P3D Re: E-6 DIY, Stereo vs. flat

[Peter Kunz <peter-kunz@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I've been in the country for 2 weeks so I had no internet access and
could not follow the list.


Let me add one last thing to that DIY E-6 discussion:
I did not want to discourage anybody from doing it and as I said it can
be a better, cheaper and definitely quicker alternative to Pro-Labs.
Still, consider the work, primary investion costs and running cost
(especially if you don't have the quantities to use the chemicals up).
It makes sense if you already have a lab anyway, too. (Do your own b&w).
The cheapest machine I know of is the Jobo DuoLab. I could not find any
information about it at this moment, but I think it cost something
around 700-800 DM (ca. $400).


I am a professional photographer, meaning I earn all my money with that
occupation.
And it's true, 3-D is a very different medium than flat photography.
I see the main reason for this in the history of photography ( i hope I
don't get too philosophical about this...).
The reason why photography took the world by storm was not only it's
beeing a "democratic" because affordable medium. The truly sensational
thing about it was its realism.
It fascinated people that this device was able to "paint" with a
"objectivity" (important parenthesis here!!) and richness of detail like
no painter could. Thus the discussion if photography can be art as it
only documents nature and supposedly can transport no higher truth as
all other art does, blablablabla...

But back to realism. From the very beginning one of the main goals in
photo - technology was to solve the problem of colour photography. 
We all understand this unreflected, but why?
Because - you may have guessed it- colour is more "real" than black and
white.
Another thing discovered soon was that man has not one eye/lens but two.
That also was meant as a step towards a better reproduction of nature.
You can see that stereo photography is deeply embedded into the
tradition of photography beeing a "realistic" medium.
Which it isn't any more - I even claim it never was.
Let's have a look at photography: 
It freed painters from the need to paint natural.
One can say that photography led to abstract painting.
And in a very similar way photography was freed by moving pictures as
being more "realistic".

Where is the role of 3-D then today?
Is it the part of photography that represents the "realism" more than
any other? (which could explain why it was and is more a subject of
trends than photography in general)

Tell me your opinion,

Peter


P.S. 
I don't think making 3-D makes my flat work worse or vice versa.
Besides composition, which differs, the most important thing for both 
is LIGHT, and that's the same.



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