P3D Re: Stereo Camera Cases

[Bill Davis <bd3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, this particular cayuse has been beaten pretty well, starting as a
comment on use of field cases and growing to a discussion about complete
photographic philosophies...but it ain't quite dead yet.  One last whack
from me. :--)

Dr.T sez:

>My film output has increased simply because
>I have tackled many more subjects with time.  I am having lots of fun
>and trying many different things.  At first it was just family and vacation,
>then it became Detroit assignments, experiments, film duplication, special
>effects, SLR macro shots, handheld SLR stereos, tabletops, special projects,
>...and the list goes on...

These things of course take more film.  

As one continues to improve in any given area though, isn't one likely to
need less film to accomplish one's goals in that area?  Or does film useage
continue to expand ad infinitum, with ever different projects and
experiments to build on the existing repertoire?

>
>I shoot plenty of film and I am having a blast. Should I feel guilty?
>

Nope. As long as you are satisfied that your returns justify the time and
expense of money and effort that you invest, you're innocent, George. :--) 

>-- George Themelis
>

and from Greg W.:

>>I guess I would opine that I've eliminated unnecessary options.  How many
>>pictures is *enough*?  If I get the shots I want, why would I need to shoot
>>more?
>
>It sounds like you've also eliminated the opportunity to experiment.
>Maybe take the same picture from three or four different angles, with
>different framing or emphasizing different elements.  Primary subject
>centered, or using the rule-of-thirds on the left and on the right, or
>top and bottom, of the frame.
>
>Do you always like every composition you've chosen once you've gotten
>the film back?  I know I don't, and having taken some different variations
>often (but of course not always) results in one compositional choice I'm
>really pleased with, where the others may be merely "OK".

But wouldn't you find trends or similarities in the types of compositions
that you consistently are displeased with and begin to recognize ahead of
time what's gonna look pleasing? 

I generally try all the things you mention as far as compositional variety,
but I don't necessarily click the shutter each time.  I'll be bobbing back
and forth, walking around, kneeling down, laying flat on my back, etc. to
*see* what changes six or eight different angles and subject positions
might make, but I only click on the good ones. If it doesn't look good in
reality it probably won't look so good on film, no?  (disregarding the
color enhancement/exaggeration possible with some films) 

>>A roll in the camera, two more in my pocket makes nearly 90 stereos.  I
>>would need to shoot in *extremely* interesting areas to worry that 90 shots
>>won't be enough for an afternoon or even a day.  
>
>In a Realist, yes.  For me three rolls is 54 pairs.  At a really photogenic
>place like, say, Marine World in Vallejo CA., I have been known to shoot
>5-6 rolls over the course of a day.  

So that isn't far off from the 90 shots I mentioned.  Same ballpark,
different positions.




Best regards,
Bill Davis

mailto:bd3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2810
***************************