P3D viewer optics and 2D photography

[koganlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

	There have been 2 discussions recently which caught my eye and which 
(for me) converge. One concerned the optics of viewers and the other 
concerned why 2D photographers weren't interested in stereo.
	I started out (in 1980) as a 2D photographer. I spent several years 
trying to learn as much as I could about photography, and then taught it 
(part time) at a community college for the next ten years. Almost from the 
beginning I was interested in making prints with as much resolution as 
possible, which entailed using medium and large format cameras. I started 
doing stereo photography in about 1983 and did it using large and medium 
format cameras on a slide bar. Needless to say, viewers for 35mm slides 
would not lend themselves to this format, so at first I found myself simply 
making 11x14 prints, mounting them side by side (transposed), and viewed 
them cross-eyed. I exhibited 2 of them in this form in 1985 (among a group 
of 2D prints), and quickly realized that most people either couldn't or 
(more likely) didn't want to go to the trouble to view them. [The excellent 
stereo photographer, Dale Walsh, exhibits his work in this form.] Next I 
built 4 Wheatstone viewers (images facing each other with 2 mirrors in the 
middle at 45 degree angles) with 8x10 transparencies. This made for a very 
nice exhibition (1987), but it was a lot of trouble (even for a fanatic). I 
continued to exhibit 2D and didn't become exclusively involved with stereo 
until about 1991 when I joined the Stereoscopic Society. At that point I had 
to do something that others were doing, so I settled on stereo cards. I have 
gotten to the point where I enjoy stereo cards and have printed and mounted 
several thousand of them, but am still not totally happy with them, 
especially for exhibition purposes. So in 1993 I developed a viewer to 
enable one to view 11 inch wide prints mounted side by side, based on the 
design of the (now obsolete) stereo X-Ray viewer. The advantage of this type 
of viewer is that: 1) there are no lenses and therefore no diminution of 
sharpness or distortion of shape due to them, 2) it gives an unobstructed 
view of the entire image from the ortho position (know to 2D photgraphers as 
the "proper viewing distance"), 3) it allows the person viewing to get 
closer or farther from the image, as they prefer. I have used this viewer 
for several subsequent exhibitions and have found that people have accepted 
it quite well. The viewers are for sale for $125, but I would be just as 
happy to tell someone how to build one if he/she was interested. 
	At this point you may be asking what this has to do with 2D 
photographers and why they aren't more interested in stereo. I believe it 
has to do with their investment in time, money, and energy, in doing things 
the way they are. The idea of getting new cameras and dealing with the 
viewing problems are just too great to inspire someone who has invested so 
much and really likes what he or she is doing anyway. My wife is a perfect 
example of such a 2D photographer. She makes 20x24  color prints from 4x5 
negatives and exhibits them all over the country. She likes looking at my 
stereo images, but has no desire to make them herself. I have many other 
friends who are excellent 2D photographers. Most of them appreciate my work 
(except for a couple of them who cannot see stereo), but have no desire to 
do it themselves. On the other hand, I have converted three excellent 2D 
photographers to stereo, and they have, within a year or two, each become 
excellent stereo photographers (and members of the Stereoscopic Society).
	I have no particular desire to convert others to my way of 
photographing, but if there are others out there who have a similar point of 
view, I would love to hear from you.

David Lee


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