P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 2940

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Warning.  Long, opinion-laden posting ahead.  Proceed with caution.

From: HatfieldMk@xxxxxxx <HatfieldMk@xxxxxxx>


>In your mind what do you look for in a photograph, stereo or
>otherwise? While I can appreciate your observations concerning the
occasional
>"flat landscape" I would like your opinion then on how much depth is
too much
>or too little?

You don't ask for much, do you Mark?  Just a definition of "What is good
stereophotography?"  Might as well ask "What is art?".  (OOoooo
NOOoooo!)  :-) :-)

"Too much depth" is easier to define.  It renders the image unviewable
(too much on-film deviation, remember that discussion?  OOoooo NOOoooo!)
for the stereobase.  I've taken a few of these in the past and I hope
I've learned how not to take any more.  Usually they have happened when
I have had a subject very close to the lens's minimum focus (say 3ft or
so) with a normal 70mm stereobase, but the background open to a much
greater distance (not necessarily even infinity, in this situation 20-30
feet can be "too much").  Since depth-of-field often isn't that great,
not only is the background likely to be blurry, but if you mount the
near object to the window or even somewhat in front,  the background
won't fuse (you'll have to cross your eyes to converge on the near
object and diverge them to fuse the background).  Can you say "total
technical failure?"  I knew that you could.  :-)

I do find myself approaching stereography with a very different eye than
I used with 2D photography.  I generally want an image with a
foreground, midground and background for stereo, with all of them
reasonably sharp.  (I belong to the camp that believes that a
stereophotograph does NOT have to be razor-sharp from front to back to
be successful, but so far I haven't found the "magic formula" that
predicts success beforehand.  But I'm still working on it.)  2D, being
planar, doesn't require depth as a compositional element.  For a
reductio ad absurdum example, you can photograph flat artwork quite
effectively in 2D.  On the other end of the scale, sculpture is a
wonderful subject for stereophotography.

>I am sure we have all seen great photographs taken with color
>film where the subject matter was not particularly colorful. Should
that
>photographer have refrained from taking the image just because of a
lack of
>bright or garish colors? Of course not! Whether the photographer
chooses to
>work in color, black and white, stereo, or any combination thereof, the
key
>should be to understand the advantages and limitations of the medium.
Whereas
>color film may not add a tremendous amount to a particular image,
neither did
>it detract from that image.

It all depends on what you're trying to achieve, doesn't it?  Black &
white photography has such a different impact on us because one
completely normal, natural element of vision, i.e. color, has been
artificially stripped away, leaving only the play of light and  shadow
on form.  It's a reduction to a simpler, more distilled look at the
subject.  It is starker, and therefore can have more visceral impact.
There are no pastel tones anywhere to sooth the eye.  It is a medium of
contrasts.

I personally would not use Velvia to photograph a funeral, for example,
nor would black & white be my first choice for photographing a circus
parade.  Yet in the right hands, both could be made to work, and work
well, as long as the photographer has a clear vision of what he or she
is trying to say before snapping the shutter.  Otherwise you just end up
with brightly-colored photographs of mourners, and dull grey images of a
circus, which without a guiding principle would be completely at odds
with the natural emotions one associates with those particular events.

>And where stereo may not add a great deal to vast
>scenic vistas, does this mean that on a grand hike through the Rocky
Mountains
>that we are to leave our cameras at home?

I have been guilty of taking stereos where I have said to myself while
composing the shot, "This won't have much depth, but..."  I usually try
to emulate the stereographers of yore (i.e. classic stereoviews) by
putting a pretty tree branch or other foreground object into the frame
in a pleasing way to provide the "missing" depth, but I feel that this
is really sort of a "patch" or workaround in deference to the
stereoscopic aspect of the image, rather than it being a primary
compositional element.  In other words, if I weren't shooting stereo, I
would have left it out.  Instead I think one should really be looking
for an interesting foreground for which that distant scenic vista can be
a stunning backdrop, but depending on the terrain this is not always
easy, safe or even possible.  Stereoviews often use people for the
foreground interest.

(Our recent trip to Yosemite is very much in my mind as I write this.
How can one NOT take those classic shots, even if Half Dome *is* miles
away?  Well, I did take them, and I don't regret having taken them, but
they're certainly not my most effective *stereo* photography in terms of
use of the medium.  I've bought a film scanner and will be inflicting
them on you all via Web site in the coming months.  You have been
warned. (-: )

I believe Boris's objection is to taking a stereophotograph while
effectively discarding its essential distinguishing feature (depth) by
photographing a very distant subject with a normal stereobase.  You're
really only getting dual, identical slides.  Binocular it may be, but it
certainly isn't stereoscopic.  Faking it, as mentioned above, only
sort-of fixes this by re-introducing some stereopsis, but only in the
nearby object.  I won't try to enumerate all the things that I've found
that work or don't work, but like the Supreme Court Justice said, "I
know it when I see it."

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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