Photographic vs. Computer skills

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

>Spending 70 or 80 hours at a computer console painstakingly applying minute
>alterations to a painting to create a second-eye view, as Lincoln did,
>seems to me to be the equivalent of spending a few minutes negotiating just
>the right angle on a high-rise building.

The way I see it, it is not the amount of time spent to create the image
but the basic question of whether this is photography or not and whether
the club or competition wants stereoscopic imaging or stereoscopic
photography.

>A competition is (or should be) judged on the skill and imagination of the
>competitor in choosing and rendering a subject, rather than on the subject
>itself, be it a national park, a family picnic, or a painting.

With computer programs being able to create an artificial image that can
fool the viewer into believing it to be a real image, the question is then
shifted from the subject to the skills required to produce the image.  Can
or should we compare computer with photographic skills?  It took Lincoln a
good amount of time and computer skills to create the image.  It is up to
the club/competition to decide if only the final stereoscopic image counts
or if the skills required to create it are important too.  Again, do the
clubs or competitions want 3d _photography_ or just 3d images and where is
the distinction?

>The feeling of several members was that the computer generated slides were
>simply not photography - they are graphic design.  (I agree with this. 
>There is little photography involved when you send your images out to a
>service bureau to be made into slides.)

Has the club decided that the competitions are open only to photographic
images?  Does the club promote stereoscopic imaging in general or does it
limit itself to stereoscopic photography?   I would like to know the answer
to these questions.  If the club does not have an answer because this was
not an issue in 1950, perhaps it is time to discuss it now.

>It's obvious to me that as computers and digital photography grows that
>these photos will have to be separated from the traditional photographs in
>competition, at least until the tools are so common that everyone has
>access to them and knows how to use them.

Even when this happens, it still might be a good idea to separate the two. 
This is not a way to punish computer 3d.  It is a way to allow it to grow
within its own area and allow traditional photography to survive.  It is
the same idea when photography is split into nature, pictorial, portraits,
etc., in many 2d competitions.  I am sure that one day I will try computer
3d.  I would not mind if these images compete only with computer 3d images.

But someone has to define what is traditional photography and what is
computer 3d.  Boundaries will certainly get mixed up and will need to be
redefined from time to time as technology evolves.

Regarding the power of computer and software, things are changing fast. 
Just compare my 8088 machine in 1985 with my Pentium machine today.  I don
t know what the state of 2D to 3D conversions is today but I am sure it
will be very different in 2007. 

George Themelis


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