P3D Re: Stereo rejected by 2d workers?

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

George attempts to answer why experienced 2-D photographers reject 3-D.

>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.  

I personally don't see it that way and I think it's genetic. ;-)
Seriously I think the reason is the same reason you gave with regards
to the color vs. B&W discussion. The same way we see in color and not
B&W, it's the same with depth. Our eyes perceive reality in 3-D and
not in 2-D.

Speaking from my personal experience, even though I am not an 
accomplished photographer, over the years I put ALOT MORE sweat and
devotion in 3-D photography than I ever attempted in 2-D photography.
So I doubt it's because beginners are fustrated with 2-D photography
and think they can circumvent any of their shortcomings by taking up
3-D photogaphy. If that's the case they are disillusioned! ;-)

Second, I prefer viewing an average 3-D image over an exceptional 2-D
image anyday and usually spend more time studying the intricate detail
of a 3-D image over a 2-D image. Everytime I see an exceptional
2-D photo, I always think, it would have looked much nicer in 3-D.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not that "blind" to 3-D to the exculsion
of everything else. If 3-D distracts and doesn't supplement regular
2-D imaging then I would avoid it. Example in NTSC television, I
would much rather watch a good quality 2-D program than a LCS 3-D 
version because of the rather poor quality of the image and not
necessarily because of the 3-D component, which is not bad.

>There are only few examples of good stereo photographers that
>started as accomplished 2d photographers.

Hmmm, I think there are FEWER accomplished stereo photographers
that reverted back to the other dimension!!! ;-)
So in closing, hey maybe it is genetic!

PS
>Even though stereo photography requires a new way of thinking,
>good photography is and will always be good photography.  Mark
>Dottle 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.

Well taken and very true. I would like to add if it's good in 2-D
it's fanastic in 3-D!!! :-)

>(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

Sorry to hear that, hope he will be up and running soon. I wonder,
if the insurance adjustor will give him a better settlement if any
records of his posessions are recorded in photographic 3-D!?!

Gabriel, worried I would burn the house down because today we had a
severe ice storm and electricity blackout (and still is out in many
parts of the region). With oil lamps and candles for light and very
little heat, was worried that darned cat might knock them down and
start a fire.


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