P3D Photography vs Stereography

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

I've always been intrigued by the folks who site stereography's
"realism" as the most appealing - or the most unique aspect of - the
medium.  Pin-sharpness of focus from foreground to background, no
"cardboarding", ortho viewing conditions all seem to follow as
priorities from that goal.  While I too enjoy the "just as in situ"
aspect of stereophotography, that is far from the main priority for
me.  I am more generally looking for an interesting, attractive,
surprising visual experience - which often but not necessarily will
involve the realism criteria named.  An interesting composition in the
z-axis, as well as x & y, without distracting or clearly unintentional
elements, is more the general rule in my enjoyment.   

Selective focus is one 2D tool that seems needlessly taboo in 3D.  In
many cases where a foreground subject is very prominent, detailed and
interesting, a fuzzy background enhances the scene for me - if the out
of focus is enough to create a kind of soft backdrop and takes less
than say 1/3 of the image area.  

"Cardboarding" or extreme distance between planes can work for me too,
if it is in service to an interesting 3D composition.  I have one
image where 2/3 of the scene is very flat-looking black foreground
silhouette, with an intensely-colored bubbling background at some
distance. (Actually in this case, that *is* how the reality looked.)  

Other examples where the visual event is unbound by reality are the
fish-eye stereos, false color, black & white or infrared, deliberate
pseudo, upside down, hyper & macro.  I really try to clear my mind of
pre-conceptions before I look down the viewer.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce

 
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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