Realist

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis writes

>GETTING REALIST SLIDES DEVELOPED FROM LOCAL DEVELOPERS HAS NEVER 
>BEEN A PROBLEM!!! (sorry bob, i will not do that again! ;))

Oops my mistake. I assumed that from what I read in a recent post 
that this applied to slides also. So am I to understand that this
applies only if one wants to get prints from a Realist-format camera?

>Dear Gabriel... you are hitting a nerve of mine... For three
>years now I have been screeming and yelling that people spend
>too much money for cameras and no money for viewers.  They pay
>too much attention to a minor scratch on their favorite lens
>while they are using dim viewers with fogged lenses and 
>flickering light that cut off part of their 7-p images.
>Cameras are worshipped and viewers are totally neglected.  
>I am trying to change this... I have done a good progress until 
>now that you come to set us a few years back...

Sorry if thats how it came out but that was not my intention in my 
post. I do wholeheartedly agree with you in that people pay too
much attention to their cameras and not to their viewers.
What I was trying to say was that why should anybody buy
an old 50's camera for $100 when there are good albeit more
expensive cameras out there. I elaborated on that by stating that
if people can spend money on a good viewer then they can surely
spend money on a good camera, that's all I was trying to say.
I was not trying to conclude that people should sacrifice the viewer
at all. That was my point with the audiophile analogy but in 
reverse. In my post I state that people skimp on the speakers
which I implied is the most important part. Now the equivalent
is the viewer as that is obivious to any one concerned. I did
not think I had to be explicit on that point. We listen to 
the speaker insomuch as we see thru a viewer. Simple.
The relationship between the audio system and 3d was that
people tend to least look at the most important component
of their system, regarding 3d I was trying to imply if 
for people who care as much about viewers and skimp on 
getting the best camera and buy a 50's camera, this doesn't
make sense. I will repeat I did not want to insinuate
that the viewer is not the most important component, far
from it. So for all you people I hope that Dr.T's last three
years of excellent work educating people has not gone down the
drain. I hope this clarifies matters.

>You, my good friend, are a good example.  You are proud that
>you have modified a $4 VM viewer to view full-frame stereo
>pairs. And now you are telling us that it is a mistake to buy
>a $100 good stereo viewer before we buy a $400 FED camera?

Regarding my famous $4 VM viewer, I think you are attacking it 
unfairly and using it out of context. I am not proud of modifying
a simple $4 VM as it was a very simple thing to do and am sure
many of done this before and the reason for stating it was to
get other people's personal opinion and experience with doing 
this among other things to VM. Also all that my intention was
for modifying it was not to make it a $100 viewer, it was simply
to show how the use of the VM was changed for another purpose.
I never implied or said don't buy a $100 viewer before you buy a 
$400 FED.

>I have news for you:  You have not seen your own work at
>its best through this pair of small plastic single-element
>lenses.
>
>If you ever get into viewing 101 mm x 41 mm slides, do
>yourself a favor.  Go and buy a $100 red button viewer
>(or equivalent).  Or build yourself a viewer with
>achromatic lenses.

Actually I have viewed my work with multi-lens loupes. I did not
like what I saw. I prefer to use the $3 viewers because my work
is not that great. Seriously speaking as I have mentioned in 
a previous post I have "expensive" loupes that I used for 
for my other famous modification for viewing VM reels. These
loupes were intended for examining 35mm positives and they are
better quality than you run of the mill full view 3d full frame 
viewers. So I have examined my work with them. Problem thou is
that they don't have full coverage of the 35mm positive. (I know
there are hi power loupes that can but they are prohibitive in 
price for me at this moment) So I use these 35mm multi-lens loupes
to view 16mm or so VM reels!

>"If you think about it, a stereo viewer is the most often
>used piece of stereo equipment  that we own.  We only use the
>stereo camera once to take a picture, but we use the viewer
>a dozen or more times to view this picture and share it with
>others. Given the special place of viewers in the enjoyment
>of stereo photography, it is surprising that very little has
>been written about them.  Most people take them for granted.
>The underlying assumption is that a viewer is a very simple,
>easy to use device, that requires little or no care...."

Very nicely put.
One more thing, my intention is not to offend anybody and I respect
peoples opinion on the Realist. I have nothing against it but
what I do find unsettling is the general 3d approach of looking
at the past and not at the future. I know this is going to
open another can of worms, but my intention here is to open topics
for discussion only. I will state my opinion on this another time.
I hope this clarifies matters a bit and sorry for the confusion.

Gabriel, your half Greek friend. -) Going to sleep.
jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   







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