Re: prints vs. slides

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carole (cghon) writes:

>As a novice in pictorial 3d I am torn between prints and slides.

Believe me, I understand...  What you mention in your posting
are inconveniences when using Realist-format negatives.  Going
beyond the inconvenience factor, you still have to wonder which
system gives the best results for you.

Slides in 3D are different than slides in 2D.  Many photographers who
shoot slides in 2D use them either for projection or publication.
They use viewers to see the slides themselves but don't consider
the viewer as the instrument of choice to show them to others.
The final image is either projected or printed in a magazine.
In 3D the viewer is the instrument of choice for many.  When the
Realist 3.5 was introduced in 1947 there was only one camera
and one viewer and the film of choice was Kodachrome.  Projectors 
came much later and never became popular.  Most people today
still shoot slide film and view the results in a viewer exactly as
the system was originally designed and used in the late 40s, early
50s.

>However, I enjoy viewing the prints in one of the antique stereo 
>viewers I collect.  What is your recommendation?

Some people prefer prints for a number of reasons, nicely summarized
by Bill Walton in the PSA Journal and also discussed in this list.  
I am reposting my response to Bill's comments as they appeared in 
photo-3d on May of 1995 (digest 859).

I enjoy viewing antique stereo cards, but when it comes to 
capturing my own images my personal preference is slides for one 
main reason:  The incredible realism when viewing them in isolation 
via a good viewer.  Nothing comes close in terms of beatuty and
realism to a fine-grained sharp back-lighted slide, seen via a
pair of good lenses.  

George Themelis, whose2drachmas is actually less than one cent!


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