Good 3D vs. Clifford 3D

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>The 2D shots of the floor my 2yr old has taken is not [imho] a 
>>work of art.

>Yes, but if (heaven forbid!) your 2-year old were to die tomorrow, 
>those pictures would be incredibly beautiful. 

What would be incredibly beautiful and priceless would be my 3D pictures 
of my daughter and not pictures of the floor just because my daughter 
pressed the shutter!

Of course, if your name is Clifford L. Davis those pictures of the floor 
are pieces of art.

>I have taken random shots of anything and everything...without even 
>looking what I'm shooting. They come out rather nicely...

Anyone ("call me Cliff") who cannot distinguish between good and bad 
photography definitely has no appreciation for good photography.  Anyone 
who finds art in pictures taken in random, has no appreciation for good 
art.  In my books there is such a thing as bad 3D, very bad 3D, really 
really bad 3D, Clifford 3D (new category) and unviewable 3D.   One of 
the worse kinds is the boring one.  The one that makes you wonder:  "Why 
did this person take this picture and why is he showing it to us?"

IMHO and in Digest Mode, George Themelis


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