P3D Re: Stereo Tintypes

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> the Photo-Hist list last summer. The key problem here
> is partly in the definition of a stereo photograph: is
> a stereo photograph one only taken with a stereo
> camera? 

If you'd like to extend arguements to here, to me the 
answer to this is a no-brainer.  A stereo photograph
is, well, what it is.  How it was made or the intentions
of the camera's manufacturer (or it's Marketting and
maybe engineering departments) isn't relevant.

Not knowing if a stereo photographs *is* a stereo
photograph because one doesn't know what it was taken
with is like not knowing if a person is a good person
unless its parents are known and approved.

Now that I've got the hornets all stir'd up......

Mike K.

P.S. - This isn't to say that wanting to know the tintype's
       lineage might not be interesting as well as historic.
       I only mean to say that being stereo photograph *is*
       intrinsic to what it is.  If the stereo photograph wasn't
       put together as a stereo photograph until recently, then
       it became-one recently, but still was taken (in the case 
       of the tintypes) a long time ago.  It's a stereo photograph
       that's old, as opposed to being an old stereo photograph.




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