Re: Photographer vs. camera (was: Kodak vs. Realist)

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> And since the average stereo photographer is
> not using a tripod and most of his pictures are taken at 8 or smaller
> apertures, he will not see any significant difference between a Kodak,
> Realist 3.5, Realist Custom or Belplasca.  The choice of film and tecnique
> is much more important than the choice of camera IMO.

I certainly agree that choice of film and especially technique are more
important than one's camera. But again, that's extraneous to the
original point. We're talking the plane here, not the pilot or the fuel.

It is relatively common at our SNE meetings or in private projection
(just happened last time Jon Golden had a bunch of us over to project
stuff) for stereo photographers (or just civilians, for that matter) to
comment on the visible difference between a chromes taken with a Kodak
and those taken with most other cameras: "They look sharper." "They look
better." "They look more life-like." Same for the Belplasca, though here
you also have a different format going so it's less of a controlled
comparison. (Note: the Belplasca does test clearly better than any of
the 50s cameras I compared it with, and comparably to modern lenses on
cameras such as RBTs and various twin rigs).

Is this information more important than film choice, technique, artistic
abilities, or other "pilot" type skills? No, of course not. But is this
information irrevelant to good stereo photography? It is totally
relevent. "Tools and touch" are both important, and each contributes to
the process of getting what's in the photographers mind translated onto
the chromes.

> I have reasons to
> believe that it is the photographer that uses the camera that is behind
> this success and not the camera itself.  This is good news for the stereo
> photographer on a budget.  The most affordable stereo cameras today are
> capable of excellent results.
> 
> Going beyond ordinary photography, I had the chance to view 250 slides by
> the late New Yorker, Ted Lambert.  I was astonished by his creativity!
> 2/3 of the slides were taken inside his house, with techniques that he
> developed/mastered.  All mounted in Realist format slides.  Also, lots of
> multiple exposures, etc., in outdoor pictures.  He proved to me that 99.9%
> of the stereo photographers today have not used more than 10% of the
> capabilities of their stereo cameras.  Ted proves that it is not the $100
> stereo camera to blame for mediocre results but the lack of imagination in
> many of us.

We're in total agreement here, and it is very important point. It has
nothing, howver, to do with Elliot's original statement:

>Jess Powell...confirms that with the correct setup, the Kodak takes some 
>of the sharpest stereo images he's ever seen.

To which I offered the following explanation:

> The Kodaks don't test any better than anyone else's triplets, but I
> think it is the coatings on their lenses which makes the difference.
> They give very good contrast, and so the apparent sharpness is very
> good. I also think the same is true for the Ilex Paragon lenses found on
> early Realists... heavily coated, good contrast, good apparent
> sharpness.

As the Kodak is one of the $100 cameras to which you refer, I guess
we're all in agreement that good tools are available cheap. The choice
is up to the photographer, and it is nice to have a variety of facts and
opinions to help folks make an informed one.


Eric G.


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1951
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************