P3D Re: Our 3D interests...

[Duncan Waldron <J.Waldron@xxxxxxxxx>]

John and George, thanks for your responses to my (provocative) posting. 
Yes, I oversimplified my thoughts about stereo, but it was an interesting
exercise. My reference to the Realist was really a bit tongue-in-cheek; I
probably wouldn't want to shoot many ordinary snaps in stereo, as I
believe you do George, and would want to buy a lot of ordinary kit before
buying a Realist (or similar), but it would be nice to have for the odd
occasion.

> But there is another point I will like to make:  Stereo photography for me
> has two components:  stereo + photography.  You are emphasizing the stereo
> aspect.  Especially stereo that cannot be perceived with our bare eyes. 
> However, in my eyes, there is more than "stereo" in this hobby of ours. 
> There is good photography too.

Yes, of course there is. I think I was trying to say that in my
"dissertation". If the photographic quality isn't there in the first
place, you just have a 3D curiosity, instead of a fine piece of 3D work. 

> I don't know if you have been exposed to good stereo photography, or not. 

Perhaps not; if I lived near O-hi-o, of course... 

> I agree that a bug in an SEM stereo pair is impressive.  Especially if this
> is the first time you have seen one.  But once you have seen one, you have
> seen them all.  Unless you have a special (professional perhaps) interest
> in studying bugs, I really don't see how this subject can maintain you
> interest for too long.  Same with telescopic views of the moon, images of
> Mars from the Pathfinder.  These are nice when you first see them but they
> tend to wear out pretty fast in the eyes of the layman.

Oh dear, I fear that Mark Blum will be on to a loser with his latest book
then. I hope that when my copy turns up, there *is* sufficient variety in
it. ;-) I would say that a subject only "wears out in the eyes..." if
there are not sufficient different examples of it over time to keep the
interest. If there were only half a dozen Boris, or Dr T or 3dbydan images
around, everyone would get pretty tired of them too; that doesn't make the
images themselves inherently boring.

> On the other hand, good stereo photography has an infinite number of
> twists.

But that doesn't mean that the only good stereo photography is that with a
great variety. 

> No two great photographs are alike.  With stereo photography you
> have a chance to be intimately connected with the subject.  A great scenic
> will make you feel like being there.  A portrait of an attractive lady
> looking at you will make you feel uncomfortable as when you are introduced
> to the real person.  And after you have spent some time viewing the
> picture, you are going to feel as if you have been introduced to this
> person.  

I can't argue with any of that, but now, lie on the couch and tell me: how
long have you had these uncomfortable feelings about attractive women...

> Bottom line:  While I do appreciate the stereo effect (and I use it in my
> professional work for its information content) 10 years of involvement with
> stereo photography have made me enjoy the intimacy, realism, and beauty of
> good stereo photography.  And while I still enjoy hyper- and hypo- stereos,
> I want them to be good photographs in the first place.

Again, I don't think we really differ. As I said earlier: "if a monoscopic
version of an image doesn't appeal to me, then neither will a stereo one".
If it's not a good photograph to start with, I won't look at it for very
long. But I will pore over a lunar 3D far longer than a fantasy computer
image.

Duncan






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