P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 2942

["Gregory J. Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Hatfield writes:

>However we all seem to be talking around, rather than
>to, the central question "What do you think of when you put camera to eye"?
>Remember I am trying to get us to develop a "checklist" if you will of those
>things that run through our minds as we pursue our photographic interests.

I don't think it's possible to do "photography by the numbers" in this
fashion, at least not for me.  What I think of when I raise my camera
is almost always heavily (if not completely) influenced by the location
and choice of subjects.  My photography tends to be reactive to the
location, the position of the sunlight or other available light source(s),
the general mood of the situation, the people, etc.  I couldn't give you
a list of points a priori.

>For myself, as I said before, the resulting image should be a good photograph
>first and foremost.

I've seen very effective stereophotographs in folios which decidedly do NOT
work as two-dimensional photographs.  One which comes to mind appeared in
2D as a hopeless jumble of tree branches, with no clear subject or focal
point.  There wasn't anything special about lighting or texture to make it
a successful photograph.  However, seen in stereo, the photographer clearly
had composed the branches with the third dimension in mind so that they
led the eye right to what was clearly, in stereo, the focal point of the
shot.  It is one of the best uses I've seen of the third dimension used as
a compositional element, and it wouldn't have been taken if the photographer
had adhered to your "must work flat" rule-of-thumb (assuming that's what
you mean by "good photograph first").

That said, certainly many of the suggestions for 2D photography carry over
into stereo.  There should be a clearly-defined subject or center of
interest; extraneous details should be eliminated from the frame; certain
devices can be used to "lead the eye" to the subject or call attention to
it (converging lines, paths, lighting, etc.).  Putting people into your
scenes adds human interest, and can be used to provide a sense of scale.
You can't go wrong photographing a cute child just being a child.

In addition, for stereo I like a smooth transition from foreground to
background, as opposed to a series of planes (I find this helps to avoid
the dreaded "cardboarding" effect, too).

Let your creativity run free while you're behind the camera.  Try to turn
off the "critical thinker" part of your brain (the part that says "don't
shoot that picture, it's no good" before you've even taken one); save that
for the editing session.  Experiment.  No matter how skilled you are, some
great photos will be happy accidents.  Yes, you must edit, and that's the
time to be self-critical.  You'll be a more impressive photographer if you
take 1000's of photographs and show only your best 1%, than if you take only
dozens and show the best 50%, all else being equal.

        -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)


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