P3D Quality and novelty

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

>It is true that enjoyment of depth will be subjective.  Indeed, perhaps I
>am stereo-challenged (not that perceptive to stereo cues), and so require
>more obvious stereo depth cues for enjoyment.  But I will continue to
>maintain that my sensitivity to depth cues is more in line with the rest of
>the general public, and that strong depth cues are what gets most people
>interested in the stereo genre.

That's an interesting statement.  And I agree.  

Once people get into stereo, fascinated by the strong depth cues, then they
start looking for quality to keep on going.  That's one of the reason
stereo died.  Novelty wore off and was not replaced by quality.

I remember my first Realist stereo slides were an instant success (for me)
and my first hyperstereos a blast.  When I saw the first macros I was
fascinated.   But after a while the novelty wears out and it is only the
good quality that gets me going.

Remember, at the diner you showed me a lovely stereo portrait of a young
relative of yours.  The little girl's face was looking out of the window
with rain drops in the window (the picture was taken from outside).  I
loved that picture.  No nudes, no computer images, no tricks or lots of
depth.  Just a lovely simple portrait. 

I just cannot have enough of good stereo photography regardless of how much
depth there is to it.  Depth adds to the interest but it is seldom the only
attraction.

George Themelis


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