P3D Re: 2D first?

[Steven Berezin <sbere@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ron labbe wrote:

> Mark Dottle writes:
>
> >>I look at one side of the pair first, if it is not a good 2-D slide,
> >>I will not view it in 3-D, I will not mount it either.
> >
>
> I can't agree with this idea...  Many shots that don't work in 2D DO work
> in 3D, because the spatial element adds another degree of composition
> missing in 2d... consider the inside front cover of Stereo World: in 2D,
> black and white rocks look like a jumbled mess- but in 3D one can see the
> individual elements. There are many examples of how a 2D image is greatly
> enhanced by 3D (but of course, not those "flat stereos", George! ;))
>
> As for the foreground tumbleweed: good stereo includes good spatial
> composition- but don't stick the tumbleweed in unless it adds INTEREST to
> the image, not just parallax! (on the other hand, I often have to move
> stuff OUT of the way cause it's too CLOSE!)
>
> ron
>
> ron labbe/studio 3d
> 30 glendale st maynard ma 01754
> 978 897-4221
> mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.studio3d.com

I agree with Ron.  Shots of things like tree branches and highly detailed
shots of things such as a market may be too scrambled for 2D but 3D allows
the details to be separated.  I find when taking a portrait or close up shot
with 3D I can shoot more horizontal to include a detailed background to add
interest.  I tend to look for a more basic background in 2D.

--
Steve Berezin
sbere@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



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