology.  It is very difficult for an
isolated genius to make do without such
advantages.

I well realize that in the modern world of
rampant relativism and deconstructionism,
there is (supposedly) no right way and no
wrong way.  If carried to the logical extreme,
such schools of thought mean: no communication
is possible.  I think, on the other hand, that
all communication rests on consensus, and that some
stability in meaning is essential.  That is why I
would resist (within reason) imprecise terminology.
Of course, I can't *force* anyone to conform with
my ideas (nor would I wish to).  You can call
a stereoscope a "microscope,"  or anything you
wish, if you really want to.  But don't
blame me if I then draw certain reasonable
conclusions, such as that you don't know,
can't comprehend, or don't care whether I
understand what you are saying.

--Paul S. Boyer  <boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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