Is Realist the " Ultimate " ?

[P3D Sam Smith <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yet again I hear another praising of the almighty Realist. First time
Stereographers must feel a little inferior if they to don't have posession
of this legendary camera. But how about a view from the other side for a
change, those who don't use Realists and are PROUD of it?
Any time there's a discussion regarding the Stereo Realist and it's 5-P
format, certain biases seem to come into play. There's no doubt to it's
popularity, availability, quality optics, and reasonable price. It's
certainly the camera I strongly recommend to anyone starting out in 3-d
photography. But is it the best camera and format for you?
The answer to that will depend on many factors, and some of those factors
seem to have been lost in recent discussions.

1. Do you want to buy a brand new camera, or are you willing to trust your
photography with a used camera that may be 40 or fifty years old? Those of
us with a mechanical background, or those with easy access to qualified
stereo repair technicians have no problem with a used camera. But if you
want a new camera with some type of limited warranty, your choices are few
more limited, as there are NO 5-P REALIST FORMAT CAMERAS CURRENTLY BEING
PRODUCED that I know of. There's the 7-P Stereo Fed, which is now readily
available fully tuned and serviced, the spectacular RBT creations, a few
lenticular cameras of mixed quality, and the questionable Loreo.

2. How much are you willing to spend? If you only have a passing interest,
or simply don't have the cash to invest, again the Realist and it's many
copies are  certainly the best bang for the buck. Vintage 7-P cameras are
ridiculously priced today, due to the fact that there's not enough of them
to go around. But one thing always seems to baffle me. If so many standard
photographers ( I call them the "one-eyes" ) have no problem forking out
thousands of dollars to take nothing but a few vacation pictures, why do so
many Stereo Photographers cringe at the thought of spending more than $ 200
on the tool of their trade? It seems they've been spoiled by the remnants of
the 50's boom. They don't seem to realize that those in the 1950's had the
pay the equivalent of many weeks wages to buy those same cameras. I see no
reason why you wouldn't expect to invest the same amount in stereo
photography as you would conventional, as there are disposables right up to
professional models in 3D as well.

3. WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE? This to me is the most important
question of all, for if you're not going to use a camera that suits your
needs, the end result will just be a lot of frustration. I have long thought
of the Realist as being a good " People " camera, due to it's slightly
vertical format. But after seeing some excellent stereo portraits done by an
RBT, with it's zoom lenses and razor sharp detail, the Realist just doesn't
compare.
But what if you prefer to take scenics? Surely there are scenics that look
spectacular vertically, but most of my shots are far better horizontal. At
least with horizontal format you have the option of cropping vertical, even
if it means wasting a little film. 

4. Are you concerned about film grain ? If so, perhaps there is another
format you should consider: MEDIUM FORMAT STEREO. I don't care how great
your film is, any image that is greatly enlarged for viewing purposes will
show grain patterns in even midtones. Skies are particularly sensitive to
this. A properly photographed MF stereo image in a good ( perhaps home-made)
viewer make all other formats pale in comparison in terms of reality. Why?
DETAIL !

What about Lenticulars, Large format and Viewmaster ? They all have their
advantages which put each of them in a league of their own.

Yes, I admit I do have biases myself.

 I had been a Realist user for years, and was always pleased with the
quality of my images. But while I was shooting Angkor Wat in Cambodia, I
noticed that most of my framing was cutting off essential details at each
side. I needed a horizontal format, and cropping a 5-P image on the top and
bottom just produced garbage. I ended up building a 7-P  camera out of cheap
russian cameras, and because of this ended up with images I would never been
able to achieve with a Realist. After getting a Belplasca in 1993, my
Realist has never seen the light of day. I now have five 7-P cameras, and
all my realist-format cameras except my macro camera are just displays on
shelves.
Why should I use them, as there has never been a time since then where I
could have taken a better shot with the Realist instead of the Belplasca. If
I need vertical composition, I simply mask the 7-P slide in a 5-P window. As
for viewers and projectors, most require a minor modification to increase
the viewing size of the window, and if perfection is your goal, optics may
need replacing. So what? I'm willing to take the extra step toward
perfecting my craft, and not having things readily available just makes me
that more determined. 

In conclusion,price and availability are not the only factors in considering
what is best for you. There is no ultimate, only a lot of opinions. If
you're happy with a particular format, then by all means stick with it. If
you're still exploring, then leave the field open. I doesn't mean that you
have to invest thousands of dollars, but you will have to sift through all
the different opinions and decide for yourself. This opinion may only be
mine, I'm sure if I'm wrong some of you won't let it pass by unchallenged.

This is one topic I don't mind dragging on. 



Sam 



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1493
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************