P3D Photography vs Stereography

[Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The recent discussions regarding suggestions for stereo photography has
reminded of a topic which shows up on this list from time to time, but may
have been missed by newer members. That is the myth that a good
photographer will naturally be a good stereographer.

  Someone totally new to stereography but has extensive experience in
general flat photography may feel it is simply an extention of the latter.
In many cases the exact opposite is true. True, the photographer will have
a good familiarization with exposure, how a camera operates, light and
color, but they have been looking at the world through one eye. Many rules
in general photography simply do not work well in stereo, and vice versa.
My experience in the last 23 years is that the worst people to teach stereo
are the professional photographers, as they tend to have pre-concieved
ideas regarding technique and compostion, and may not be willing to put
them aside.

One of the ways to isolate a subject in 2d, you simply limit your focus to
the subject and let the background and foreground appear out of focus.
Doing this in stereo will still give you a stereo image, but your eye will
be trying to focus on something that is blurry, a distraction instead of an
enhancement. On the stereo side, shooting a distant object through the
sharply focused branches of trees looks like an absolute mess in 2D, but
looks fantastic in stereo. Then there's the whole orthoscopic theory behind
real-to-life 3d, probably the least understood and ignored aspect of the
stereo world.

True, a bad photographer is probably also a bad a stereographer, but there
are always exceptions. The main concern for new budding stereographers is
that they should grasp the medium as a completely separate entity to
general photography, and be open minded in their approach and experimentation.





Sam Smith
3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.cadvision.com/3dhacker/index.htm


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