P3D Re: Uniqueness of the original

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

I have been thinking about John's posting during the entire weekend!

>Having attended an actual stereo club meeting and seen a great assortment
>of slides, I appreciate stereo slides more than I did before, but I still
>suspect that a heavy emphasis on slides tends to encourage a number of
>mental "habits" that are not entirely appropriate:

>There is a tendency to think of the physical stereo photo as a unique,
>hand-crafted item. 

My first reaction:  And what is wrong with that?  We, as individuals, 
are unique.  Our children are unique.  A piece of art, like a painting 
or a sculpture, are also unique.  Even in the area of mass produced 
items, like a books, there is usually an original (maybe handwritten) 
version.  An original copy of a movie.  The rest are copies.  A visual 
experience captured in film is also unique.  Capturing it in negative 
film will result in a negative which is original.  Prints are copies. 
An original slide is original.  Copies can be made and are being 
made.

>That's not necessarily "bad" if the status quo in
>stereo is all a person ever wants, but ability to mass produce would be
>very useful in expanding use of 3D way beyond current levels. Both slides
>and prints can be mass produced on an industrial scale, but for the
>intermediate step of producing several dozen duplicates, an individual
>can readily have additional prints made from the negatives, at essentially
>the same image quality as the original. 

By "original" here you are referring to the print, which is a copy.  
Sure, you can make many copies (prints) of the original (negative) and 
get the same quality.  You can also make copies of negatives, which is 
sometimes desired and it is about as difficult or complicated as 
making copies of slides.

>I've never tried to duplicate
>slides, but most of the discussion on this topic on P3D over the last few 
>years has been on how unsatisfactory the results are in comparison to
>the original. (Which may have been exaggerated - anyone care to express
>views on slide duplication? What type of film is used to take the
>originals for mass-produced View-Master slides?)

When shooting negative film what will be viewed is not the original 
negatives but the printed copies.  Therefore the negative film is 
optimized (low contrast, etc.) to produce good copies.  Positive film 
on the other hand will be viewed directly and is optimized (high 
contrast, etc.) for this purpose.  A copying process usually results 
in increased contrast.  Special, low contrast slide duplicating films 
exist and can be used to duplicate slides.

I have done some slide copying work, mainly to *improve* (and not just 
duplicate) the original.  The slide from Sea World that Brenda carried 
with her in the stereo club meeting is a duplicate and enlarged 
version of the original.  If the original and duplicate are viewed in 
a good viewer, it is usually possible to pick up the original.  That 
does not necessarily mean that the original is better.  Sometimes the 
increase in contrast or color shift during duplication might make the 
copy look better than the original.  In projection it is usually 
difficult or impossible to tell which one is the original in a good 
duplication job.

George Themelis


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