P3D Re: Re: Uniqueness of the original, II

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:51:42 -0700
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: Uniqueness of the original, II

>John Roberts wrote:
>>There is a tendency to think of the physical stereo photo as a unique,
>>hand-crafted item. [when shooting slides]

>Many times good black and white prints require a lot of darkroom work
>(dodging and burning) which essentially makes them unique hand-crafted
>items.

>I believe Stan White, Bill Walton and other stereo artists do a lot of
>work on each stereo card (I know Stan is hand-painting some of them)
>producing essentially unique, hand-crafted items.

I would consider dodging and burning, and hand-tinting, to be in the outermost
fringes of 3D print-making - it's interesting that some people are doing it,
but I suspect these make up a very small percentage of the total number of
stereo prints being made. Generally the less hand-crafting I have to do on
a stereo print (after the original composition and taking of the photo), the
happier I am about it.

(Incidentally, wouldn't burning and dodging be *much* harder to do for 3D
than for 2D? I would think you'd be almost certain to introduce mismatches
between the two views.)

>Slides have traded the option of making easy and good quality copies
>for the option of directly viewing the original.  

So just how much of a hassle is copying, and how bad are the results? :-)
(As I mentioned in my reply to your previous message, I think it would be
valuable to the long-term viability of the 3D slide community to be able to
make duplicates without much trouble.)

>There are people
>who find the back-lighted or projected slides being more effective,
>realistic, and having more impact than prints.

No argument there. Some people prefer slides, some prefer prints, and some
like both about the same.

>People who collect pictures are particularly pleased to find 
>original pictures.  

I guess I'm more interested in collecting "images" than "pictures" -
in other words I'm usually more interested in the image I can see
(or the camera I can use, in the case of a stereo camera) than in
the possession of a valuable artifact. (I do have some antique cards
and old View-Master reels, but they were bought for the images, not 
for their collectability.) But I don't have anything against people 
who like to collect photographs as artifacts. Both interests can
coexist - as you mentioned in the other post, there can be a famous 
painting, and also reproductions of the image of the painting.

>"In-camera" duplication is recommended for slides.  The cheapest
>and most convenient way to make duplicates is to shoot more than
>one pictures at a time.

That's fine if you know in advance what you'll want to duplicate, and it
doesn't involve rapidly changing subjects. (And if you're careful not to
mix up almost-duplicates when separating the film chips.)

>My main concern in comparing prints with slides is the small size of 
>slides.  You need special equipment to see them (viewers, projectors)

And the main concern for stereo prints in a stereo club is finding a way
to let a lot of people view them in a short period of time.

>One day, not long from now, others might carry the opposite
>task:  Keep the stereo slides alive...

As I noted in the previous post, I think the more urgent issue may be
keeping *slides* (not specifically stereo slides) alive. The more distributed
availability of Kodachrome processing may be a good sign, but stereo
photography in its current incarnation doesn't carry enough market weight
to influence things much one way or another.

John R


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2417
***************************