P3D Re: Sorry! and Is Tom wrong...? etc.

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:49:48 -0600
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Sorry! and Is Tom wrong...? etc.

>>I think what I am trying to bring out that stereography is not ROCKET
>>SCIENCE and it can be enjoyed for very little money and almost no
>>technical knowledge.

>Bill, I applaud your effort to make stereo accessible to the masses 
>without any worries about technical details.... and I agree about the 
>money..., however,... without the technical knowledge of what 
>alignment is all about, enjoyment can easily change to torture.  
>...Systems created for stereo take care of many technical details.  One 
>example is the "Realist-format" photography of the 50s.  

This is one of those subjects for which consensus is unlikely, but perhaps
still worth discussing so that the various viewpoints can be presented...

I don't object to large numbers of stereo photographers eventually going on
to use the 50's cameras (at least as long as the number of practitioners is
small enough that there are plenty to go around without the price getting too
high), but I believe that anything that appears to be *pressuring* potential
newcomers to 3D photography to get a Realist runs the risk of discouraging
a lot of them from getting into 3D photography.

For a number of years, I didn't know any other 3D photographers, and took 3D 
photos myself, using a 2D camera. They had all sorts of technical errors, but 
I was pretty happy about them, in part because I had made them myself.
Eventually a relative located a stereoscope for me, and I was able to "reverse
engineer" the reproduction prints that came with it to learn more about the 
process.

When I was told about the existence of the (previous) 3D mailing list, I was
finally able to converse with other 3D photographers, and learn many of the
technical details of 3D photography. I built a 2-camera rig to extend the
range of photographs I was taking to new areas, and then finally bought a
Realist (which I'll use a lot more if I ever finish learning the mounting
techniques - unfortunately I missed two critical months of PSSP meetings).

But I sure wasn't willing to lay out ~$300 and start working in an unfamiliar
medium using ancient primitive equipment, until I had had a chance to build
up confidence that 3D photography was useful and that I liked it, making use
of the familiar equipment and techniques from consumer 2D photography. If
someone had told me that the results might be "torture" unless I bought
a Realist outfit right from the start, I might have been discouraged enough
to not pursue the matter further.

People who are lucky enough to be in close proximity to a stereo club have
better prospects - they can see the results (including work by amateurs)
before starting to buy equipment. But there aren't many stereo clubs, and
they aren't very easy to come across - if not for this mailing list, I would
probably never have found out about PSSP.

The current "recruiting" techniques are helping to bring in new members,
but not at any phenomenal growth rate - just one indicator of this is the
continued low price and wide availability of 50's stereo equipment.
To expand the benefits of 3D photography, I think it would be useful to
consider new ways of introducing people to 3D photography (not necessarily
a *replacement* for the old ways, but alternative methods).

John R


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