Computers, 3D photography

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Davis writes

>All photographs are interpretations.  Even with the simplest equipment, a
>photographer exercise tremendous control over the appearance and impact of
>the image.  The chose of subject, lighting, composition, etc. are all key
>factors to the "look" and emotional impact of the photograph.  There's no
>getting around it.

>While I certainly don't endorse extending freedom of speech to cover libel
>or false advertising, nonetheless, I think that it is the responsibility of
>the audience, not the information provider, to develop critical faculties
>and to understand that all news, images, and information that are presented
>in popular media are tailored for effect.

I'll go one further on what Peter Davis says about all photographs are 
interpretations and say they are more manipulations of the facts. Photo
grahpy in the media is not to represent the facts but to back up a story.
It if has to be manipulated in whatever way, be it before or after the 
fact, digitally or traditionally, in 2d or 3d it's all the same thing.
This is a very complex issue and I won't go into detail here but the only
place you see a glimpse of reality and even then it can be said it is an
interpretation is in documenteries or snapshots! As for interpretations
you only see this in artistic expressions.

There was a classic example of manipulations here in Canada with another
famous case that I think people outside of Canada might of heard about.
This is the Karla Holmolka and Bernado trial. This is a couple that raped
and killed young girls and videotaped them. Of course this was a horrendous
crime and the media played it up for all it's worth. As in the classic OJ
mug shot, we had a picture and I know the people in Canada will probably
know which one I am referring to. This picture showed Karla Holmolka with
her head pointing slightly down but her eyes gazed upward. The picture made
her look really evil and this is the shot of her they used a good 40% of 
the period of the trial which was at least a couple of months. When I
discussed this with friends and relatives they mentioned that they
perceived her as evil and asked why? They mentioned her acts and the way
she looked. When I pressed them what picture they refered to they were not
sure but then after some probing they mentioned the picture in question.
Even my wife said she looked evil looking when we saw the picture of her on
the evening news. Now really folks, first yes she was convicted of these
horrendous crimes but did the media represent the facts or pictures
realisticly. No they played up that only picture and nobody that I know
commented that it was a blatant manipulation. I don't know if the public
is so ignorant that the media didn't even have to rely on any other
manipulations and used that one picture of her to portray her as the evil
incarnate. In closing I agree with Peter Davis that it is the publics
responsiblity to interpret more critically what is reported in the media.

Now getting back to manipulations in general. The discussion was should
digital photography compete with film photography. A few basic guidelines
would be what is the charter of the club that is organizing this. If it
is 3d film photography, then it can be argued different ways. One point
of view would be that if its in slide form it doesn't matter where the
picture originated from. It's a slide and if it was done in a service 
bureau, who cares, it's still a slide. Just like I mention in a previous
post, a slide of an oil painting is not an oil painting but a slide of one! 
Now how many people actually develop their own film in any case. Unless of
course as Dr.T mentions in the club rules it specifies that you have to
develop the pictures yourself, which he mentions is not required anymore.
The other way it can be argued is that the picture has to be an actual 3d
model of an existing object. This would rule out computer pics or art pics
unless someone cut up the Mona Lisa and made her into a paper mache sculpt-
ture! This would be simple enough to implement, until the day when you
can't tell the difference between a computer creation and reality, which
is coming much faster than most people realize. ((Remember Jurassic Park.
Well you haven't seen nothing yet! They are working with making new movies
with dead actors at this very moment. George Burns estate is being paid
$20,000 per minute of his appearance in a new movie. This will be more
common in the future.))
Now if the clubs charter is that it deals in 3d media similiar to P3D
then no one has a right to dictate what form the slide originates from.
It might be unfair to the traditional photographers but what about the
John Smiths with their plain Realist camera and viewer with no fancy
equipement, such as dark room and projectors with silver screens. Sure
the equipement alone doesn't assure success but put two people with
equal talent and lets see who triumphs, if they have different tools.
Is it fair to the John Smiths that they are at the mercy of the photo
lab and can't manipulate their pictures as well after the fact.
This brings me to my next point. As I mentioned in the beginning, it
doesn't matter if the image is manipulated before or after the fact.
As in the example given with OJ, the photographer could have easily
manipulated the shot using flash or right timing to get the effect 
desired or manipulate it later in the darkroom. Now this point illustrates
that using a computer makes no difference since the shot can be manipulated
before or after the fact. Sure the power of the computer is more powerful
and manipulations can be made, to the point of creating something from 
nothing. Someone mentioned this is not possible, but I ask? How did they
make the dinasours in Jurassic Park? They did use models of real animals
in producing them but the dinasours don't exist, so in my books I consider
that from scratch. 
This leads me to my next point that if as was mentioned the charter is
3d in general then it would make sense that the 3d submitted would not
necessarily have to be from real day objects (or people) but can be 
created, manipulated(before or after), from film or digital photography
or created digitally from scratch and converted to film if so desired.
So in a nutshell if the charter is 3d graphics in slide form with no
defined restrictions, anything goes as long as it is present in the form
required. i.e. example slides.
Finally if this is the case, everyone will advance in 3d which is what
all this is all about. There have been some critisms of P3D being
monopolized by computer grahics ,which I don't see to be the case. There
is a healthy mix from both sides (I use this with reservation, because
there shouldn't be any sides) and IMHO I see more regular 3d film
photography discussed here if you ask me. I am not complaining, just telling
it like I see them. For me 3D is not FILM PHOTOGRAPHY but the magic of
being able to recreate 3d in any way shape or form and being able to enjoy
watching, playing or immersed in it, in any shape way or form it presents
itself. This is why I like the P3D mandate or charter as if encompasses
people from different backgrounds and interests regarding 3d.
Lastly I would like to leave this looooong post with something to ponder.
When photography was introduced around 1840, they predicted the death of
paintings. But what actually happened was that it freed the artist from
the limitations of reality and it advanced to abstract expressionism.
The irony is that photography doesn't capture reality either.;;;;;;-)

P.S. I could have written more, but decided I have given you all enough
ducks to shoot at. I'll save the rest for a subsequent post.

Gabriel, till later.  


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