P3D Re: Realist Critique - 2. looks and functionality

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A few comments regarding Tom Deering's review of the Realist.  
Let's talk about appearance and functionality.  Tom talks about
how attractive (nah!) the Realist is and how difficult it is to
use it without constantly referring to instructions...

I am the first one to admit that the Realist was not designed to be a
pretty camera and it is not user-friendly of intuitively to use today.

The Realist was designed by an engineer for an engineering firm.  The
David White company in 1945 was dealing with precision surveying
instruments.  Young Seton Rochwite came for a job interview.  He showed
a few of his stereo slides that he took with a home-made camera.
Company executives were impressed and asked him to submit a proposal
on making and marketing a stereo system.  He got the job.  Designed
the camera.  David White, an engineering firm, with little knowledge
in designing photographic equipment to appeal to the general public,
made not a pretty camera but an accurate engineering instrument.

Seton took a number of decisions based on personal preferences or
maybe opinions on what is good and what is not.  He decided on the
5p format, the size of the standard stereo mount, details on the
spacing of lenses, size of images, viewfinder at the bottom, shutter
release button in left side.  In an interview with Mark Wilke (in 
an older issue of Stereo World - recommended reading!), Seton still
insists that the shutter *should be* in the left side and anyone else
is wrong!  He left David White when the camera was completed and
ended up designing two more stereo cameras, all with the shutter in
the left side!

If Seton or David White executives suspected that the Stereo Realist
would create a new wave of popularity of stereo photography, they
might had given more thought on certain issues... But at the time,
it looked like a specialized instrument, an experiment, an interesting
concept, period.  But, as it turns out, the public loved it, 130,000 
cameras were sold and it had a great impact on David White as a company 
and the present and future stereo photographers, such as ourselves.

The Realist is not a pretty camera.  But beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder.  Many find the Realist very interesting and I know an artist
(Brenda, are you there? :-)) who loves it.  I am an engineer by training
and a practical person and I like the Realist for what it does, not
how it looks.

Not only beauty, but also "user-friendliness" is a relative term.  When
I first lifted a Realist ("ouch!" :-)), I had never used a camera without 
a built-in lightmeter.  Sure, the camera was different than anything else
I had used.  Required some learning.  Ten years later, I can use the
Realist with closed eyes.  Give me a Kodak and I will mess up.  Every
new camera requires learning.  The Realist is no exception.  (Maybe
requires more learning than other cameras... I'll accept that.)
 
But beauty and "user-friendliness" are not that strong points of the
Realist.  They are at the bottom of the list.  For me, today, these
are not important. For others, they might be.  What are the strong
points then?

To be continued....

-- George Themelis


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