P3D Stereo rejected by 2d workers?

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

Why is stereo rejected by experienced 2-d photographers?  

That's an interesting question.  My experience shows that beginners,
especially those who are frustrated by not being able to capture the beauty
of the original scene in a 2d image,  are more likely to get hooked to
stereo.  There are only few examples of good stereo photographers that
started as accomplished 2d photographers.

Here is one possible explanation:  The experienced 2d photographer has
spent considerable time learning how to successfully represent a 3d world
in a good 2d image.  A good deal of this experience is not only useless but
must be reversed.  Especially the techniques for isolating the image by
throwing the background out of focus, etc.  Not many people are willing to
reject something they have mastered and enjoy doing, and learn/practice
something new.

For the 2d photographer stereo appears limiting.  At one extreme, the 2d
photographer thinks that stereo is a just record photography.  A lot of the
so called "creative techniques" used in 2d photography either do not apply
directly or only under considerable effort can apply in 3d.

Keith mentioned photographers with extensive darkroom work.  What is the
size of the pictures they produce?  Will these people be satisfied with 3"
prints? (as in a stereo view print)

There are limits in what you can do in stereo.  We are limited by
image-recording equipment, by the use of viewing devices, by the size and
content of what we produce.  Many 2d photographers don't think that the
experience (illusion? :-)) of depth  is enough for them to change their
ways.

I know Carole in this list is an accomplished 2d print photographer who has
started stereo photography recently and would like to hear her point of
view in this subject.

-- George Themelis

PS.  I have found that the best way to get people involved in stereo is to
loan them a stereo camera and ask them to shoot a roll.  Many times the
thrill of seeing one's OWN images in 3d is enough to do the damage!

PPS.  Even though stereo photography requires a new way of thinking, good
photography is and will always be good photography.  Mark Dottle (his house
got on fire during the holidays, his computer melted, his 3d equipment
suffered smoke damage, but he is doing well and hopefully the insurance
will pay for most of the damage) sometime ago said (I am paraphrasing here)
that one half of a good stereo image must also be a good 2d image.  In many
cases this is correct.  Fundamental concepts of good composition, exposure,
etc., apply equally well in both 2d and 3d.  As stereo photographers we
must make an effort to become better photographers.


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