Re: Roll count -- poll results so far

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> I still think that the "big hitters" are busy taking pictures instead of
> reading photo-3d.  I would like to know, for example, how many rolls did
> Larry Moor shot in 1996?  Or, all those who top the local club competitions
> (they are busy too).  How about Jon Golden?  Is his RBT business
> interfering with his photography?  How about Eric Goldstein, Peter Davis,
> John Bercovitz (all resolution test rolls? :)) Joel Alpers, Jamie, Lincoln?


If you're talking feet of motion picture film, I've probably got you all
beat combined for a looooooooong time.  8-)

Still-wise, I generally do more plano than stereo, shooting hundreds of
120 rolls in my work, for my clients and for myself, maybe half again as
much 35mm. I have been doing some stereo work for hire this year, so I'd
guess we're talking maybe 55ish rolls (at least that's what I told the
IRS 8-))...

Ordinarily, I'd say that quality is much more important than quantity,
but the flip side of the coin is that you can't be learning and growing
unless you're out there shooting in different circumstances, light, etc,
and then evaluating your work with a critical eye. My recommendation
regarding shooting ratios is that folks strive to use imagination and
creativity with their composition, and a more studied emperical approach
to light, exposure, and the mechanics... burning through film without a
considered structure or methodology may occasionally result in a strong
shot, but will not yield in the kind of learning which advances mastery
of a wide range of shooting situations.

A note with regard to Sensia 100... like George, Jaimie and others I use
it and like it without finding the grain objectionable. I do know that
there are those on the list who cannot tolerate visible grain and so
shoot kodachrome 25, medium format, etc. Many of these same people will
not notice poor lens performance, color balance, exposure and
composition disasters, etc. Still others cannot bear to see even minimal
retinal rivalry, creative use of selective focus, camera dutch, mounting
in front of the window, use of pseudo, or other deviations from their
brand of stereoscopic perfection. IMO stereo seems significantly less
forgiving to the individual viewer than plano, perhaps because of the
complicated perceptual mechanics involved and the greater level of
"reality" which the stereo image by definition presents...


Eric G.


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1994
***************************
***************************
 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
 ***************************