Re: Historical Preservation through Stereography

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

Bill Walton writes:
 
>I would think  that if a long list of boring subjects were 
>made, bridges would be somewhere near the top.  Yet 
>that subject was selected as an "assignment".

I certainly disagree!!!  Photographically speaking, bridges can make a
great stereo subject.

>I believe that good subject material is in the eye of 
>the beholder

I agree.  That's why I protest when someone tells me what subjects I should
be photographing (like old buildings before destruction) or what film I
should be using in my photography (like Kodachrome or black and white film)
for reasons other than photographic.  I never told anyone that they should
be photographing flowers with Velvia.

>the subjects that you prefer happen 
>to be those which may be of benefit to someone else,
>then you are one lucky stereographer.  

Please explain "benefit".

Also, someone please explain why a record in 3d (or stereo if you prefer)
of a building taken from far away (essentially flat  and typical of stereo
views I have seen) is more valuable historically compared to the same
building photographed in 2d.

Also, why is a snapshot of president Clinton in a is more valuable record
than a better picture taken in 2d?

Do you people (concerned with historical preservation) differentiate
between historical value and collectible value?

-- George Themelis


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