P3D Re: Re: Stereo Camera Limitations

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, I know what you are thinking... 

"Oh, no!  Here comes DrT, the defender of the obsolete stereo 
cameras..."

And you are darn right! :-)

First, I fully agree with Garry.  But would like to stress a few,
important IMO, points.  Yes, classic stereo cameras are somehow
restrictive for the more advanced stereo photographer, but how many
among us consider themselves "advanced enough" to present their work
in NSA conventions?

The last issue of "Stereogram" (vol. 2, issue 4) has an interview
with Club Treasurer Ken Mondak.  Here is what Ken has to say:

"The most amazing thing about my stereo pictures is that I took them!
I know nothing about photography, don't know what f-stops are, I don't
use a light meter.  I point and shoot for the most part on a sunny
day and the results are great!...  I am overwhelmed by the ability to
have fun with this [Stereo Realist] camera!  I have pictures from
cruises in the Caribbean, California, the Hoover Dam, Yosemite... The
presentation is so surprisingly realistic to people who are not
familiar with stereo... It is fascinating.  I love it!"

I think Ken nicely expresses the fact that with a minimum amount of
effort and very little knowledge of photography you can have a blast
with a simple 50s stereo camera.  All this with a modest investment
of $100-$200. (Ken actually got his Realist for free!)  

Would Ken like to hassle with twin SLRs?  Definitely not!  Does he
have $x,yyy to invest in an RBT S1?  He might have the money but
no inclination to do it because he is perfectly happy with his 
Realist.

I use my Realist for 95% of my stereo photography.  For the rest 5%
I use my twin SLRs.  Most of my photography is family and people.
I do not do much of scenic photography, mostly because I don't get
the chance to travel to scenic places like state parks in the western
US.  The Realist is fine for the crowded European cities that I visit
once in a while.

>I believe it would be hard to argue against the fact that the more
>advanced one gets, the greater the desire to use the tools  and
>techniques available in modern photography. 

Definitely!  I am not a masochist to use a 40s non-automated camera 
technology and a 40s noisy and heavy stereo projector, but there
are not many choices around to match the value/convenience/
performance of these cameras/projectors.  I find the "standard
stereo format" very convenient and don't want to switch to 2x2.
I am tempted to get an RBT S1 just because this camera favors
my kind of photography (quick, spontaneous, close-up).

>I suppose it depends on your objectives. 
>The 50's cameras are great for general photography, documentaing 
>family, kids etc, which I suppose is why they were made.  They are 
>unbeatable where quickness counts and where tripods are
>restricted.  

Exactly!  And most people would be satisfied with this kind of
performance.  I have seen great photography from these cameras,
more than enough to satisfy most people. 

>They come
>up short however for the type of contemplative work that yields the
>really striking images.  

Great photographers did excellent work using these cameras... 
"Really striking images" have come out of stereo cameras operated
by photographers limited mainly by their own imagination... 
Ted Lambert, Tommy Thomas, just to mention two names out of a list
that counts several hundreds...

>Take a look at the best work being presented at NSA conventions these
>days.  Very little of it is being produced with 50's cameras.

Maybe... But how many people do you know who have presented their
work in NSA conventions?  I have not presented anything in any NSA
convention... but if I ever do, a good portion of my pictures will 
be taken with my Realist.  About half of my pictures that are 
accepted in PSA competitions come from a Realist.

George Themelis


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2415
***************************