P3D Boris on Dr. T's comments on Starosta site philosophy :-)

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

Dear Boris,

Thank you for not interpreting my comments as negative criticism... I am
very impressed with your stereo site and the progress that you have made in
such short interval.  I rarely take the time to explore a web site but I
found your images, explanation and outline of general philosophy extremely
interesting, very well presented and thought provoking.

>you say that it is restrictive to limit oneself to 50mm
>lenses.  Do you feel this restriction is apparent in any of the
>photographs that I have posted on my site?

Possibly yes.  Working out of memory, some of your close-ups of the model
appeared to have a rather pronounced stretch.  That's because I was viewing
them from a distance of about 4-5 times the image diagonal.  I am sure
these pictures look fine in an ortho environment, but my viewing conditions
were far from ortho.  These close-ups might have been improved if they were
taken with longer lenses.  The longer lens allows you to stay further from
the subject and still capture the same narrow field of view.  Staying
further from the subject reduces the overall depth and also cancels out the
stretch introduced by the longer viewing distances in the computer monitor
and in projection.

"Experts" recommend 80-100 mm lenses for portraits and close ups and a base
of 70 mm as you are using in the bottom-to-bottom SLRs.  I have taken a few
nice portraits with 135 mm lenses.  These pictures look fine in a red
button viewer (44 mm FL).

Why not try longer lenses?  I think you will be pleased with the results.

>my experience has been that if I show
>close-ups to my friends and acquaintances, I almost always get that "Wow!"
>response we all love so dear.  Lakshmi, who modelled my jewelry pages, has
>produced almost 100% "Wows."  I have shot more distant subjects (although
>for obvious reasons I am not showing them), and the "Wows" are much less
>frequent.

"Wows" are good.  But they wear out with time... After being involved in
judging and seeing stereo images being judged for 3 years now, I tend to be
less impressed with bare depth and more impressed with good photography.  

My own photography tends to be "wow-oriented".  But with time, more and
more I get to appreciate good photography at the top (or in place of)
impressive depth.  As a judge I can give a very high score to a picture
that has very little depth but it is appealing to me photographically
(composition, exposure, creativity, humor, message, mood, whatever).

>But many hypers don't look right, because
>I think the photographer is not getting the camera spacing just right
>(either too close together - giving a flat image, or two far apart, giving
>liliputism(sp?)).  So my guess is that hypers are a real art, and chances
>are, that if you are not very experienced (I certainly am not), it is a
>hit and miss on getting good hyperstereos.

I don't fully agree with this assessment.  Between the point of no-depth to
the point of strong and objectionable miniaturization, there is a very wide
range of pictures that work well.  Seems to me that the photographer has to
try hard to miss the picture, not the other way around.  

I would not call myself expert in hyperstereos, but I am happy with most of
the pictures that I get.  If the picture has little depth, then this is how
it looked to my bare eyes.  I have taken overviews from high places with
the cameras spaced only 12" apart, resulting in very little or no depth. 
Still I enjoy these pictures, especially if they are sharp and well-exposed.  

I do not object to liliputism either.  The viewing experience does not have
to be realistic.  You can tell your audience that this is how the scene
would be viewed by a giant and that they should be thankful for stereo
photography that makes such visual experience possible.  Or you can tell
them that this is a small model of a building or city, possible thanks to
stereo.  Same with hypostereo.  People should be thankful that they can see
details and depth in small objects that would have been impossible with
bare eyes.  They should enjoy the unique visual experience. 

In conclusion, Boris I think you have done an impressive amount of work for
a beginner and your goal to popularize stereo is very welcome in our small
group.  I am only suggesting that you explore areas that you are bypassing
right now.  Use different lenses and explore different stereo bases.  I am
sure sooner or later you will be doing this... I am just suggesting that
you do it sooner than later :-)

George Themelis


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